Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2005

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

Image:Prokudin-Gorskii-19.jpg -> featured[edit]

Alim Khan (1880-1944), Emir of Bukhara in 1911.

Nominate and support -- Ravn 09:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support but I'd like a higher resolution version David.Monniaux 10:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx 10:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --norro 21:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support WεFt 12:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy 12:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. Greudin

Support. The resolution of this image is far higher. It should be noted that many of Prokudin-Gorskii's photographs which are listed on this page at the Library of Congress are available in high resolution (3000x3000) TIFFs. Unfortunately, nearly every Prokudin-Gorskii image on the Commons is around 700x700. The user who has uploaded these images has simply taken the LOC's jpg and uploaded it, rather than downloading the high-res TIFF and converting it to a PNG. Yes, I am aware that these files are large, but we are doing this for posterity, and need to remember that. --Zantastik 02:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) P.S. Actually, I'm new to this and I realize that I probably should have just made it into a jpg..

Well, a JPEG would have entailed lossy compression, which introduces some slight "artefacts". TIFF and PNG are lossless. David.Monniaux 07:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good point. But perhaps we should include my PNG and a JPG, just so that people don't have to download a 10MB file when it's used in an article. We should have a perfect quality image in the archive, and a ~1MB jpg as well. As I'm terribly busy at the moment, perhaps someone else could do this. --Zantastik 07:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

People never download the 10MB file when it's used in an article. MediaWiki resizes the pictures to the requested size of "thumbnails"; such resized images are cached automatically. David.Monniaux 14:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support, but is there a version with less doors and more bearded guy? Thuresson 14:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is not.

Support. James F. (talk) 12:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Very vibrant colors, testimony of a disappeared world. David.Monniaux 14:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ha_long_bay.jpg -> featured[edit]

Halong Bay, Vietnam, October 2002.

Self-nomination, no vote. -- Ravn 09:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- FoeNyx 00:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 11:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Not sharp, sad colors -- Fabien1309 19:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Nothing special -- MatthiasKabel 20:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pabix ܀ 06:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Lamium purpureum backlit by afternoon sun P.2005.04.04.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate and support - I'm self-nominating this photo for composition and detail. (It was darn hard to get the camera to focus on this one, too! Ever since I dropped it...) -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 22:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
oppose - bad composition, back light, poor techincal quality -- Bernd Untiedt 14:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
oppose I agree with Bernd. -- Aka 19:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: back light is usually a good idea for delicate flowers, if the sun can be moved outside the frame. Perhaps focus on a single plant? --MarkSweep 01:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - ack Bernd -- Ravn 08:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pixeltoo 17:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - total lack of contrast - Arpingstone 20:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Close editing General consensus after 14 days: oppose -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 21:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Australia Cairns 01.jpg featured[edit]

Self-Nominate. Aoineko 14:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 18:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutral It's sharp, it's beautiful, but i'm bothered by the red leaf in the foreground and the cut sprout in the background, so i really don't know, how to rate it. But it's really nice. --norro 22:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx 00:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support WεFt 13:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy 12:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support While Norro has some valid reasons I give a clear support because it is just great. Andreas Tille 12:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. -- Pintaric 18:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Pixeltoo 12:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support --Thomas G. Graf 14:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pabix ܀ 06:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Rémi

10 Support - 1 Neutral -> Featured

Image:Australia Cairns Bar.jpg not featured[edit]

Self-Nominate. Aoineko
Oppose --norro 16:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Thomas G. Graf 18:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak oppose very good quality, but how is the topic special, or at least of general interest? David.Monniaux 18:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Ravn 09:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - not interesting - Arpingstone 20:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak support // Solkoll 19:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) I like the combination of colours in this picture. The rest of it says nothing to me =)
5 Oppose - 2 Support -> Not featured - Fabien1309 11:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Japan Tottori KannonIn DSC01907.jpg not featured[edit]

Shameless self-nomination —David Monniaux
Oppose --norro 16:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx 00:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support WεFt 13:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose —MRB 10:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - to sad that the colors are just green. I guess taking the photo at a differnt time of day or at better weather conditions might make it a featured picture. Andreas Tille 12:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, summer in Japan is wet... I mean, the athmosphere is saturated with water. And, yes, it is also very green, that's quite evident when you walk in the countryside. (The green color on this photo is not, as far as I remember, an artefact... It's just very very green and lush vegetation!) David.Monniaux 19:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely believe that the image is realistic. But the white sky speaks for a day where even the pool in the foreground has no chance to reflect the blue light of the sky. That's why the image looks in my eyes not like a featured image. Andreas Tille 20:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support - Nature's going a bit over the top with the green, but I like it.
Oppose - just not interesting - Arpingstone 20:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Thomas G. Graf 14:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak oppose - I like the overabundance of green, but the fence on the left is bothersome. - Jersyko 04:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Ravn 13:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7 Oppose - 3 Support - Not featured -- Fabien1309 11:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Windrad von unten.JPG not featured[edit]

Wind turbine from below, Dithmarschen. Author: Dirk Ingo Franke, aka User:Southgeist. Nominator: villy

Support. villy 12:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) (nominator)
Oppose, pointless --norro 14:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose, bad composition, and the angle obscures the subject of the photo -- Ravn 15:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Thomas G. Graf 17:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose, that could have been interesting, but really, it does not yield a good result David.Monniaux 18:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Fabien1309 16:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Bernd Untiedt 14:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - I really would like to see the propeller itself - Arpingstone 20:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Quistnix 15:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) -- nothing wrong with the angle, but this composition only works if the contrast is high. Enhancing might be an option
7 Oppose - 2 Support -> Not featured -- Fabien1309 12:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Japan Kyoto Kinkakuji DSC00108.jpg featured[edit]

Nominate and support (yet another self-nomination)
Support LoopZilla 10:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support—FoeNyx 13:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like the black object in the foreground and the way, the tree covers the lodge --norro 14:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support Greudin
Oppose, agree with norro --Thomas G. Graf 17:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy 18:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
weak Support only weak due to the black corners. --Bernd Untiedt 21:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about some supplemental cropping? David.Monniaux 08:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neutral, support if cropped. -- Ravn 09:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support--Snowyowls 14:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
support-trees are necessary!--Smartneddy 01:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would you prefer the following one?

