Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2005

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

MountMonadnock, not featured[edit]

Mount Monadnock 360 Degree view

Nominate

360 Degreee view Mount Monadnock -- Shivu 11:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Technical lacks (artefacts, lighting, resolution) norro 13:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical lacks, lighting. -- Get_It • 19:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Atomo64 11:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Taichi 09:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compression artefacts. Foolip 12:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor resolution, but otherwise nice - MPF 16:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry, misty, low res -- Gorgo 17:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there's no reason for nomination: colours, composition, pic interrest, retrieved information, it is too blurry, I just see people around nothing more. -PedroPVZ 17:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Pjotr 14:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 10:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 20:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

0 support, 10 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 07:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ellen Roche-saidshjds.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

--FML  ^hi 07:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --FML ^hi 07:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- LoopZilla 07:57:26, 2005-07-15 (UTC)
Oppose Beautiful girl, but not an outstanding picture norro 14:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Quasipalm 15:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice, anyone know her mobile? Photo not that great though. --195.157.204.68 16:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please sign-in or register for an account, else your vote won't count -- Joolz 16:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
She is a very famous girl in Brazil, I consider this rare pic. --FML ^hi 18:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC) look pt:Ellen Rocche and [1] (adult content). --FML ^hi 16:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC) there's absolutely nothing 'adult' about these pictures ;) -- Gorgo 12:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC) how not?? :D --FML ^hi 04:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral —Atomo64 11:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Taichi 09:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it's rare to have such quality pictures of celebrities. CSamulili 09:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low-res, poor framing. Foolip 12:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yukk. MPF 16:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it (and not just because of the girl ;)) --Pjotr 14:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 20:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 7 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 07:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Minnesota Capitol dome.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Dome of the en:Minnesota State Capitol (self-nom) —User:Mulad (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --FML ^hi 06:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC) Neutral --FML ^hi 07:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 11:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. James F. (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too narrowly for my taste, little bit blurry norro 17:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -PedroPVZ 03:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice, a little bit blurry though -- Gorgo 18:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —I don't like this kind of things -Atomo64 11:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Taichi 09:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit wider view would do it. Foolip 12:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mlm42 18:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Foolip --Pjotr 14:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Hautala 20:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 4 oppose => not featured, Peregrine981 07:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pressnitztalsperre1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Little lake behind the Pressnitz dam in the Ore Mountains

Nominate

--SehLax 14:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nice, but the left side of the reservoir is missing --Pjotr 14:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 07:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC) I can feel the wind![reply]
Oppose So... where is the "Pressnitztalsperre" in this picture of the Pressnitztalsperre? ;-) Lacks the most important element. (Might be to the left. Or maybe the photographer is standing on it.) --Martinroell 11:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 11:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support The "Pressnitztalsperre" is in my back. I just named the picture like that cause I already used this pic in the German Wikipedia article about it where you also can see the real "Talsperre" ;-) --SehLax 12:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't miss the left side ;) I also like the picture of the real "Talsperre" it should be FP. --SylwiaS 21:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - composition - Rex 01:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It • 02:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition -PedroPVZ 03:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral —Atomo64 11:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Composition is not terrific. Foolip 12:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great depth LoopZilla 08:27:46, 2005-07-18 (UTC)
Oppose You can't see the dam, so it's just a cut lake (though a beautiful one) norro 06:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral--Taichi 20:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 20:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 6 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 07:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Metronome_and_guitar.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 14:22:15, 2005-07-14 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 14:22:15, 2005-07-14 (UTC)
Oppose bad and random composition, noisy, blurred, support for own picture --Pjotr 14:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Votes by the image creator are completely legitimate and welcome norro 16:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting, composition norro 16:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad composition —Juhanson 21:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 02:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no comment. -PedroPVZ 03:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 15:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foolip 12:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 20:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 8 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 07:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ER2K-604.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Electric multiple train in Russia, photo made by me Kneiphof 11:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Unusual LoopZilla 14:24:06, 2005-07-14 (UTC)
Oppose boring, noisy --Pjotr 14:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition, bad image quality (is it a scan of a postcard?) norro 16:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --FML ^hi 21:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC) it's an old pic? If is, it's cool (and I will change my vote)![reply]
Support It's a good photo of a train if you really wanted one. --195.157.204.68 16:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please sign-in or register for an account, else your vote won't count. -- Get_It • 02:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 'just' a good picture of a train -- Gorgo 18:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - just train and quality isn't greatest neither --TarmoK 12:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 10:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 20:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Taichi 20:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 6 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 07:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kastellet_cph.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

-- Kastellet, The Citadel in Copenhagen -- Elgaard 02:14:09, 2005-07-14 (UTC)

Support -- Elgaard 02:14:09, 2005-07-14 (UTC)
Support --FML ^hi 08:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 12:32:15, 2005-07-14 (UTC)
Support very well composed, nice pano --SehLax 14:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 11:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice! --Cyr 14:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 21:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --
Support - Peregrine981 07:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~High quality.~~ Well OK anyway :) Foolip 12:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the sunlight is cruel -CSamulili 17:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 20:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Taichi 20:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 20:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great pano, very well composed -- El Comandante 02:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Corso 16:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC) closed[reply]

11 support, 2 oppose => featured Peregrine981 07:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:La Boqueria.JPG, featured[edit]

Nominate

--Atamari 22:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Atamari 22:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greudin
Support --FML ^hi 16:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Feira da fruta, ê! Feira da fruta ah! Entrei na feira da fruta...[reply]
Support -— Serinde 18:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -I don't see any 'mangos' or 'papayas' — Atomo64 20:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 00:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Peregrine981 13:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support it could be more filled with fruits and not showing plastic, but nice anyway. hey Atomo buy glasses - You need them. There is a papaya (maybe a mamão) and several mangos. -PedroPVZ 17:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where are the papyas? I don't see them, and what kind of mangos are that?(I think I can find worst) - Atomo64
- Yupe, that mangoes were collected very early so they are a little too green. There is a papaya near the pumpkins. -PedroPVZ 23:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pic of a market stall. I can see the papaya and mango too - MPF 17:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support El Comandante 20:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty! Wiki should do all it can to support fresh produce. QuartierLatin1968 21:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 21:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but i don't like the surrounding. Either a photo full of fruits or a nicer market stand norro 10:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Pjotr 14:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cyr 14:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... a better composition would be nice, but then again i like the craziness of this image --Quasipalm 14:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great colors ! -- Fabien1309 19:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 07:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gaf.arq 15:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Thomas G. Graf 16:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please level the image, one cannot see the horizon but it does not appear to be leveled (look at the sign and the fruits which hang down from above not straightly downwards) - Wiki-observer 15:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Taichi 21:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC): Good color[reply]
Support what a mess ;) YolanC 21:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

18 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => featured Peregrine981 04:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pulsatilla vulgaris Mar2005.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

--Atamari 22:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Atamari 22:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 13:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support The details of the flower are very good! LoopZilla 17:55:02, 2005-07-18 (UTC)
Neutral - nice flower, but it would have been even better with a bit more depth of field to get the bud behind in focus too; particularly so with the flower off-centre to the left. - MPF 17:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice flower, but the top is missing and there is too much space on the right side --Pjotr 14:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Taichi 21:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricadito 03:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 2 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 04:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Standing_stones_on_Lewis.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Mlm42 18:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mlm42 18:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad quality (blurred, grainy), composition is nice norro 18:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose grass is very gray, very bad image quality (jpeg compression, noise) but interesting composition --SehLax 19:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack norro & sehlax, maybe a despeckle-filter, color-correction and resizing could improve this picture -- Gorgo 22:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 13:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose please see above --Pjotr 14:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --skINMATE 11:54, 25 July 2005
Oppose --Taichi 20:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricadito 03:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 7 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 04:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lynx kitten.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

—Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It • 14:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ! -- Joolz 16:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - super pic of the kitten, but the compost-heap appearance of the wilting cut foliage spoils the effect - MPF 16:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose picture is quite nice (and cute and fluffy ;)) but unfortunately the resolution is too low -- Gorgo 16:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support The resolution is fine, and the foliage adds the rich green to the photo Mlm42 18:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition norro 18:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but the resolution is a little low. James F. (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It doesn't make much of a photo in print, that is true... CSamulili 13:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution ;~( Greudin
Support --FML ^hi 16:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC) only the resolution is not so very good.[reply]
Neutral -resolution— Atomo64 20:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support and a better resolution would be even nicer :) --FoeNyx 17:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SupportEl Comandante 20:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support QuartierLatin1968 21:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pjotr 14:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chun-hian 18:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 07:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 19:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just too sweet to be good! I like the other shots a lot more! -- Janek 21:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Hautala 20:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Taichi 20:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

17 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured Peregrine981 04:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fragaria_vesca_close-up_4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Second self-nomination. Foolip 11:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Get_It • 14:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - would like to support, but only one strawberry in focus. If trying again, use more depth of field so the leaves are also in focus, then it'd be good - MPF 16:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose don't like the composition --Gorgo 16:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mlm42 18:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 16:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC) yes![reply]
Oppose --Pjotr 14:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition --Martinroell 10:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only one strawberrie in focus. BTW it is almost August time to go and catch some. But these are different from the ones I use to eat. -PedroPVZ 23:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Thomas G. Graf 16:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad focus and composition -- Janek 21:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Taichi 20:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 04:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Digitalis-stora_hultrum.sweden-34.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Focus is not perfect, but one of the better photos in my Digitalis purpurea/Stora Hultrum session. Foolip 11:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "one of the better" is not excellent. Too simple, predominantly blurred norro 12:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 14:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mlm42 18:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Pjotr 14:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Martinroell 10:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 10:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Taichi 20:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

0 support, 7 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 04:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Engstligental.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Atomo64

Support Atomo64
Support --Taichi 09:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hazy, not an interesting object norro 10:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fabien1309 11:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Foolip 12:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 14:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice pic, if cold! - MPF 16:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad lighting -- Gorgo 16:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose colours LoopZilla 07:59:05, 2005-07-18 (UTC)
Oppose the only problem are the colours. -PedroPVZ 17:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad lighting --Martinroell 10:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TarmoK 12:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --skINMATE 11:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 04:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marmolada_Westgrat_wiki_mg-k.jpg, not fetured[edit]

Nominate

Atomo64

Support Atomo64
Support norro 10:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Get rid of the wikimedia icon in the corner. &nash; Foolip 12:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 14:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 16:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor resolution -- Gorgo 16:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support The resolution is fine. -- Mlm42 19:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the alps too, would stick this as a poster to my wallpaper in a higher res :-) --SehLax 19:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it has a symbol on the left and low res. But a "wow" scenery. --PedroPVZ 17:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose logo (and the logo is copyrighted, in't it?) --CSamulili 09:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Low res. Logo! Apart from that a great photo! --Malene Thyssen 19:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is not about printing posters! the res. is just right! nice shot! the commons-logo is rediculous though! could be even better with less symetry... -- Janek 21:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral--Taichi 20:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral=> not featured (60% support) Peregrine981 04:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:200505-Lac_de_Montriond_01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Nominate

- Open the page and view it on full size-Atomo64

Support Atomo64
Support LoopZilla 10:45:39, 2005-07-17 (UTC)
Oppose Seems cropped to me, not the best image quality, it's a usual see norro 10:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foolip 12:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 14:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lakeside roadway is too intrusive - MPF 16:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Pjotr 14:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Martinroell 10:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice colors and quality improves if resized to half --TarmoK 12:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Thomas G. Graf 16:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- nothing excellent in this pic Janek 21:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Corso 16:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 9 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 04:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Silvretta_Panorama_wiki_mg-k.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Atomo64

Support Atomo64
Support super scenery - MPF 16:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor resolution -- Gorgo 16:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support resolution could be better tho --Cyr 14:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this image is a tease -- great quality and an interesting subject, only to have an awful resolution --Quasipalm 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Lov resolution. Logo! Apart from that a great photo. --Malene Thyssen 19:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why the logo? --Hautala 20:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 3 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 04:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mazda323 doorlocker.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Emuzesto 16:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Emuzesto 16:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose so interresting. o.O -PedroPVZ 17:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --FML ^hi 19:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC) ehehe, cool but so simple, I have a pic like this too. [reply]
Oppose no question. Darkone (¿!) 00:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring -- Gorgo 11:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strange nomination --Pjotr 13:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -no comments— Atomo64 19:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 02:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose extremely boring --Martinroell 10:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Thomas G. Graf 17:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose useless --Afrank99 21:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Taichi 21:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 10 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured

Image:Waldrebe Clematis.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

--Atamari 14:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Atamari 14:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - awful background (particularly the left side) - MPF 17:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --FML ^hi 20:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC) more flowers?[reply]
Support Honestely, I like it. Is not that I have a "thing" with flowers, but it really looks terrific. We can have a lot of flowers because there are several flowers... -PedroPVZ 22:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but not really good. The background is distracting and the flowers have flaws. --Pjotr 13:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Quasipalm 14:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -— Atomo64 19:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 02:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yes the garage on left isn't so nice, the shadows too. Only a flower pic, nothing of interest. Darkone (¿!) 18:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral don't like the shadow on the flower. But I like the composition - the background is strange, but somehow I like it anyway :-) --Malene Thyssen 19:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Taichi 21:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 6 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured

Image:Kamakura Budda Daibutsu front 1885.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

--Atamari 14:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Atamari 14:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Emuzesto 16:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 17:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice - MPF 17:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well done --Pjotr 13:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quasipalm 14:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -— Atomo64 18:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chun-hian 18:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LoopZilla 21:48:57, 2005-07-20 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 02:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. James F. (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lots to like about this Fg2 03:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Truzguiladh 21:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose I like the composition, but I don't like the white sky. --Malene Thyssen 19:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Parts of the subject in the shadow, parts of it in the sun - Wiki-observer 15:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Shadows. --Hautala 20:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Taichi 21:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't locate the beauty. -CSamulili 08:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral something is lacking. Agree with above. -PedroPVZ 15:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Comandante 02:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great picture. ADSR6581 15:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome. Semiconscious (talk · home) 17:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

16 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => featured

Image:Gorge du Verdon Goat 0254.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

--Atamari 14:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Atamari 14:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The composition is just great. The pure white reflections are a little bit disturbing norro 15:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice image, but I would like to see a cropped version --Quasipalm 14:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -— Atomo64 19:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love it ! -- Fabien1309 19:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It • 02:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 18:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose I agree with Quasipalm -- Urban 05:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TarmoK 12:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support The environment adds so much! LoopZilla 12:42:38, 2005-07-24 (UTC)
Neutral agree with Quasipalm --Malene Thyssen 19:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice in general but badly cropped - Wiki-observer 15:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Taichi 21:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -CSamulili 08:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral not bad. not excellent. -PedroPVZ 15:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with patrick -- Gorgo 20:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8 support, 4 oppose, 4 neutral => featured

Image:Golden Gate Bridge 1926.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

--Atamari 14:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Atamari 14:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bridge is partly covered norro 15:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ♦ Pabix ♮ 08:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see Norro --Pjotr 13:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Quasipalm 14:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -— Atomo64 18:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Not really bad, but we don't see the left part of the bridge -- Fabien1309 19:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 02:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --skINMATE 11:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urban 06:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose obstructing object in the foreground - Wiki-observer 15:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Taichi 21:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 7 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 10:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dscn0646-needles 600x800.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

--Taichi 08:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC): Curious chalk islands...[reply]

Support --Taichi 08:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The excellent kind, but is not focused. --Ygrek 14:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dizzy, bad angle, too much compressed, uninteresting object norro 15:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good angle, but not sharp enough and colours are not that good. -PedroPVZ 17:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution, bad angle, not sharp, nothing special, strange image name --Pjotr 14:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too low resolution, I don't like supporting any photo < 2M px in size. --Cyr 14:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bit noisey for me, also could be cropped... and please don't leave your camera's file name convention in the title --Quasipalm 14:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -— Atomo64 19:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 02:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the angle is fine, as is the subject, but the size and quality are lacking, sadly. James F. (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support a unique feature, not found in any other coastline in the World LoopZilla 20:27:37, 2005-07-24 (UTC)
Oppose bad compression beyond any doubt, resolution insufficiantly chosen - Wiki-observer 15:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 7 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 09:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Perelachaise-Gericault-p1000405.jpg, not featured[edit]

Bronze figure of Géricault in Le Père Lachaise cemetary in Paris

Self-nomination to see how far it will go :p Rama 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It´s an remarkable tomb of an outstanding french painter, but the artistic impression of the photo is not so perfect as the author (Rama) wanted it to do, sorry --Herrick 11:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the foreground is underexposed, the background is overexposed, the text is nearly not readable, the tomb is skewed and not visible completely -- aka 15:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shadow. --FML ^hi 16:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Artistic representation of an artist: gets my vote! LoopZilla 17:54:12, 2005-07-18 (UTC)
Oppose shadows. Greudin
Oppose -- Get_It • 00:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shadows --CrazyD 13:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shadows --Atamari 14:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose please see above --Pjotr 14:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -— Atomo64 18:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad lighting --Afrank99 21:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shadows - Wiki-observer 15:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Taichi 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 10 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 09:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus pedunculatus, not featured[edit]

Nominate

--Pjotr 14:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Pjotr 14:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cold colours, no sun, the flower is not really fascinating ;-) - I like the other version by aka better --SehLax 16:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -— Atomo64 19:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 02:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Gaf.arq 15:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC) I like the plans and the light effect on the top.[reply]
Oppose nice resolution and technically quite good, but the flower itself is somehow boring. -- Gorgo 19:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a pretty picture! --Ardonik 18:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support everything is so nice and real. --PedroPVZ 23:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quasipalm 14:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacking sunlight - Wiki-observer 15:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral--Taichi 21:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -CSamulili 08:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Loverly. QuartierLatin1968 14:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Gorgo -- El Comandante 02:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured

Image:Lavender field in Provence.jpg, not featured[edit]

Lavender field

Nominate

found on French WP ; no vote ♦ Pabix ♮ 08:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too blurry, a little bit boring --Pjotr 13:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cyr 14:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too close to the ground to really get a feel for how big this field is... --Quasipalm 14:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 02:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Quasipalm. A higher camera position would have been better. --Martinroell 10:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Quasipalm. -- Urban 05:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad angle, missing an interesting subject inmidst the picture - Wiki-observer 15:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Taichi 21:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I've looked and looked again, I see no reason to oppose nor to support. -PedroPVZ 15:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured

Image:Dead fly in window close.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

--Emuzesto 17:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Emuzesto 17:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose LOL --PedroPVZ 17:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin 18:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 19:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC) wow, it's "bbaaaaaaddd"[reply]
Oppose it looks bad, you're right. Darkone (¿!) 00:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very unusual LoopZilla 08:21:14, 2005-07-20 (UTC)
Oppose lighting. The fly isn't more than a small, black something, even if seen in full resolution norro 10:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting, composition and theme doesn't work for me -- Gorgo 11:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose please see below for a better fly picture --Pjotr 13:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Quasipalm 14:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -— Atomo64 19:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 02:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose terrible. --Martinroell 10:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a little noisy. Not a very good angle.--Gaf.arq 14:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad composition, bad light conditions - simply anything but featured. Wiki-observer 15:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Taichi 21:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 12 oppose => not featured