Hmmm. Not sure - the lighting in the first one is better. But I'd prefer the second one to the first, when it comes to becoming featured. I guess I'm going to stay neutral ;-) -- Ravn 11:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to make the colors of the temple and the trees better without making the sky whiter, or without introducing discontinuities at the limit between the foreground and the sky. I may give it another try, but... David.Monniaux 19:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support, cropped version is better. James F. (talk) 11:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support for cropped version -- Fabien1309 22:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Opposeless depth of field,not fit the fareastean taste--Snowyowls 14:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

10 Support - 1 Neutral - 3 Oppose -> featured -- Fabien1309 12:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:View from Mardin to the Mesopotamian plains.jpg featured[edit]

View from Mardin to the Mesopotamian Plains with the Minaret of the Ulu Cami in front. August 2003

Self-nomination no vote Florenco 11:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support - Great picture (the original one) -- Fabien1309 16:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx 17:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support David.Monniaux 05:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy 10:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Ravn 12:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support --Thomas G. Graf 16:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutral but may fully support with a small reframing to remove electrical line in the low part of the picture. Aoineko 04:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think that reframing would destroy the effect of the picture, so i made a stamped version (only two electrical lines removed). Florenco 22:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support either version. --MarkSweep 01:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pabix ܀ 06:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. I prefer the less processed version; if there are electrical lines let's be honest and show them rather than artificially processing them out. -- Infrogmation 17:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed electrical line in the low part of the picture

9 Support - 1 Neutral -> featured

Image:Organic_mixed_beans_shoots.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate LoopZilla 21:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy 10:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - too dark and uniform -- Ravn 12:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Bernd Untiedt 14:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Fabien1309 22:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - too dark, too boring - Arpingstone 20:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Thomas G. Graf 14:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6 Oppose -> not featured -- Fabien1309 12:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Egypte louvre 284.jpg, not featured[edit]

Self-Nominate. Aoineko 14:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --norro 16:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Thomas G. Graf 18:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support WεFt 13:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Fabien1309 21:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I'd like to have a better description of the photo. What is depicted here? - is Miroir the name of the statue? Are the eyes made of mirror glass? --Ravn 09:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. Answer for Rawn : with the mouse over the statue, you've the description : Le scribe accroupi ; in English it is squatting scribe.Pabix ܀ 06:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not notice the alt-tag. However, this information is missing on the image description page. - Ravn 13:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose --Rémi
Oppose - not special enough -- Ravn 08:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

4 Oppose - 3 Support => not featured

Image:ChichenItza-Dic2004.jpg, not featured[edit]

Self-nomination This one is a bigger and better picture than the last one. Please refresh your cache because it has the same file name and you might be looking at an older version.--Fito hg 00:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support AtelierJoly 07:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak support On the other hand, I like the topic. On the other hand, the colors are dull. As others have written on other pictures, this is a famous location, so we should be able to get better pictures. But still, this one is good. David.Monniaux 08:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --norro 11:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Ranveig 19:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Dull colors -- Fabien1309 16:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy 10:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutral I think the colors are (now?) more dramatic than dull. What is iritating me are the artifacts in the grass in the foreground. Perhaps the preprocessing resulted in a sequence of JPG savings at lower resolution? Perhaps a higher resolution image with "real" gras could gain a "Support" from me. Andreas Tille 12:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - badly needs people in the pic to give scale - Arpingstone 20:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Thomas G. Graf 14:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutral see comment of Andreas Tille and the one of David.Monniaux Pabix ܀ 06:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. Not bad, but perhaps we could get a better one of this very famous, much visited and photographed monument? Ideally, I'd like to be able to make out more of the sculptural detail in the big version, and not have so much ininteresting sky. -- Infrogmation 17:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

5 Oppose - 3 Support - 3 Neutral => not featured

Image:Kleiner Münsterländer II.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate and support LoopZilla 12:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose I really don't like those pale colors. Perhaps better trying this one? --norro 15:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx 17:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy 10:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I did some (limited) color boosting, I get:
Oppose nothing special / don't like the colours -- Bernd Untiedt 14:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David.Monniaux 19:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apart from the dull colors, I like the picture a lot. I'm not too happy about the above color boosting job, but I guess somebody else could do better. :-)

Oppose. -- Pintaric 18:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - a little off focus - Arpingstone 20:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support either version, the colors make the photograph more interesting, the dog looks majestic and serene. - Jersyko 04:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

5 Oppose - 3 Support => Not featured

Image:EuropeanParliament.jpg featured[edit]

European Parliament in Strasbourg

Nominate - self-nomination Andreas Tille 11:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You should correct the colors - I don't think, they are realistic. --Thomas G. Graf 16:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
oppose unnatural colours -- Bernd Untiedt 14:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess you mean the redish cloud - it is just what I obtained from the Kodak-Photo-CD scan. Unfortunately I did not managed to fix this using Gimp. I uploaded a PNG version if somebody would like to fix the colors ... Andreas Tille 21:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

~~I'll give it a try.~~ Update: New version uploaded. Purge your caches. --MarkSweep 01:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support. James F. (talk) 11:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. The colors still look fake (perhaps too saturated?). David.Monniaux 19:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That may have been my fault. After the color adjustment it looked a bit pale for a Velvia slide, so I fiddled with the saturation. Andreas might be able to tell us either what his original slide looks like or what he thinks should be done about this image. --MarkSweep 20:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the unchanged scan you will notice that the cloud has a red gloom which is definitely wrong. So the color of the sky is now quite OK even if it looks a little bit to saturated. At a second view the gras and the trees look very green now which is definitely not the case. If you look at the part of the gras near the back of the boat it should be more yellow than ligth green. So in general the saturation of the colors is now to sharp as David mentioned. Even if it was quite in the middle of the day the partly cloudy sky made the light not as sharp. Andreas Tille 05:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another update: I've uploaded another version with less saturation and leaving in more of the red/magenta of the PCD scan. You'll notice that the border of the larger cloud is now more of a yellowish gray, compared with a blueish gray before. --MarkSweep 06:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support (my Oppose is cancelled) - colours now OK - Arpingstone 20:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Why are people complaining? Thuresson 14:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Because this is Featured Pic not Nice Pic, and because we care - Arpingstone 16:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Adrian, if you have a moment, check out the latest version (this may involve forcing a reload to purge the cache) and tell us if you still think the colors look strange. --MarkSweep 04:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - OK, colours just fine now. Well done. - Arpingstone 21:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - After beeing some days offline (before beeing offline another couple of days): The colors do now fit my remembering of the day very close. If people now keep on complaining about the colors they have to claim reality for producing strange colors. Many thanks to Mark to take over a job I'm not skilled enouth for. Andreas Tille 15:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support --Rémi
Support Ravn 13:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5 Support - 1 Neutral - 1 Oppose -> featured -- Fabien1309 09:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Florencja_Il_Porcelino_RB.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate and support LoopZilla 16:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose norro 21:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - the socle is cut, background is nervous. -- Ravn 08:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - same as Ravn David.Monniaux 19:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Fabien1309 22:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - not interesting, and out of focus at the bottom - Arpingstone 20:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Thomas G. Graf 14:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
1 Support - 6 Oppose -> not featured -- Fabien1309 09:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Panthera onca.jpg featured[edit]

Nominate and support —FoeNyx 20:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support but would appreciate a higher resolution version David.Monniaux 21:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Support -- Ravn 08:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) -- ack Arpingstone -- Ravn 08:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support. James F. (talk) 11:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. WεFt 16:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. Pintaric 18:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. --Baryonic Being 21:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Fabien1309 22:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - I hate to see a wild animal resting on concrete - Arpingstone 20:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Thuresson 14:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pabix ܀ 06:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8 Support - 2 Oppose -> featured -- Fabien1309 09:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:JJM SquirrelBaby 01.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate and support —FoeNyx 20:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Ravn 08:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Groucho 06:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose a very nice squirrel baby, but not a excellent photo -- Bernd Untiedt 15:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. -- Pintaric 18:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Nice animal, but it's dark and I don't like the background -- Fabien1309 22:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - out-of-focus!! - Arpingstone 20:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - ack Bernd --Thomas G. Graf 14:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2 Support - 6 Oppose -> not featured -- Fabien1309 09:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:旋转 DSCN1806.JPG not featured[edit]

Nominate and support--Shizhao 12:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*support--Shizhao 12:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) (I crossed this line to prevent confusion - your support vote is already given in the line above. -- Ravn)

Oppose - composition: the stone is leaning and off-center, tomb and socle are cut. Ravn 13:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - stone is leaning, dull colors, inscription can not be read. Andreas Tille 13:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - same as above David.Monniaux 19:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Fabien1309 22:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - pic is clearly leaning, not something acceptable in a Featured Pic - Arpingstone 20:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Thomas G. Graf 14:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support-enough information and good picture!--Smartneddy 01:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - good information, but the picture just isn't good enough Quistnix 11:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some facts:

.In fact the whole tomb was destroyed during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution,the tomb in photo is just a fakement built in 1980's,and same to socle.
The graveyard was lock all the day ,only during the cleaning time it opened for 15minute at dusk.It is the only time I can take a photo of Matteo Ricci's tomb. Maybe it can explain why someone feel the whole pic was in a dull colors
During the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution,in order to protect the tombstone,some elders buried it.so it is very difficult to notice the engravers on stone,even evry close to it

7 Oppose - 2 Support -> not featured -- Fabien1309 09:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:BrockenBahnWinter.jpg featured[edit]

Nominate - self-nomination Andreas Tille 06:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
support --Heidas 11:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak support - nice, but I think the composition could be better. -- Ravn 15:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment on this: The original slide includes the whole top of the tree on the left, but the Kodak Photo CD cropped it shamelessly. :-( Once I get a good slide scanner in my hands I will redo the scan. Andreas Tille 20:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support. James F. (talk) 16:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Fabien1309 22:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy 18:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pixeltoo 11:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - the train is too much in silhouette and the tree on the left is too dominant i.e it's very unbalanced - Arpingstone 20:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose ack Arpingstone. —MRB 14:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose ack Arpingstone -- Quistnix 11:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
support - tsca 13:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. --MarkSweep 07:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