Image:Tianjin-20040618.jpg, not featured[edit]

The first tram in Tianjin,China, 1906

Nominate

--Fanghong 08:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Fanghong 08:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution --Quasipalm 14:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res -- Gorgo 19:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 19:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 21:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --FML ^hi 00:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Taichi 21:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Atomo64 3:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Support--Ricadito 02:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 03:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sympetrum flaveolum, featured[edit]

Nominate

three of the newest images by user:aka --Pjotr 14:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Pjotr 14:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support great picture, the main element ist really sharp, nice colours --SehLax 16:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -— Atomo64 19:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chun-hian 18:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 18:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It • 02:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martinroell 10:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Emuzesto 11:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gaf.arq 14:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 18:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support great -- Gorgo 19:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thomas G. Graf 16:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 17:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Janek 21:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wiki-observer 15:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Taichi 21:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support waw. It has too much quality. O.O -PedroPVZ 15:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 20:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => unanimously featured Peregrine981 03:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Episyrphus balteatus male flying, featured[edit]

Nominate

--Pjotr 14:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Pjotr 14:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -— Atomo64 19:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 18:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 02:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing perspective. Amazing technique. Congratulations. --Martinroell 10:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Emuzesto 11:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support nicely done, good resolution, great technique. Although the back is quite blurry, but you can't have all, can you... -- Gorgo 12:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose amazing photo -- but that shadow, what's with that?? --Quasipalm 14:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 16:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment Removing the shadow is hard, but here's my attempt at it —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The shadow us there with the best of intentions. Otherwise you don't see that the fly is really flying, it looks faked. But if you really would like to use such a version, I will remove the shadow using the source, uncompressed picture, which results in a better picture quality than modifying a compressed JPG and saving it again. -- aka 06:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  - Could you please upload the source image as a png image, it's always nice to have source material. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - What Ævar said :) --Quasipalm 14:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the white background - might be good if the picture was supposed to illustrate the anatomy of a fly --CSamulili 09:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But it can be a source to make others images with any background. IMHO --FML

^hi 21:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I prefer it with the shadow -- Joolz 20:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - don't like the un-natural white background - MPF 17:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --PedroPVZ 15:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- El Comandante 02:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral => featured Peregrine981 03:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hestemøj.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

(I know I know - not the most delicious subject - but I think the pic is illustrative ;-) --Malene Thyssen 21:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Malene Thyssen 21:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose although it has its own beauty I just can't vote for this picture, it's just too odd, sorry ;) -- Gorgo 22:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Support Holy Sh...* Yes, I agree it's very illustrative! --FML ^hi 16:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Probably the best shit-image we have. -- Emuzesto 08:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hot and steamy! LoopZilla 13:16:56, 2005-07-22 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 13:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aha! --Chun-hian 17:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, blurred ♦ Pabix ♮ 06:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The horse is blurred because it's not the focus of the picture, the manure is, I like the way it's framed -- Joolz 20:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --skINMATE 11:44, 24. July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose pooh eh? I'm tempted to vote yes just because it's not a sunset. :-P But nah, doesn't do it for me. --Quasipalm 13:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly why I nominated this one ;-) --Malene Thyssen 18:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Malene could probably help us out here, but I think people are jumping to conclusions by saying this illustrates 'shit'. The rather short image description actually says it is 'manure'. I suspect this is a shovel load of manure from mucking out the stables, in other words a mixture of bedding straw and shit. To me the straw looks undigested, but the caption added to its use on the en:Wikipedia suggests it illustrates that the horse has been eating straw [2]. Straight horse shit tends to be more clumped, as illustrated by the unsourced, unfree and uninteresting picture at en:shit. -- Solipsist 19:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are absolutely right Solipsist :-) The image caption on en:Wikipedia is a bit funny - the straws are from the bedding in the stable. --Malene Thyssen 08:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with a horse, a field and shit, a photo can't get much better than this --CSamulili 23:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bonus points for being different. -- Solipsist 07:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Hautala 20:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Taichi 09:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC): Nice try!!! xP[reply]
Oppose so many people interrested in sh*t. problems: composition and I would like so focus on the horse. -PedroPVZ 15:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Focus on the horse would tell another story - my intention was to make a photo for the article manure. Regards Malene Thyssen 08:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Some focus. It is too blured. But the crap is cutted. So anything has details. --PedroPVZ 11:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent illustration on an everyday subject. -- Ranveig 18:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. A beautiful pastoral scene (especially since we can't smell it). QuartierLatin1968 14:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12 support, 6 oppose => featured Peregrine981 11:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Praça do Relógio.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

--Gaf.arq 14:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Gaf.arq 14:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Quasipalm 14:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting picture, but composition is quite odd, resolution a little bit low and a seems blurry to me (but may be the low res) -- Gorgo 19:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 19:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - what Gorgo said... -- Wiki-observer 14:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Taichi 09:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Atomo64 3:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

1 support, 6 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 11:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Roy d'espagne Marseille Pano.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Anon

Oppose -- Get_It • 19:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 09:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Taichi 21:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support a good example of a city without a project: tall buildings between houses. Houses between buildings. Builinds in the mountains. Desfigurated beach. etc. --PedroPVZ 15:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Atomo64 3:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Support high res and i like the "city in rural area" YolanC 21:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 4 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 11:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Uganda-Kob.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

FoeNyx 11:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support FoeNyx 11:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Evocative LoopZilla 11:39:29, 2005-07-24 (UTC)
Support --Mateusza 12:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dhenry 21:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Gaf.arq 01:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC) Good colors, but I don't like the framing.[reply]
Oppose Nice colours and sharp, but the horizon is tilting and the feet of the antilope are cut. --Malene Thyssen 10:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Close, but not sharp enough for me --Quasipalm 13:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 16:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a very hard pic to get. MPF 17:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 19:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]
Support --Taichi 09:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atamari 12:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --PedroPVZ 15:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Atomo64 3:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Support YolanC 21:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricadito 02:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Hautala 11:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12 support, 2 oppose, 3 neutral => featured Peregrine981 05:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Windbuchencom.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

--Atamari 14:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Atamari 14:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. James F. (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Gaf.arq 18:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--FoeNyx 19:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really love this picture. -- Joolz 20:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sublime LoopZilla 21:55:30, 2005-07-23 (UTC)
Support - Luc Viatour 08:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mateusza 12:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Emuzesto 20:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Truzguiladh 22:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It • 02:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --skINMATE 11:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 03:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thomas G. Graf 17:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 17:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - had been planning to nominate this one myself -- Solipsist 07:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wiki-observer 14:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Taichi 09:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC): An image winner!! xD[reply]
Neutral pic quality (It doesnt fill my desktop). -PedroPVZ 15:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — Size -Atomo64 3:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose I like it, but unfortunately it's only low res -- Gorgo 09:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose r e s o l u t i o n --Quasipalm 15:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Hautala 11:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

19 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => featured Peregrine981 05:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Burjalarab1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

--Atamari 23:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sailing-Ship --Atamari 23:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sunset is quite normal and the hotel is too dark (cant't really identify the island), picture is leaning norro 09:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite low resolution image LoopZilla 11:50:20, 2005-07-24 (UTC)
Oppose resolution, resolution, resolution, etc. --Quasipalm 13:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 16:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice picture of an interesting building. Looks slightly off straight. -- Solipsist 07:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Taichi 09:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the composition, but featured pictures should have higher res than 800x600 -- Gorgo 10:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i can't see details. --PedroPVZ 15:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Atomo64 3:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Support --Ricadito 02:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the effect of the hotel sailing away from sunset Peregrine981 11:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 11:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 05:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PhareHagueCoucher.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

- Truzguiladh 21:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Support --Gaf.arq 02:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral would like a bit more contrast in the dark zones ♦ Pabix ♮ 07:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yet another sunset norro 09:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what norro said --Quasipalm 13:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yet another great pic. --PedroPVZ 15:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 16:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Urban 06:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose horizon not leveled! Wiki-observer 14:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Taichi 09:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Atomo64 3:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Support Ah, but do we yet have sunsets with a lighthouse? QuartierLatin1968 14:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 11:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 05:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zigouillonbourdon.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

<- Dake 23:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --FML ^hi 00:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC) congratulations![reply]
Support Resolution could be higher LoopZilla 07:17:36, 2005-07-27 (UTC)

I have to find the original picture, I had uploaded this one on Hebus as a wallpaper. Dake 13:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Marvelous --CSamulili 07:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support although we have several similar quality pictures of polinating bees. -- Solipsist 07:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring, just another... / composition / cut etc... Darkone (¿!) 10:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 13:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 16:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --skINMATE 07:05, 28 July 2005
Neutral--Taichi 10:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support--- the Zangão (I don't know the name in English) could be clean. He's too dirty. Some bit me when I was a kid and it really hurts a lot. The pic is nice anyway. --PedroPVZ 15:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I find the pic interesting because the bumble-bee is dirty (I heard the sting was stronger than one of a bee) :) Dake 21:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- way stronger.--PedroPVZ 19:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But someone must identify the subjects. --Hautala 11:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured Peregrine981 11:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Le_Havre_St_Jospeh_int1_fractal.jpg, not featured[edit]

Inside St. Joseph's Church, fractal apres Escher

Nominate

LoopZilla 11:22:16, 2005-07-24 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 11:22:16, 2005-07-24 (UTC)
Oppose Don't understand the intention + in my opinion not a fractal, because it can't "be divided into parts, each of which is similar to the original object." norro 12:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used the "fractal filter" The GIMP so YMMV. LoopZilla 13:06:24, 2005-07-24 (UTC)