8 Support - 3 Oppose => featured -- Fabien1309 09:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:SalzburgerAltstadt01.JPG featured[edit]

Salzburg (Austria), view of the old town

Nominate and support -- Pintaric 21:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support --Groucho 06:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support norro 09:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Ravn 14:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
weak Support excellent composition and colours, but a little bit skew --Bernd Untiedt 15:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 16:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. WεFt 16:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Fabien1309 22:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- A little bit blue, the doesn't look like this. (I live there) I've uploaded a a variant with less blue. Media:SalzburgerAltstadt01a.jpg MatthiasKabel 07:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support though I prefer the next one. villy 18:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Pixeltoo 12:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - how can it be Featured if it's clearly sloping!! - Arpingstone 20:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support --Rémi
support - tsca 13:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

13 Support - 1 Oppose => featured -- Fabien1309 09:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:SalzburgerAltstadt02.JPG featured[edit]

Nominate and support -- Pintaric 21:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support --Groucho 06:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose (fine, but I like the other one better) -- Ravn 15:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. No need to object just because you like another; we can have both! James F. (talk) 16:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak Support I like both (the first one needs no further support). The problem is that it is a more "artistic" image than an image for an encyclopedia - but I'm unable to oppose because it is great. Andreas Tille 20:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that commons pictures are not necessarily encyclopedic. David.Monniaux 15:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - I prefer the first one -- Fabien1309 22:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Strong suppport. Colors are amazing but natural, composition is excellent. villy 18:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. WεFt 17:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - Very beautiful - Arpingstone 20:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
support - tsca 18:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pabix ܀ 06:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - Rémi
Support - Quistnix 04:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

11 Support - 2 Oppose => featured -- Fabien1309 09:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:LosAngeles04.jpg featured[edit]

Nighttime view of Downtown Los Angeles and the Hollywood Freeway

Nominate and support -- Pintaric 22:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Groucho 06:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose norro 09:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 16:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak support -- Fabien1309 22:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy 18:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support, dramatic shot, Thuresson 14:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - it's not in good enough focus for FP - Arpingstone 20:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5 Support - 3 Oppose => featured -- Fabien1309 09:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:OlafurEliasson TheWeatherProject.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Nominate and support -- Pintaric 19:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - a very strong, warm picture --Baryonic Being 22:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose norro 09:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose It's a facinating image, but it leans quite a bit to the left (this is more obvious in the large version). This would certainly be a featured picture without the angle. - Jersyko 05:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pixeltoo 12:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - Arpingstone 20:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support // Solkoll 20:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Looks like a scene from some strange SF movie, like 2001 or Solaris.
Oppose - it leans just a little bit too much to the left. Can you try to correct it? -- Quistnix 04:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose while it's leaning - Ravn 14:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Thomas G. Graf 18:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 17:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Lion, paws hanging.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Nominate and Support -- Fabien1309 22:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose norro 09:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Bernd Untiedt 07:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - not in good enough focus - Arpingstone 20:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Thuresson 14:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support // Solkoll 00:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) My love for this kind looking lion increases for every time I see him. From that I understand it must be a good image =)
Oppose - Ravn 21:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Quistnix 22:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) - The lion looks as if he could say something to us any moment.
Oppose - Quite flat colors. I would prefer an image of a free lion instead of a captured one. Andreas Tille 13:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Farmer plowing.jpg -> featured[edit]

Nominate and Support -- Fabien1309 22:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
weak support the composition is great, but the farmer isn't really sharp. norro 09:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would prefer a higher resolution; the photo does not contain exif tags (which many cameras insert automatically) so I suspect that it was shot at a higher resolution, then resized. David.Monniaux 12:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This picture exists at a higher resolution (as specified on the description page) -- Fabien1309 16:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, the original author added this link today after I asked him. :-) David.Monniaux 17:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I uploaded the hi-res version -- Fabien1309 16:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support David.Monniaux 17:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. WεFt 17:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - enjoyable to look at - Arpingstone 20:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. tsca 18:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pabix ܀ 06:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Quistnix 22:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Ravn 14:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support JPGrandmont 03.10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
support Greudin

Image:Metro Athen Marousi.jpg -> featured[edit]

Nominate and Support -- Fabien1309 22:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - very cool. -- JennaMarie83 01:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Incredible, like being shot out of a cannon. --Groucho 03:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support norro 09:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy 18:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. --- Pixeltoo 12:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. --Lc95 13:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - superb - Arpingstone 20:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support // Solkoll 19:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) Hardcore Techno!
Support Pabix ܀ 06:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 12:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support David.Monniaux 14:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Quistnix 22:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support—FoeNyx 22:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support-Mboverload 12:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Daylily (Hemerocallis fulva).jpg -> featured[edit]

Nominate and support: I believe that the composition of this photograph is excellent and that its colors are rich and vivid. --Zantastik 22:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - Very good except the wall in the top-right corner - Fabien1309 22:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support I like this one more than the cropped version. norro 09:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support for this version. I agree with norro - Ravn 14:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Fabien1309. JennaMarie83 cropped the image, and I propose that we use it instead of the original. --Zantastik 00:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support The image is clear and vivid. - Jersyko 00:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support I really like the crispness and the bright colors. --JennaMarie83 00:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support The angle at which the picture was taken makes the petals go out diagonally--- creating a dynamic image. dozenist 02:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - Laineypaige 04:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support David.Monniaux 12:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy 18:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support // Solkoll 09:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) The cropped version is better.
Support - Arpingstone 20:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support—FoeNyx 22:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Castle Himeji sakura01.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Self Nominate Miya.m 08:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'd prefer brighter colors. (You're reminding me that I should dig up my own photos of Himeji castle.) David.Monniaux 12:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy 18:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pixeltoo 12:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - seems to have a problem with lack of contrast or washed out colours - Arpingstone 20:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose -- Ravn 16:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

oppose bad colours --Groucho 17:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support-the grey backgroud is good for white building--Smartneddy 01:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I adjusted the levels, hope you don't mind -- is this preferable?