Oppose --skINMATE 12:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Quasipalm 13:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special or illustrative. -PedroPVZ 14:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 16:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Luc Viatour 20:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Urban 06:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 07:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - its attractive, but agree with norro. Image description page doesn't make it clear that this isn't what the St Joseph church looks like. -- Solipsist 07:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Y'mean this is a fake? - in that case, Oppose - MPF 16:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is an image (what sense do you mean fake?) and is "aprés Escher" from Image:Le_Havre_St_Jospeh_int1.jpg so has more to do with tessellation than fractals, perhaps LoopZilla 20:36:26, 2005-07-27 (UTC)

Meaning it isn't how it looks to the human eye, I can't go there and see this for myself! - MPF 20:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - it is an image built from an image of a church. LoopZilla 20:15:55, 2005-07-31 (UTC)

Neutral --Taichi 09:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 13:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Atomo64 3:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 11:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 10 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 11:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Le_Havre_St_Jospeh_int1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Saint Joseph's Church, Le Harve

Nominate

User:Kuxu76

Oppose Blurred, bad lighting, can't identify anything norro 12:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Quasipalm 13:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what's this? --PedroPVZ 15:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 16:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Taichi 09:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 13:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 11:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

0 support, 7 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 11:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Hanau_Philippsruhe_lion.jpg, not featured[edit]

Self-nomination --Ygrek 13:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 13:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cropped, blurred, lighting norro 15:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Quasipalm 16:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --skINMATE 07:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Taichi 09:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 13:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor image quality in all aspects -- Janek 23:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 09:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

0 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 10:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hveravellir.jpg, not featured[edit]

Self-nomination, Hot springs in Hveravellir, Island Andreas Tille 12:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 13:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurred, composition, bad angle norro 15:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - would've been support if it'd been a bit sharper and brighter - MPF 16:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I uses unsharp mask to the foreground and made it a little bit brighter, but hey - look at the clouds - it was quite dark ;-) Andreas Tille 06:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Quasipalm 16:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what is the topic of the photo? -CSamulili 17:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added the description which was included in the image description explicitely to my nomination text. Andreas Tille 06:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Taichi 10:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose skINMATE 22:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Atomo64 3:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 11:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca ✉ 16:37:50, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

1 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 10:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brown-Pelican-Ponce-Inlet-FL.jpg, not featured[edit]

Two brown pelicans, Ponce Inlet, Florida, USA

Nominate

LoopZilla 07:22:46, 2005-07-27 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 07:22:46, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 13:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would wish the pelican to about-face + picture is leaning, but i really like the composition norro 15:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 16:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Quasipalm 16:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --FML ^hi 19:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC) parece um Urubu.[reply]
- LOL. É um pelicano. -PedroPVZ 00:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --skINMATE 07:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Taichi 10:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Atomo64 3:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 11:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral almost supporting. -PedroPVZ 00:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 10:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pasture fields in The Azores.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

--Hautala 20:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hautala 20:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --skINMATE 07:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Taichi 09:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry and I don't like the white sky -- Gorgo 10:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Atomo64 3:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Neutral Already featured on May 2. -- Get_It • 02:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It was picture of the day, that's a difference -- Gorgo 09:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are more interresting pics from the Azores. Try some taken from Pico Island, São Jorge Island or underwater. Just amazing... -PedroPVZ 11:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 10:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Old wodden church in Maramures, Romania.jpg, not featured[edit]

Old wodden church in Maramures, Romania

Nominate

petrus 19:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support petrus 19:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose skINMATE 22:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose somehow random composition -- Gorgo 21:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral —Size -Atomo64 3:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 03:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Taichi 03:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support -- It really looks nice in my desktop. Nice colours, detail and composition. --PedroPVZ 11:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition doesn't work for me, lacks a clear focus; would be better if the grassy knoll (heh) wasn't obscuring part of the buildings --Quasipalm 15:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting pic of somewhere very different. I presume the middle one is part of the Romanian space programme? :-) - MPF 20:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- eheheh LOL. It is a nice pic! --PedroPVZ 19:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a very well constructed photograph. Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the sky Peregrine981 03:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 08:08:12, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
Neutral the churches are great but the foto isn't: the towers seems to fall towards the middle, the two cut trees on the extremes are too symetric for my taste... - with a little more work it could become excellent but the poor resolution does not permit these alterations Janek 15:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -CSamulili 10:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 11:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 6 oppose, 4 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 11:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hasekura in Rome.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

--Taichi 10:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Taichi 10:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res -- Gorgo 10:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res --Atamari 13:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose skINMATE 22:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Atomo64 3:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Get_It • 03:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose although I love the Orient. Nice horror movies!!!!! ---PedroPVZ 11:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 11:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 7 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 11:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Castle_Neuschwanstein.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

-- Gorgo 10:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Gorgo 10:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Taichi 10:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aka 10:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 16:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 16:23:58, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
Support ♦ Pabix ♮ 16:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Janek 23:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Atomo64 3:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 03:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lovely shot. James F. (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dispite the support, after this I won't know what's the difference betw. a Castle and a Palace. This is a palace for me though. -PedroPVZ 11:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Boris23 讨论 17:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see it from a different angle to the one usually put in picture books. I'd agree it's a palace, not a defensive castle (built by the mad King Ludwig of Bavaria . . . well they say he was mad, but it's been a good investment in bringing in tourist revenue). - MPF 20:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FoeNyx 11:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Hautala 10:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca ✉ 16:12:47, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

16 support, 0 oppose => featured Peregrine981 11:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ChurchCeiling-DomZuTrier-Trier-Germany.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

-- Dna-webmaster 07:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting in many ways LoopZilla 10:02:31, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
Support --Taichi 10:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very strong JPG artefacts in the high resolution version -- aka 10:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i've seen the serious problems detected by aka. -PedroPVZ 16:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, way too much compressed norro 16:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Atomo64 3:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 02:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 11:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ChurchCeiling-DomZuTrier-Trier-Germany_adj.jpg, not featured[edit]

Church Ceiling, Dom Zu Trier, Trier, Germany: alternative JPEG image

Nominate

LoopZilla 16:42:15, 2005-07-28 (UTC)

Support Interesting in many ways: this is a revised image LoopZilla 16:42:15, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
Oppose still it is full of problems. -PedroPVZ 18:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 18:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what a pity, it's really a nice pic Janek 23:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is. I was thinking to use it as my desktop for this week's Featured Picture of Pedro's Desktop. -PedroPVZ 11:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Atomo64 3:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Get_It • 02:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 5 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 11:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kroetenpaarung.800.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

Janek 20:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a high resolution version without the red tint. -- Janek 18:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's sharp, it's detailed ... but i can't help, it's too bright for me + red tint norro 15:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 16:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing --Quasipalm 16:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support CSamulili 17:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It • 19:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, if only the background could have been less contrasted, a great subject :) Dake 21:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Taichi 09:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC): Very curious...Relevant to my interests...xD[reply]
Support -- Emuzesto 09:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background too bright LoopZilla 15:43:46, 2005-07-29 (UTC)
weak Oppose reason given by norro. -PedroPVZ 19:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- El Comandante 02:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support the neutral color one (Image:Bufo bufo couple during migration(2005).jpg) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Hautala 09:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca ✉ 16:36:10, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

Which pic is actually being voted on here? It isn't entirely clear. Peregrine981 10:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -PedroPVZ 13:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose => featured —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ceramic_planter_from_the_Ming_Dynasty.jpg[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 21:03:30, 2005-07-31 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 21:03:30, 2005-07-31 (UTC)
~~Strong Oppose For me the licence isn't complete : no attribution. petrus 01:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

I have asked for an attribution LoopZilla 07:46:25, 2005-08-01 (UTC)

I took the photo. I thought that was implicit. Anyway, the license is now kosher, if that changes anyone's mind. Quadell (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--Taichi 04:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 13:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 16:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pretty poor angle for a bowl --Quasipalm 17:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 4 oppose =>not featured Peregrine981 09:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Page1L.gif, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 20:20:42, 2005-07-31 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 20:20:42, 2005-07-31 (UTC)
Oppose what is this supposed to be? lacks a description, category and a topic. The pattern is nice, but I don't think that's enough. -- Gorgo 20:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is an "ILLUMINATED L" design: categories added accordingly LoopZilla 07:13:51, 2005-08-03 (UTC)

Oppose --Taichi 04:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 13:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack. Gorgo. Can't support, unless i know what it is norro 16:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See [3] from http://wikisource.org/ for context LoopZilla 07:13:51, 2005-08-03 (UTC)

Oppose --Quasipalm 17:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --TarmoK 15:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 20:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 7 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 09:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pyramid_of_35_spheres_animation.gif, not featured[edit]

Animated GIF (160x120 pixels) of 35 spheres in a pyramid

NOTE: actual size

Nominate

LoopZilla 13:06:44, 2005-07-31 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 13:06:44, 2005-07-31 (UTC)
Support if I'm allowed to... --Stefan-Xp 13:33, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose size, quality norro 17:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution and quality is extremely bad. It was probably quite hard work to render it, so why only so small? -- Gorgo 19:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Taichi 04:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hi, I uploaded this yesterday (and I'm new to Commons, I wandered over from en.wikipedia because I had an image) and I'm duly gratified to be a fp candidate. The main reason I didn't want a larger version for WP is that being an animation it's about 500k already at this size. I've now uploaded a double-size version (approx 2Mb) at Image:Pyramid of 35 spheres animation large.gif. —Blotwell 05:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 13:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Quasipalm 17:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I dislike the colors, the backlight and the refraction of the material which generates disturbing light movment inside the sculpture. It stays unclear what the purpose of the image is. If it wants to show a pyramid of spheres the materaial should not use refraction to have the real see-through effect. If refraction was the theme there should be spheres with different refraction indecies and it should turn a lot slower and would then need to use a video-codec for compression... - Janek 10:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 09:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HalfDomePanorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