It is. You wouldn't happen to have a higher resolution version? You'd have my support then. (Forgive me for being so demanding ;) - Ravn 14:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:MemlebenCrypta.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Self nomination Andreas Tille 13:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Bernd Untiedt 07:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose norro 17:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy 18:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - seriously grainy - Arpingstone 20:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If I may say: digital cameras, when use in poor lighting conditions, tend to automatically go to equivalent ISO400 or ISO800 settings, where they apparently turn off some filtering of the CCD output. The result is noise on the picture. In order to avoid this (I think I made a reasonably good job on the photos on Verona), one has to use a tripod and lock the camera in equivalent ISO100 sensitivity. In a church, this may mean poses of 1/3 or 1/2 second; in a crypt such as this one, probably longer — but with a tripod and no visitors, this is not a problem. Many places ban large tripods, but you can often use a small "table tripod" over a bench, table, shelf, etc. David.Monniaux 20:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This hint is not really helpful because the image was taken with a analog camera. And yes, I used a tripod and there is no problem with sharpness at the original slide. It might be connected to the scan or it even might be some JPEG artifacts. Andreas Tille 11:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose -- ack Arpingstone - Ravn 16:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak support I like such "dark" scenes, but is this crypt special? David.Monniaux 20:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean with special? In a historic sense? It is the place were the first German emperor is buried and it is used in German WikiPedia. In a featured image sense? I only took part in one single photo contest at all and it got second place. Andreas Tille 11:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was asking whether the crypt had any kind of architectural peculiarities, for instance. David.Monniaux 11:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll ask my wife, because she is more kind of an expert than me. But the reason for the upload was that this place has an historical importance. Andreas Tille 15:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

support Greudin
Support James F. (talk) 18:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:WernigerodeRathausWeihnachten.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Town hall of Wernigerode with christmas tree.

Self nomination Andreas Tille 13:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
oppose I don't like the composition and the colours -- Bernd Untiedt 07:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose norro 17:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Seems too orange. Even if the scene was orange it looks wrong - Arpingstone 20:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whether it looks strange or not - the scene is just orange. At the link to my web page you can find other shots of this bilding - it is orange and the lights enhance this impression. (It is not that I would not accept an oppose - just to explain that I'm happy with these colors ;-) ) Andreas Tille 21:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support // Solkoll 02:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) I like the colours. And why do they always has to be natural? I can't understand that. (try Acid and you will understand that =)
Oppose I understand that the building itself is orange, but the stones, woods etc. around it should not be that orange. Maybe that comes from the orange lights, but it just seems "too much" (or, if it's realistic, then maybe it's not a good idea to take night photos with such light). David.Monniaux 10:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I completely accept an oppose because it is a question of personal taste I just want to point to the fact that moisty stones just reflect the light which is faling on them - thus they also shine yellow / orange. Andreas Tille 15:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support Quistnix 11:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Lake mapourika NZ.jpeg -> featured[edit]

Lake Mapourika, New Zealand. Author: Richard Palmer (Wombat). Nominator: villy

Support. villy 19:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) (nominator)
Support // Solkoll 00:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) Not a day for a trip in the sail-boat =)
Support LoopZilla 07:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support --Zantastik 07:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Bernd Untiedt 10:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Perhaps it would be nice, to cut about 150px at the bottom norro 10:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. WεFt 17:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Beautiful and relaxing -- Fabien1309 20:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pixeltoo 09:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - fantastic (but even better if the horizon line was not almost exactly halfway - Arpingstone 20:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support --Thomas G. Graf 14:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Arne List 20:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support agree with Fabien1309 --Lc95 12:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pabix ܀ 06:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 12:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Suppoet - That does it, i'm moving to New Zealand. --Groucho 23:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Quistnix 04:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- User:Quasipalm amazing
Support—FoeNyx 22:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support JPGrandmont 06:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:VaticanMuseumStaircase.jpg -> featured[edit]

Staircaise in Vatican Museum. Author: Andreas Tille. Nominator: villy (can't remember if it has not already been proposed though).

Support. villy 19:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) (nominator)

It was not proposed before - thanks for the nomination. Andreas Tille 05:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support -- Fabien1309 19:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
~~Support~~ Neutral While I really want to love this picture, too much blurriness is apparent in the full-sized version. However, the picture is too engrossing for me to register a vote of opposition. - Jersyko 04:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason for the blur might be that you can not carry a tripod there. Stupidly enough I was badly prepaired and had only 50 ASA film (Velvia, which is also not the best for the colors) with me. So I puted my camera with the 20mm lens on a post on top of the staircase to avoid shaking. I think the blurriness caused by shaking is not very hard. Perhaps some skilled digital image processing might help here. Andreas Tille 05:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support -- Bernd Untiedt 10:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Pixeltoo 12:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support, Thuresson 14:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. WεFt 17:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - Arpingstone 20:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support // Solkoll 02:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) Think of railing this on a skateboard - geee!
Support Pabix ܀ 06:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 12:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Quistnix 22:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- User:Quasipalm boootiful
Support—FoeNyx 22:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support JPGrandmont 06:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Vllaznimi KuqezinjeteJakoves 01.JPG -> not featured[edit]