-- Half Dome Panorama, Yosemite, California -- Urban 06:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support petrus 18:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 20:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose great resolution, nice panorama and interesting mountain, but the shadows and lighting is quite unfortunate -- Gorgo 23:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 23:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Taichi 04:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it would be great if it wasn't for the clouds overhead --Quasipalm 17:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the clouds YolanC 21:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what i meant is the clouds above the camera, keeping the beautiful foreground in shadow... i like the clouds in the distance too :) --Quasipalm 00:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like this; the light and shadows give a great feel of transition. Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I like the idea, but I think the foreground is too big, and the lighted area not brilliant enough Peregrine981 03:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the best panorama I've found here. But i would like it more sharp and more coloured. -~~

3 support, 3 oppose, 4 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 09:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dreigestirn 72.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

there is something quite compelling and also a little disturbing about this picture of the Kölner Dreigestirn. -- Solipsist 10:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Solipsist 10:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition (with Cologne Cathedral small in the background) norro 11:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 13:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks like Incas lost in Germany Dake 21:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty good photo, but nothing exceptionnal to be featured. -- El Comandante 02:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support An everyday picture? LoopZilla 12:07:38, 2005-07-31 (UTC)
Support --Taichi 04:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I want to support, but I just can't... I mean, this image makes my eyes hurt. --Quasipalm 17:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks terrible. carnival? not interresting. --PedroPVZ 20:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose arghhh ... I'm blind .... ;) sorry I tried, but I just can't support -- Gorgo 21:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support great picture with the foggy church in the back and the bright foreground colors... and the guys are hilarious! A pity that it is lopsided... -- Janek 10:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 14:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 20:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 09:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cat03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Good photo of cat

Support Self Nom. --fir0002 09:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background, angle, black object in the foreground norro 11:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack norro, maybe you could crop the picture a bit, the picture is also not categorized somewhere. -- Gorgo 12:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 13:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty good photo, but nothing exceptionnal to be featured. -- El Comandante 02:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Taichi 04:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hello kitty --Quasipalm 17:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just some random cat. There are better cat pictures out there. Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just no! Janek 15:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 11:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 20:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 09:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cat02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Good photo of cat

Support Self Nom. --fir0002 09:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background, angle, black object in the foreground norro 11:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 13:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty good photo, but nothing exceptionnal to be featured. -- El Comandante 02:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Taichi 04:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to pick one reason: the black corner --Quasipalm 17:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose black corner. -PedroPVZ 20:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no comment Janek 15:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 11:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 20:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 09:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Thermal_protection_system_inspections_from_ISS - Shuttle nose.jpg, not featured[edit]

Picture of NASA.

Nominate

--Ygrek 22:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support It impresses.--Ygrek 22:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This pic was taken by a wikipedian??? I ain't gonna vote for pics that aren't! - MPF 01:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose probably not, but that's perfectly ok if the picture is still fascinating. Unfortunately I don't think it is. The lighting is quite bad and I don't like the composition of the picture. -- Gorgo 12:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 13:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive, looks like it was patched with corrugated cardboard and the NASA had no budget. Featured pic if it comes back on earth. Dake 22:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Gorgo. Hundreds of photos from the NASA website are much impressive and better composed. El Comandante 02:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Taichi 04:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually love the composition. It gives the shuttle a fealing of weightlessness and it feels precarious, dangerous, even fragil with its doors open and upside down in this harsh environment. I think that the "off" feeling that this photo conveys is an example of great composition -- it gives a feeling of tension, a tension similar to what's being felt at NASA right now. A+. My one problem is that the levels need to be adjusted for better contrast, but this is simple to do. -Quasipalm 17:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree. nice composition. The Earth, behind it, is just perfect. --PedroPVZ 19:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 11:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 09:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:STS 114 day before launch.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

norro 18:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support The station is a little bit cut, but i love the mood and the level of details norro 18:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive -- Gorgo 22:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, impressive. YolanC 23:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricadito 02:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 07:06:47, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
Support -- Luc Viatour 08:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quasipalm 15:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a great photograph! Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urban 05:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cutted on the right and upper side --CrazyD 11:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 15:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a bit too dark to see much detail - MPF 21:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support James F. (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral it is too dark, I would like some more details. -PedroPVZ 00:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --TarmoK 15:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - awesome night shot - Halsteadk 11:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice shot! Janek 10:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too fuzzy, also leaning to left side. Darkone (¿!) 14:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ordinary picture. --Ygrek 22:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => featured Peregrine981 13:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tomatoes plain and sliced.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

norro 18:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just tomato norro 18:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anything to strengthen the Wikipedia/fresh produce nexus! QuartierLatin1968 21:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 07:07:22, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
Oppose - un-natural white background, looks cut out - MPF 18:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral you could have used a sharp knive -- Janek 20:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the knive was sharp .. but I'm not skilled. --FoeNyx
Support Azov
Support Deelight 13:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 15:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- FoeNyx 11:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Would be stupid for me to oppose ...[reply]
Oppose - agree with Janek and MPF - Didactohedron 15:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support c'est du jardin ? Greudin
Support Mlm42 23:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - something's not right, I can't work it out. -CSamulili 10:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured Peregrine981 13:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:S-IC engines and Von Braun.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

startaq 21:54, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Support startaq 21:54, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 07:39:58, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
Support --Taichi 07:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice -- Gorgo 09:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 12:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quasipalm 13:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Ygrek 22:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is just a cool photograpgh. Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It • 15:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stefan-Xp 20:01, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Support --FoeNyx 12:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support James F. (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Glimz 00:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 13:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

14 support, 0 oppose => unanimously featured Peregrine981 13:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gubbhyllan Skansen Stockholm 2005-07-29 f.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Jordgubbe 15:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jordgubbe 15:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ? norro 16:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Quasipalm 17:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Taichi 07:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose colorfull, but composition is somehow random. -- Gorgo 09:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Gorgo here. Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 15:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - how could a clearly leaning pic be Featured!! - Arpingstone 16:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)po[reply]

1 support, 7 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 13:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pyramid_of_35_spheres_animation_large.gif, not featured[edit]

NOTE: actual size

Nominate

LoopZilla 09:29:19, 2005-08-01 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 09:29:19, 2005-08-01 (UTC)
Oppose quality. ~~needs anti-aliasing~~ norro 16:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now replaced with antialiased version for your viewing pleasure. —Blotwell 01:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose gainy --Quasipalm 17:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is this top grey bar? startaq 14:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think, that's the horizon/the sky norro 15:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support / tsca ✉ 16:11:00, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
Oppose as above - Janek 10:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 4 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 13:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BWLight.jpg, not featured[edit]

Black and white wall-mounted light with shadows.

Nominate

Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting effect - MPF 18:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting effect that's right ... but a featured picture? -- Gorgo 00:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hmmm... perhaps an interesting effect, but neither the picture nor the image description tells me, how this effect is caused norro 08:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a photograph of a square light mounted against a wall. The shadows are caused by the numerous struts holding the light casing away from the wall, with light leaking uot between the casing and the wall. Semiconscious (talk · home) 11:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I like it and would support it if it wasn't for the cord dangling on the wall to the far right. --Quasipalm 15:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it's not a cord, it's an impurity in the wall. It's an indentation. If you notice, it stops about a quarter of the way from the top of the image. Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nice grafic effect but the image keeps it all in the secret. Not the way an encyclopedia works. -- Janek 11:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 15:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 5 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 05:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Page1.gif, not featured[edit]

Graphic design for the first page of book

Nominate

LoopZilla 07:21:30, 2005-08-03 (UTC)

Support See [4] for context LoopZilla 07:21:30, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing special nor interesting - MPF 18:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's ok... --Quasipalm 15:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 15:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. This has a bit more of a story to tell than a lot of our featured pictures (viz, the history of the corset by a Victorian Frenchmen), and it's also got a very pleasing composition, nice neo-classical themes, etc. Why not? QuartierLatin1968 20:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support YolanC 11:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --PedroPVZ 21:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing really special. --Hautala 15:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 5 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 05:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Buster-jangle-closeenough.jpg, not feautred[edit]

Nominate

Original is here [5]. Still wondering why they are saving the pics as .gif with dithering ! Dake 00:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose R E S O L U T I O N ! --Quasipalm 15:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting but does need better resolution Peregrine981 12:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a better pic but I have seen other historical featured pictures with poor resolution. Dake 13:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Get_It • 15:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Resolution. --Hautala 15:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

0 support, 4 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 05:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Condorchick.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

OK, this is probably too small to make it as a FeaturedPicture. The question is, who does it remind you of? -- Solipsist 23:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- Solipsist 23:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's an adult, not a chick. Chicks have dull grey heads, adults coloured - MPF 00:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose R E S O L U T I O N ! --Quasipalm 15:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More comment: the resolution on the original pdf is better (and larger, less cropped, too). How does one extract a jpg from a pdf? - MPF 18:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshop has an option to extract images in a PDF. If you don't have PS, you can get a screenshot (hit printscreen on a PC) while viewing the image and paste that into an image editor. --Quasipalm 15:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Get_It • 15:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I updated the file to the full pdf resolution... I like the guy! but its still a bit small -- Janek 10:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Resolution, still. --Hautala 15:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

0 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured Peregrine981 05:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hall effect.png, featured[edit]