Sport fans of sport club Vëllaznimi, Gjakovë, Kosova. Author: Shkelzen Rexha. Uploader: Arianit. Nominator: villy

Support. Satanic. villy 19:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) (nominator)
Support Dori | Talk 04:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support--Hipi Zhdripi 05:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Bernd Untiedt 14:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 10:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support It tells a story: something you rarely see in Europe these days, and even less in the war-ravaged Balkans. Sport to this youth is one of the few amusements left. I thought the aim of an encyclopedia is to document life rather than produce art. --Arianit 22:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. WεFt 17:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - how could this be an FP - it's out-of-focus! - Arpingstone 20:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose out of focus and low resolution. Responding to Arianit's comments: while the picture is a welcome addition to the commons, I don't think it is quite at the level required for it to be a featured picture. All photos have a story to tell, but not all of them do so without blur and with proper color balance. - Jersyko 02:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Ack Arpingstone -- Fabien1309 11:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutral On the one hand, this picture is "topical" — i.e. it tells a story. On the other hand, the picture is not that good by itself, I think (but I understand evening photographs are difficult). David.Monniaux 15:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - ack jersyko -- Ravn 16:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
support - fantastic picture. To look it, like to be there.--Alex-germany 21:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Votes: 6 Support, 5 Oppose, 1 Neutral; No consensus for featured status. --Conti|✉ 14:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Julia set (C = 0.285, 0.01).jpg -> featured[edit]

This is not just a image from the Julia set. It is a rather good image from the set. I'm using 3x3 super-sampling and a huge colour-palette to make them better than average fractal tools does.

Nominate and support // Solkoll 22:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support David.Monniaux 08:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose norro 10:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support, unusual choice for featured picture, Thuresson 14:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ - There are other nicer fractals ... -- Fabien1309 19:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
edit : Support for the blue one -- Fabien1309 12:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutral I really like the idea to provide fractal images and even of there would be "nicer" fractals I regard it as a good image of the Julia set. The reasons for neutral are: I'm missing a detailed description about the program which was used to create it, the exact parameters and moreover a larger image with higher resolution would be better. Just give your box a little bit more time and use even lower discretization steps. Andreas Tille 15:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can make a larger one, (is 1280x1280 good enough?) using 5x5 sampling but not the same palette I'm afraid, (I use random for these). I make all my pictures max 800x600 because that is the standard maximum size for images else they will be scaled, (if you do not change your preferences and only the pedia-pros does that). For a descrition of the program: Try to read this page, =) I may translate it to English later but it is a bit to do. I write a shorter descrition at the image page later, tomorrow or so, have not got the time right now. //Solkoll 21:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A lot bigger version 2048x2048, diffrent palette used. My program generates these from random and there is no function there to save it to disk, (I may fix it sometime :). // Solkoll 22:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support - for the blue one. Andreas Tille 15:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Opppose agree with Fabien1309. I don't like the random colors. norro 20:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Remark: Using these (not really random) colors seems quite typical in this field so it is no argument in my eyes. Andreas Tille 06:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Votes: 3 Support, 1 Oppose, 1 Neutral for the first picture; 3 Support, 1 Oppose for the second one. I'm promoting the second one because it has a higher quality. --Conti|✉ 14:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Urban_spring_blooms.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate LoopZilla 06:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose the background is really not that good David.Monniaux 08:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Bernd Untiedt 10:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose norro 10:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - sorry, I could find nothing that would make this an FP - Arpingstone 19:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Thomas G. Graf 14:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Rémi
Oppose -- Pixeltoo 12:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Result: 7 Oppose, 0 Support => not featured

Image:Sea_defences_South_Coast.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate LoopZilla 07:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support David.Monniaux 16:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - desperately needs something else to interest the eye (perhaps people, flowers or the sea) - Arpingstone 19:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pabix ܀ 06:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Ravn 21:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
SupportPixeltoo 12:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy ♦ ✎ 08:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - Here, I think the desolation and lack of other distraction is a good thing. Cdc 16:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - I think it's absolutely stunning. -- Ranveig 22:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - A lovely picture - having something else in the frame would totally take away from its effect IMO. -- Arvind 23:35, 24 Apr 2005

Result: 6 Support, 3 Oppose => featured

Image:Hepatica nobilis fleurs20.03.2005.JPG -> not featured[edit]

Hepatica nobilis, Burgundy , spring 2005

Nominate and support Pixeltoo 12:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support, Thuresson 14:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose norro 15:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - the flower is much too far from the camera - Arpingstone 19:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Ravn 16:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - Niña 14:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy ♦ ✎ 08:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Hedvigs kyrka Norrköping april 2005.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Nominate and support Thuresson 13:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- New version uploaded April 15, Thuresson
Neutral, // Solkoll 13:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) The big shadow at the lower end of the image takes the good lights out of it. You should try to cut that part off as much as possible.