Nominate

norro 18:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support norro 18:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ygrek 22:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kuxu76 04:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 07:05:37, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
Support --Quasipalm 15:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 08:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca ✉ 16:09:36, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
Support this is what makes an encyclopedia!!! Janek 15:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent illustration, Povray sources, great. Time to allow uploading .svg, .pov, etc ! Dake 21:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too much going on in this one for me. --Hautala 15:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 1 oppose => featured Peregrine981 05:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ChurchCeiling-DomZuTrier-Trier-Germany-Org.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 20:28:56, 2005-07-31 (UTC)

Support This is the orginal LoopZilla 20:28:56, 2005-07-31 (UTC)
Support The original is much better. But I would prefer it upside down... or maybe not. --PedroPVZ 15:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 09:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. not special -CSamulili 10:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 2 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 05:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fakarava-ponton-rotoava.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

Deelight 10:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Peregrine981 12:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing. Makes me realize I should get out of the city this weekend! --Quasipalm 15:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the motive, but the sky looks bad in full-res. I'd love to have this in better quality or the original (as my wallpaper). Boris23 讨论 15:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the original... I can't have it at better res, except if I go back there with a better camera ;) Deelight 16:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The pictures of my 3MP-Cam are nearly all bigger than 1.2MB and I expected a larger file for an image with that resolution. Perhaps that "ACD Systems"-Sotware (see EXIF) changed something there. Anyway, I'll change to Support, cause I really like the motive :) --Boris23 讨论 16:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, The picture was 3MB right out of the camera, and it lost weight after contrast correction. However, the sky looks exactly the same on the original picture. It is mostly due to the sensitivity used (ISO 800 here). Deelight 18:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ISO. That makes sense. --Boris23 讨论 18:25, 4 August 2005(UTC)

you could try to pass it through helicon filter to reduce the color-grain problem Janek 11:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Get_It • 15:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support NielsB 12:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 08:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ramshackle fibreglass contraption, and not-very-special boats. - MPF 21:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support James F. (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca ✉ 16:07:01, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
Support - nice photo but maybe too much sky and space on the left-side, and a bit cropped along the bottom and right - Halsteadk 11:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Support - image description does not give a clue if you don't know where Fakarava and Rotoava are, as I don't! Janek 11:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, i fixed the description. Thanks. Deelight 21:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Hautala 15:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

11 support, 1 oppose => featured Peregrine981 09:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Elastico-animacao.gif, not featured[edit]

Nominate

--FML  ^hi 08:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --FML ^hi 08:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only artistic (inverted), if somebody wants, invert please to me. And B&W because the quality of GIF. thanks! --FML ^hi 14:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why black and white? Why inverted colours? I don't get the sense of this animation. Just someone's playing with a rubber band? norro 09:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cause it's b&w and inverted --CrazyD 11:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd probably oppose it even if it was color and non-inverted ;-) --Quasipalm 15:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at least is fun :)--PedroPVZ 19:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Pedro! :) I like too. --FML ^hi 03:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Who cares if its black and white and inverted? The effect is interesting. Peregrine981 08:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Glimz 00:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose does anybody know what video-compression was invented for? The original is a 16MB gif file... what a waste of space for a rubber band everybody knows. compress it as film (ogg/theora) and it would be 500KB without loss in quality! This stupid gif already cost me lots of bandwidth I really don't want to see it again, sorry! Janek 15:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Freaky and useless --CGP 19:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CGP already said it -- Gorgo 18:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 15:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 9 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 09:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chevreau.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Lionel Rich 22:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose fluffy ;) but angle and shadows are somehow disturbing -- Gorgo 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Gorgo norro 08:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadow, angle, composition... --Quasipalm 15:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 15:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- bad lighting -- Janek 11:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 20:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Bad angle. --Hautala 15:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

0 support, 7 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 09:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the guard at the Tomb of The Unknown Soldier, Moscow, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Azov

Oppose picture is nice, but cut on the left and low resolution -- Gorgo 00:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Gorgo norro 08:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose R E S O L U T ... oh, I give up. :-P --Quasipalm 15:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quote Gorgo -- Get_It • 15:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- small, badly cut -- Janek 11:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 20:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 15:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

0 support, 7 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 09:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:3Dbrain.gif, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't get the point of this animation, it doesn't show something particular technical/medical (or I don't see it) nor is it particulary nice to look at. So I don't see any reason why this should be featured. --Gorgo 00:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it's incredible that you can discern that amount of detail from an MRI. That's rather impressive to me... but then again maybe that's why I'm in this field: because this stuff impresses me. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but aren't there better MRI images ? IIRC I had seen very sharp MRI videos. Animations extracted from the Visible Human are even more impressive. Dake 13:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose contrast (too dark), movement (too fast, curious path) norro 08:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, yeah... But if the point is to see the brain, the head never really turns enough. I would support an image like this if the rotation was a little less jumpy and actually showed the brain itself. --Quasipalm 15:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 15:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disturbing.-PedroPVZ 15:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 20:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 15:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 7 oppose => not featured Peregrine981 09:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bochmann B0184 - Pferdegespann.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Estnische Bauern mit Pferdegespann by Gregor von Bochmann —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 05:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support –Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 05:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I never know how to vote on most art... This painting seems fine to me, but it's not really that important (is it?) or illustrative of much for me. I almost wonder if "featured art" should be its own category... --Quasipalm 13:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 15:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it is a picture of a painting, Quasipalm ;-) YolanC 11:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Quasipalm, (and I don't like it) -- Gorgo 18:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 20:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 15:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured -- aka 10:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Galeopsis speciosa - blossom (aka).jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

self-nomination - this image shows the blossoms of a Large-flowered Hemp-nettle (Galeopsis speciosa). -- aka 07:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral overall these are great aka, but I'm not a fan of the framing on this one... --Quasipalm 13:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 15:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca ✉ 16:05:34, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
Support, how can a flower be so cute. -CSamulili 10:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- very funny picture - looks like two evil twin punk-girlies to me... Janek 11:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralPedroPVZ 21:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 16:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - they do seem a bit anthropomorphic... kind of funny Peregrine981 11:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support just because five a magic number for supports .. ;) -- aka 10:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral => featured -- aka 10:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bombus hypnorum male - side (aka).jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

self-nomination - this image shows a bumblebee male of the species Bombus hypnorum. -- aka 07:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support just great --Quasipalm 13:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 14:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It • 15:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support James F. (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support yet another great pic of a bug o.O --PedroPVZ 00:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral it's a little unfortunate that you can only see the fur and very little of the face and the process of harvesting the nectar of the flower... Janek 15:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It just makes me want to go and touch it. Jsymmetry 02:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Hautala 16:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured -- aka 10:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Galanthus nivalis close-up aka.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

self-nomination - this image shows the blossom of a Common Snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis). -- aka 07:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Quasipalm 13:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Peregrine981 01:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 14:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 15:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support James F. (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support so much detail... --PedroPVZ 00:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Janek 11:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Romeo Bravo ^=/\= 04:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atamari 20:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 15:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured -- aka 10:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Machu Picchu Lama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

El Comandante 16:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support El Comandante 16:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution! ... too bad too, it's a great photo --Quasipalm 17:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution! It is an assembly in photoshop? -- Luc Viatour 14:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 15:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Quasipalm -- Gorgo 14:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yes, too bad. :-S very nice pic though (if it is real...) -PedroPVZ 00:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral @El Comandante: is it a real photo or an assembly? -- aka 09:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

who cares if it's assembled, post-processed or whatever, as long as it's a really nice picture. And I think it's quite nice, even though a little bit too cliche. -- Gorgo 17:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral great motive (is it a real?) but bad resolution --Atamari 21:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Resolution. --Hautala 16:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured -- aka 10:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Littleboy inner1 info.png, featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support To me this is exactly what wikicommons needs more of.  Language neutral, informative, encyclopedic, and attractive illustrations...  perfect! --Quasipalm 15:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great :) By the way, has anyone the original plan of the inner parts of Little Boy ? I know that the (rough) blueprints are sold by some nuclear museum in the US (they have been declassified) but I couldn't find any scanned copy. I wish to draw Fat Man as well, I have the outer case blueprint but no accurate picture of what's inside (the best is the ascii thing in the Nuclear weapons FAQ) - I have found an expert in that field :) Dake 19:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Fat Man diagram is here :

Support ACK norro 08:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It • 15:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LoopZilla 08:31:42, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
Support James F. (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Quasipalm -- Janek 11:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Hautala 16:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured -- aka 10:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lauterbrunnen-valley.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

Halsteadk 22:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Halsteadk 22:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peregrine981 05:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support James F. (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It • 14:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool. I've tried it in my desktop. nominated for Pedro's Featured Desktop :D -PedroPVZ 00:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Pedro - I can confirm it looks very nice on a desktop! Halsteadk 12:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca ✉ 16:04:58, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
Support --FoeNyx 10:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 13:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the composition Andreas Tille 07:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If this is supposed to be a picture about the valley, the clouds are in the way. Nice anyway.--Hautala 16:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 16:57, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

9 support, 2 oppose => featured Peregrine981 09:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Etretat 07 August 2005 036.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Urban 16:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support YolanC 22:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull colors Andreas Tille 07:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting not excellent. Peregrine981 05:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad lighting -- Gorgo 00:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Hautala 16:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ADSR6581 20:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- User:Skinmate 17:28, 21. August 2005 (UTC)
Oppose--Shizhao 12:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 5 oppose => not featured--Shizhao 06:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trinity shot color.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