It's better but now it is that shadow from the tree falling on the wall. It was not that obvious earlier but now it is. The angle of the sunlight is nice making the contrasting shadows in the architecture so it is out of question to take the image some outher time of the day, can't you go there tonight and cut the tree down and then get back tommorrow and take the perfect picture? =) // Solkoll 00:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support but needs clipping at the bottom to remove some of the shadow - Arpingstone 19:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose norro 19:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose way too much shadow - Jersyko 04:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Thomas G. Graf 14:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Ravn 16:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Vue depuis l'île de la Barthelasse de la ville d'Avignon.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Nominate and Support -- Fabien1309 19:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 21:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - but I'd like to see it clipped at the bottom to take away some of the ugly wall (and, to restore the proportions, clip on the right as well) - Arpingstone 19:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Featured pictures should be much higher resolution -- we're doing this for posterity, after all. But it's a wonderful photo. --Zantastik 20:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - low resolution, composition -- Ravn 16:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutral - clipping on the bottom and on the right would improve the composition -- Quistnix 04:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy ♦ ✎ 08:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Pixeltoo 08:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support and echo Arpingstone's suggestions about clipping. — Dan | Talk 03:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

5 Support, 3 Oppose, 1 Neutral: No consensus for featured status. --Conti|✉ 19:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Carcassonne-vignes.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Nominate and Support -- Fabien1309 19:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - only because it seems lacking in contrast, nice pic but not quite good enough for FP - Arpingstone 19:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutral Perhaps work a little bit on contrast and brightness and ... is it possible, that this pic is too much compressed? norro 20:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Could we get more resolution? David.Monniaux 15:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is the hi-res original picture, but it's not cropped -- Fabien1309 17:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. villy ♦ ✎ 08:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Nice-night-view-with-blurred-cars 1200x900.jpg -> featured[edit]

Nominate and support -- Fabien1309 19:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support AtelierJoly 21:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - excellent - Arpingstone 19:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support (but, is it me or are there JPEG artifacts in the sky just over the horizon?) David.Monniaux 14:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Ravn 16:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support // Solkoll 22:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support --Rémi
Support—FoeNyx 22:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose the streetlight is too bright -- Quistnix 20:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Palmae in Nice (FR-06000).jpg -> not featured[edit]

Nominate and support -- Fabien1309 19:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - too ordinary and too much of the trunk cut-off - Arpingstone 19:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - ack -- Ravn 16:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Rémi
Support - I like it... unconventional for a photo, yet this is how we see palm trees in real life :) User:Quasipalm
Support Pixeltoo 12:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy ♦ ✎ 08:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Schaengel89 15:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSCF8715 slug curled up lg.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Nominate and support. Oven Fresh 01:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak support. I like the idea and the intent, but the picture is a little dark for my tastes. I've tried to take slug pictures before, and it's hard. I found some benefit from putting 'em on vibrant surfaces, such as mosses [1]. Any chance you could get a brighter pic? -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 01:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - It's annoying to have some of the slug out-of-focus. I know how hard it is to get enough depth of field but this is Featured Pic so we expect the best (but I still like the pic a lot)- Arpingstone 19:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Even though I think that this is an awesome picture, more of the slug should be in focus and the background shouldn't be so dark. --Zantastik 20:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy ♦ ✎ 08:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
support Greudin
Support. — Dan | Talk 03:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Mimosa pudica040209 0119.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Mimosa pudica flower on hawaiian basalt.

Nominate and Support Pixeltoo 22:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. When one looks at the large photo [2] which should have been uploaded, it is clear that a lot of the plant is out of focus. Still cool-looking though. Note to uploader -- please replace the image with the larger one to which I linked. --Zantastik 20:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - focus, composition - Ravn 21:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy ♦ ✎ 08:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Crupet_JPG01.jpg -> featured[edit]

Nominate and Support LoopZilla 07:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Thuresson 14:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 12:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I like it but could we get more resolution please? David.Monniaux 14:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ack David. (Pretty please? ;) - Ravn 21:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose norro 15:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy ♦ ✎ 08:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
support Greudin

Image:Superlambbanana.JPG -> not featured[edit]

SuperLambBanana - street art in Liverpool, UK

Nominate and Support LoopZilla 07:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose too dark, disturbing background, object too small norro 16:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - ack Norro -- Fabien1309 17:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose // Solkoll 20:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) Looks like a tourist photo "funny object! - I take its picture". Composion, lights, shadows, yak!
Oppose same as Norro David.Monniaux 19:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Stakkur westcoast suduroy.JPG -> not featured[edit]

Nominate and Support (though i uploaded it, it is not by me, but by Erik Christensen, Faroe Islands, who took it from a boat) Arne List 21:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think the colors are real and i would wish the rock to be more isolated. norro 15:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy ♦ ✎ 08:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Fabien1309 13:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Pixeltoo 13:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Kusama_Tulips.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Nominate LoopZilla 21:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutral // Solkoll 02:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) I love the strong colours in the mist, wery trippy. But I do not like the people in the scene. Also, the cropping could be better, (but thats easy to fix).
Oppose I think, i would like it, if it were more isolated from the surrounding (trees, people, background) norro 09:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose too dark David.Monniaux 14:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy ♦ ✎ 08:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Kusama Tulips2.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Nominate (following comments on similar image) LoopZilla 20:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak support Is it me or is there some color aberration on the edges of the sculpture? David.Monniaux 14:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support // Solkoll 20:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) This one is better. As I said above I like the scene, a bit wierd.
Support Pixeltoo 12:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy ♦ ✎ 08:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support--Fanghong 01:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC) late vote[reply]

3 support, 1 oppose -> not featured Lycaon 07:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:A small cup of coffee.JPG -> featured[edit]