One of the only color photographs of the first atomic bomb explosion, the Trinity test of July 16, 1945. Very hi-res photo, to the point where you can see the limitations of both the color photography of the day, much less one where the lighting was extraordinarily problematic (to say the least). Still, I think it adds a certain amount of atmosphere and character to this historic shot, though I could understand if people saw it only as a defect. I also like that it is a bit off-center; I think it makes it a far more "artistic" shot than the more clinical full-on shots (i.e. Image:Trinity explosion.jpg, which bores me to tears). Fastfission 16:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fastfission 16:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 16:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's somehow too artistic for me, e.g. Image:Nuclear fireball.jpg is a much nicer picture to me -- Gorgo 22:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicer in what sense? I nominated this one specifically because it was artistic -- it reflects a time when the atomic bomb was a mystical new thing, rather than something which had been tested a thousand times around the world. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of course. --Fastfission 02:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Fastfission... sorry i don't find it that informative has you found. Maybe you know much more than me. But for a common eye, this pic doesnt say a lot. --PedroPVZ 00:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was informative, I said it was historic and artistic. But to each their own. --Fastfission 02:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm tempted to support, but the image confuses me on a number of levels. Like, what's with the red clouds? --Quasipalm 15:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the reflection of the blast, or an anomaly of the film itself. --Fastfission 02:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Get_It • 15:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm going to support, though I'm not exactly sure if I should. This is certainly an interesting shot in a historical perspective, but as mentioned not grabbing in a featured kind of way. I don't suppose there's any clear policy about the value of historically interesting shots. However, we did feature the "first" photo ever, even though it is really crummy, so based on that precedent, this is worthy. Agree with most arguments advanced by Fastfission. Peregrine981 10:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 21:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 16:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Massimo Finizio 20:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --zero 03:45PM (GMT -06:00), 22 August 2005 (UTC)- I have to support this one, excellent historical value - but the description should explain the photo and why it looks like it does

3 support, 8 oppose => not featured--Shizhao 06:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Villingerød kirke.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

Thuresson 13:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thuresson 13:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition and the sky, resolution is not the best as well. -- Gorgo 14:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It • 14:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though the resolution could again be better I really like the composition. -- FoeNyx 19:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is this tipe of photos that say that the photographer is much better than the object than it is being photographed. A very common place with nothing special, but a very good photo! --PedroPVZ 00:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro you just made my day :-) - Thanks for a very nice comment! Regards Malene Thyssen 20:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great! -- aka 09:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution is almost ok, but still too small for me. --Quasipalm 15:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 08:21:32, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
Support YolanC 11:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peregrine981 11:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that the church should be more in the centre. -CSamulili 10:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 13:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Hautala 16:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --User:Skinmate 17:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 12:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Darwinek 13:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

13 support, 3 oppose => featured--Shizhao 06:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:UChicago Graduate School of Business interior.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Peregrine981 05:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Peregrine981 05:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Urban 06:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice, resolution a little bit low though -- Gorgo 13:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It • 14:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose I like the environment. But something's lacking... maybe an higher res to see what's up in there... -PedroPVZ 00:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mean to be rude, but I find this image to be kinda boring. --Quasipalm 15:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support A Graduate School of Business boring? Well, yes, maybe! LoopZilla 11:06:42, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
Oppose - doesn't do anything for me - MPF 13:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very good picture, but I don't know how this would be useful. --Hautala 16:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It could illustrate an article on the U of Chicago, or architecture. Also, I don't think usefulness is a criteria for FPC. Peregrine981 02:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- User:Skinmate 17:25, 21. August 2005

5 support, 5 oppose => not featured--Shizhao 06:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:White River National Forest location in Colorado.png, not featured[edit]

Nominate

A map of Colorado showing the location of White River National Forest highlighted in red.  Self-nom.  (If you oppose, I'd appreciate a suggestion for how to improve the map.)  dbenbenn | talk 05:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support dbenbenn | talk 05:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's quite well done, but the colors are somehow unusual (forest in red?). Also in my opinion a featured picture should always be nice to look at (technically perfect shouldn't be enough) and that's what I'm missing at this picture -- Gorgo 13:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 14:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The level of details is great, but i can't grasp the information of this image with the first look and that's necessary for me to be a featured illustration norro 22:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i really didnt like it :S -PedroPVZ 00:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --TarmoK 14:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC) (Gorgo and norro made the point)[reply]
Oppose --Quasipalm 15:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's very busy. How would you feel about removing rivers that are unrelated to the national forest, and removing the lines (I suppose they're county boundaries). Keeping rivers that are relevant to the forest, and including the major cities as landmarks. And I like the idea of changing the color (perhaps dark green?). Fg2 04:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Atamari 21:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 16:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 7 oppose, 1 Neutral=> not featured --Shizhao 06:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:STS-114 Steve Robinson on Canadarm2.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

Astronaut Stephen K. Robinson anchored to a foot restraint on the International Space Station's Canadarm2,

Support —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 12:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support great find --Quasipalm 13:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support quite nice -- Gorgo 18:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! LoopZilla 22:32:20, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 22:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnifique ! Urban 19:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 20:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. James F. (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Luc Viatour 06:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice desktop theme. --PedroPVZ 22:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Boris23 讨论 15:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition! I really love this :-) --Malene Thyssen 22:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Hautala 08:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --zero 02:55PM (GMT -06:00), 22 August 2005 (UTC)- just a really nice photo
Support - Rex 00:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

16 support, 0 oppose => featured --Shizhao 02:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Himalayas.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

The Himalayas seen from the International Space Station, Mount Everest can among other mountains be seen on this image, see the annotated version. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 09:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support (maybe time to create a Space section on the featured pictures list) —FoeNyx 12:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose smallish --Quasipalm 13:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atamari 20:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 22:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool. taken from space? Woooooww. they seem very small mountains, but they are big... -PedroPVZ 13:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. James F. (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 16:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It'd be nice to know how many kilometres one centimetre in the picture is in real life. -CSamulili 10:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Hautala 08:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Rex 00:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 3 oppose, 1  Neutral => featured --Shizhao 02:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:STS-107 crew in orbit.jpg, Not featured[edit]

Nominate

Mlm42 23:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Photo recovered from Space Shuttle Columbia's crash debris -- Mlm42 15:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mlm42 23:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Meh... --Quasipalm I thought this was the current shuttle crew. This is much more important photo than I thought, so now I'll Support.
Oppose somehow boring, although it's a quite sad picture given the point how it was found, but I don't think that alone is enough for a featured picture. btw, why do they all do have at least two watches and some other strange device on their wrist? -- Gorgo 18:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe i don't understand what it takes for a picture to be featured? From what i gather it just has to have high resolution and you guys find it 'interesting'? Mlm42 12:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - basically ... yes ;). As there is no real official guideline, I can only say how I decide it. Basically a picture has 3 different parts, technique (resolution, sharpness, ..), a theme ("sunset in africa", "close-up of a dungheap", ...) and the composition of the picture itself (does it really show what the theme intended?, is it nice to look at?, ...). And all 3 parts should be perfect of course. As the last 2 points are mostly subjective, it mostly ends up with "I (don't) like the theme" or "I (don't) like the composition" -- Gorgo 16:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see Gorgo. They wear those watches because they need to keep track of multiple time zones. MET (Mission Elapsed Time), GMT (Greenwich Mean Time, ISS uses that) and Houston time. Also see here Question 5 -- startaq 22:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Get_It • 22:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Peregrine981 11:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 21:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 08:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 12:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --zero 03:16PM (GMT -06:00), 22 August 2005 (UTC)

4 support, 6 oppose => Not featured--Shizhao 02:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GothafossWinter.jpg, featured[edit]

Self-nomination, Góðafoss in Winter, Iceland Andreas Tille 08:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ed g2s • talk 13:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 15:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --CGP 17:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral too much blue... ♦ Pabix ♮ 07:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only if the picture has not been edited (it is actually blue ?). YolanC 11:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not changed the colors of the Kodak Photo CD scan and the original slide is actually that blue. I do not plan to change the colors. BTW, there are two reasons for the blue color: 1. It's nearly sunset and 2. Velvia slide film tends to blue colors in these light conditions. Andreas Tille 14:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose it's a good picture, but I guess the color and the lack of contrast kinda distracts from the actual view for me. good work nonetheless. --Quasipalm 13:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ethereal LoopZilla 23:06:49, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Somehow I can't decide whether to support or not, it really is a nice picture and has a great composition but on the other hand there is definitely too much blue in this picture. -- Gorgo 00:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice picture Andreas! ADSR6581 20:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 08:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 12:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Darwinek 12:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 2 oppose, 4Neutral=> featured--Shizhao 02:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Homeless_-_American_Flag.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

--CGP 02:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --CGP 02:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, mainly because it's a good image for homelessness pages. (The guy sure has some white shoes) --Quasipalm 15:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 15:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LoopZilla 07:49:20, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
Support -- Mlm42 23:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too corny or obvious. The American flag seems to be kind of forced. Peregrine981 11:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dramatic and corny. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose agree with Peregrine. Unsigned User.
Support I doubt the flag was forced – more likely serendipitous. (They've got an insane number of flags everyplace in the US.) I think it's a nifty composition, especially if it wasn't deliberately posed. QuartierLatin1968 17:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just doesn't look like a natural situation. Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 18:35, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm the one who took the photo and wanted to say it's not posed. This spot is just a few streets over from the UN and I happend to catch the homeless guy there on my last trip in.
Oppose - same reason - Rex 20:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice picture --wpopp 14:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Peregrine -- Nuno Tavares ☜ ^PT 04:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 08:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 08:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Real America! Darwinek 12:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Massimo Finizio 19:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 19:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -CSamulili 19:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support zero 07:44PM (GMT-06:00), 23 August 2005 (UTC)- excellent photo - but how sure is everyone that he is homeless?? - I am doubting it after looking at the details, maybe a tired messenger or something?

12 support, 6 oppose, 1 Neutral => featured--Shizhao 02:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Discovery orbits earth.jpg, not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 19:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 19:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 21:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think it is a bea--Shizhao 12:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)utifull picture but I would like to understand what I see. (it is the nose or the back of Discovery ?)[reply]

It is the Discovery's cargo room, seen from the cockpit area. Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 12:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just an unidentifiable part of the shuttle and a part of the earth norro 22:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Luc Viatour 06:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, what norro said. -CSamulili 08:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - just another pic of the shuttle in space Peregrine981 12:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Another stunning picture. Anyone who has even seen the shuttle and has reasonable intelligence would know that they were look towards the aft section of the shuttle. That big pointy thing in the middle is a dead giveaway... ADSR6581 20:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 17:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 5 Oppose, 2 Neutral => not Featured--Shizhao 03:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Discovery mission completed.jpg, not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 19:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 19:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 21:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support YolanC 21:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. James F. (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The object (shuttle) is interesting, but this photo/the composition is not. norro 22:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 06:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Peregrine981 12:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atamari 21:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with norro -- Gorgo 00:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also agree. -- PedroPVZ 13:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yep. Quite artistic but not explanatory (enciclopedic POV) -- Nuno Tavares ☜ ^PT 04:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Manuel Anastácio 13:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 12:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose petrus 15:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 11:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8 Support, 7 Oppose => not Featured --Shizhao 03:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Porsche 911 Cabrio.jpg, not Featured[edit]

Nominate

--Hautala 11:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hautala 11:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think the yellow spot at the bottom left of the picture is distracting, otherwise an excellent picture. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 21:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the photo and the composition, but picture editing is too clear and sleazy (see the hedge and its changeover to the silicic in the left part of the picture) norro 22:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Luc Viatour 06:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with norro Peregrine981 12:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Jacks Rache 07:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nothing special. And it's just a car. Jsymmetry 02:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- well, not as beautiful as my lovely Peugeot 106, but still a great car :)) -- Nuno Tavares ☜ ^PT 04:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose color --Atamari 12:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Manuel Anastácio 13:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 12:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 7 oppose, 2 Neutral => not Featured --Shizhao 03:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2004-tsunami.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

- you don't often get views like this, even if it isn't a perfect picture. Peregrine981 09:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Peregrine981 09:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support rare and interresting pic. --PedroPVZ 13:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Holy crap. QuartierLatin1968 18:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 20:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 21:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atamari 21:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive, from inside. I wish the ugly copyright text was not on the picture. Dake 21:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elgaard 23:09:40, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
Support -- Wow. Jsymmetry 02:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why are they not running away??? --Malene Thyssen 22:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose you surely don't get a view like this (and actually I never want to have) but I do think that thats not enough, there is also a white copyright note on the lower border -- Gorgo 00:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Since this image is in public domain, somebody ought to cut that copyright notice. --Hautala 16:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 16:25, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Support--Shizhao 12:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- petrus 15:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --zero 03:38PM (GMT -06:00), 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 15:18:50, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

14 support, 1 Oppose, 1 Neutral => featured --Shizhao 03:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bored women in kenya, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

--Atamari 20:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question:  can someone identify of which Ethnie the persons is?
(Kĩkũyũ, Luhya, Luo, Kalenjin, Kamba, Kisii, Meru or Maasai) --Atamari 14:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Atamari 20:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dake 21:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jacks Rache 07:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Get_It (Talk) 23:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not excellent for me norro 17:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - smallish and not special. -CSamulili 10:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the premise is fun: here are these women all dressed up for a dance, and their minds are completely elsewhere. 'Ah, yet another tourist wanting to take our picture'...! QuartierLatin1968 17:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I aggree with QuartierLatin1968 but actually thats the point why I oppose, it's somehow 'disharmonic' -- Gorgo 00:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - me too - Rex 20:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - petrus 21:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 12:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Darwinek 12:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 19:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support zero 09:31PM (GMT-06:00), 22 August 2005 (UTC)- I agree with quarterlatin's comment
Support (_Donovan|Geocachernemesis|^Interact) 13:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Oppose 'and i don't like the title of the picture -- YolanC 12:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Hautala 17:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very colourful LoopZilla 06:57:10, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

10 Support, 7 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured --Shizhao 02:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bufo periglenes1.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

—Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Peregrine981 12:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 13:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 15:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Get_It (Talk) 16:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quasipalm 17:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atamari 20:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support YolanC 20:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dake 21:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support so cool. But if I see it in big detail I get a circle in the midlle of the pic what's that. It is invisible when I put it in my desktop. So nice desktop pic!!! thx --PedroPVZ 23:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the frog's eye…? Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 06:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a stain due to water spotting on the scanned photograph norro 18:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though the image scan could be better. James F. (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ♮ 10:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Manuel Anastácio 13:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 19:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC) the color![reply]
Oppose. Critter cut. --Hautala 17:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thomas G. Graf 18:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

15 support, 1 Oppose => Featured --Shizhao 02:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Canis lupus laying.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

—Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Luc Viatour 06:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Peregrine981 12:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 13:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the colors, the mood and the wolfs facial expression are wonderful, but in my opinion the entire picture is not really excellent, because it's clearly leaning norro 15:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — FoeNyx 15:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Get_It (Talk) 16:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quasipalm 17:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. James F. (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jacks Rache 07:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Urban 17:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Дядя Сэм 21:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 22:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rex 20:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Manuel Anastácio 13:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ikiwaner 10:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Marvellous photo, but the wrong title. A wolf laying? Where can I get a dozen wolf eggs? —RadRafe 15:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's laying plans, not eggs.
- Just a comment; how on earth can a wrong choice of words affect a picture's quality? Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 19:30, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Support. --Hautala 17:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

16 Support, 2 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 02:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Laugarvatn.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Laugarvatn, vulcano Hekla in background, Iceland

Self-nomination, Laugarvatn, vulcano Hekla in background, Iceland Andreas Tille 07:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not very interesting norro 19:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (too dark I think) YolanC 12:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I uploaded the image on a computer with an obviousely to bright monitor. When I looked at it on other boxes I know what you mean and adjusted brightness now a bit. (I do not expect different votes now, but enhancing the image is always important not only for featured image candidates.) Andreas Tille 06:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't like the dark corners on the photo and I think the volcano is too far away. --Malene Thyssen 22:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no foreground interest. Peregrine981 05:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Luc Viatour 11:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 12:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)-[reply]
Oppose
Neutral Hi Andreas, you caught a nice impression on this, but impressions are not quite what I like in a encyclopedia. There is lots of vignetting (dark areas in the corners) too. It seems that your lens is not worth a lot. --Ikiwaner 14:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly all right that I used a bad lense. It was my first SLR with a cheap consumer lens. I upgraded this stuff over the years. And yes, the critics did some education that personal impressions have a big influence. I have no problem in learning this (and I continue to like this image anyway ;-)) ). Andreas Tille 05:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. --Hautala 13:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8 Oppose, 1 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 03:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cut rat 2.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

startaq 00:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Support I'm not really sure about this one, the other featured pictures about animals are all more or less alive and nice to look at, but this is a really interesting view of the organs and inner structure of a rat. startaq 00:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Great pic, but too weird... -- Get_It (Talk) 01:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunetaly not a great pic. I'm missing the feet of the rat. I would also crop the gray surrounding (perhaps even copy some of the bottom of the pod onto it. If you want to show this object make sure that nothing else distracts the observer Andreas Tille 06:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like when a photo is a challenge to what a featured pic is. The subject is controversial and I like the idea of making an interesting and nice photo of it, but unfortunately the photo itself is not very good - I agree with Andres Tilles comments. Regards Malene Thyssen 15:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cut, bad angle norro 19:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dude, I'm eating. Still, it is IMO a quality picture, you can see all the organs very well. Very descriptive. Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 19:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Opposea feet is not seen. And very gross and disturbing. :S-PedroPVZ 22:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose could have been better if seen from above. Could be elected but should be put with a disclaimer or/and inside a drop-down box to avoid shocking some people. However, could serve as a starting point to make a great vector picture of organs which would be less disturbing. Dake 00:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately the composition isn't very good, but I don't think there is anything wrong with pictures like this. -- ADSR6581 17:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good, educational, quality picture. What is considered to be so shocking here? Haven't you seen a cut rat before? If you are offended by this, can you cut a rat in a non-shocking way and take a picture to replace this one? Definitely support.—Ezhiki 14:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --FML ^hi 17:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC) A water please? :/[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Andreas - Rex 00:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca ✉ 10:37:49, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Oppose Normally I make a point of never voting to oppose, but in this case I will – expressly to discourage anybody from taking up Ezhiki's suggestion and cutting up more rats in 'less shocking' ways. It's my duty; I'm a vegetarian. :-) QuartierLatin1968 03:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Really good, but not perfect. --Hautala 13:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very aesthetic :-) although I think enough animals are killed useless :-( Nepumuk 10:26, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

5 support, 10 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 03:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shuttle docked at ISS STS114.jpeg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Get_It (Talk) 00:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Get_It (Talk) 00:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a huge, black thing in the front. Everything is cut norro 17:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with norro here. Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 16:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a blue whale in space ;-) - Agree with norro. --Malene Thyssen 22:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Peregrine981 11:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 12:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 14:52:12, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 13:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 6 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 03:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Funchal Pico da Cruz.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

--Jonik 23:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jonik 23:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Get_It (Talk) 23:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution sucks --Quasipalm 15:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special, bad resolution Dake 11:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- attractive, but for the sake of consitency on resolution must oppose Peregrine981 05:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res -- Gorgo 00:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 12:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Darwinek 12:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Resolution. --Hautala 17:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca ✉ 10:37:11, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Support resolution is good enough. Use truthful objections, like "I dont like it". --PedroPVZ 15:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 5 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 03:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]