Support LoopZilla 20:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Best cup of coffee picture ever. - Jersyko 20:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pabix ܀ 06:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support David.Monniaux 14:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Ravn 16:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support // Solkoll 20:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Black, no sugar.
Support—FoeNyx 22:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Fabien1309 17:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Mountains from Hatcher Pass (Alaska).jpg -> featured[edit]

Support LoopZilla 20:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pabix ܀ 06:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Quistnix 15:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support—FoeNyx 22:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Iphiclides podalirius.jpg -> featured[edit]

Nominate and Support
Support Pabix ܀ 06:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 20:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Pixeltoo 14:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Technically good, but the composition is not excellent norro 10:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support--Fanghong 01:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fir0002 11:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vercors Ambel.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Nominate and Support Pabix ܀ 06:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC). Note that a second version exists (other season) : it is Vercors Ambel2.jpg.
Oppose norro 19:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy ♦ ✎ 08:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Urban 04:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Rosa Kolkhoznitsa 1.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Nominate and Support James F. (talk) 12:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutral On the one hand, the flower is really well depicted, hi-res and all. On the other hand, I don't quite like the composition – it makes one big splotch of flower, without seeing more of the stem. David.Monniaux 14:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose It's really beautiful. norro 19:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Pixeltoo 12:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy ♦ ✎ 08:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support--Fanghong 01:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- surely we could find a better rose picture. Peregrine981 08:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! But there are hundreds in Category:Rosa to choose from, and more to come. Not to toot my own horn too much, but this one is one of the better of the bunch. Stan Shebs 12:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is better than most pics, and not bad overall. I just feel that with so many rose pics out there we should set a pretty high standard for this type of photo. This one is not as good as the other one up for nomination, about which I'm more or less neutral. I also feel others such as Image:Rosa Dorola 1.jpg are better than this. The lighting is too stark, and the angle too severe in my opinion. Peregrine981 09:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rosa Gold Glow 2.jpg -> featured[edit]

Nominate and Support James F. (talk) 12:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutral On the one hand, the flower is really well depicted, hi-res and all. On the other hand, I don't quite like the composition – it makes one big splotch of flower, without seeing more of the stem. David.Monniaux 14:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose It's really beautiful. norro 19:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy ♦ ✎ 08:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Ranveig 23:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Pixeltoo 13:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support--Fanghong 01:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes: 4 Support, 2 Oppose, 1 Neutral. I decided to feature this one. --Conti|✉ 18:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Northen Beijing Church.JPG -> featured[edit]

Nominate and Support--Smartneddy 14:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose bad angle of vision David.Monniaux 14:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support good angle of vision Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support not so good... --Groucho 23:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose ack David - Ravn 21:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pixeltoo 12:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy ♦ ✎ 08:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
oppose - tsca 13:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - Quistnix 14:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak Support--Zzjgbc 13:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support--Fanghong 01:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Leclerc MBT DSC00832.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Shameless self-nomination. ~~The picture though seems a bit blurry when viewed at max resolution (2200x) but it's good if you divide resolution by 2.~~ David.Monniaux 19:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose blurred, object in the upper-left corner norro 19:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) featured===

Shameless self-nomination. David.Monniaux 21:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

neutral - I really like and enjoy it (reminds me in a photo, I know from a lexikon before) - but: It's not really sharp, the light is not exiting, and at the end, this would be worth another visit to that place. (To the photographer: Please do it, for the motif is really great) Arne List 03:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I cannot redo the photograph easily (I'd have to come back to Verona...). It's somewhat difficult to get decent lighting inside a church... David.Monniaux 06:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

addition: What about a black & white pic with distinct contrast? ;-) Arne List 03:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about this version?

I Support this second image. It is far better than the first one. The colours and the contrast are much more distinct. // Solkoll 23:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just a little editing with Gimp.

Support for the second version. Ravn 13:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support second version. villy ♦ ✎ 08:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support JPGrandmont 06:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Quistnix 00:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose not that interesting Peregrine981 12:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The second picture got featured. --Conti|✉ 18:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sulky racing Vincennes DSC03728 cropped.JPG -> not featured[edit]

Sulky racing (actually, training before a race) at Vincennes. Shameless self nomination. David.Monniaux 20:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is weird. This image looked very good on a LCD, but looks a bit dark on this cathodic display. I wonder if I have bad gamma settings or something. Should I boost contrast? David.Monniaux 06:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the image is a bit faint. I downloaded this and tested to use PS "auto levels" (Shft+Ctrl+L) and then it looked perfectly good. // Solkoll 15:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this one has somewhat more contrast... I don't have PhotoShop. David.Monniaux 08:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yep! I tested the same thing for this image and now the effect was negligible. // Solkoll 10:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 07:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Supporting the second image, (and also using it at w:sv:travsport "harness racing"). // Solkoll 10:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Not sharp. And i don't like the background. norro 10:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - could be a lot better, needs proper background, some sort of grab. Peregrine981 12:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ixobrychus minutus 2 (Marek Szczepanek).jpg -> featured[edit]

Nominate and Support LoopZilla 07:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support norro 07:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak support Do you have a higher resolution version? (Of course, this was probably taken with a tele-lens, and cropped...) David.Monniaux 11:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support-sufficient resolution version--Smartneddy 01:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pixeltoo 12:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy ♦ ✎ 08:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support WεFt 20:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
support - tsca 13:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support --Ulenspiegel 11:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support--Fanghong 01:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FoeNyx 14:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Riebeis evening.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Nominate and Support --Pythagoras1 12:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - composition. The light is quite spectacular -- Ravn 21:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - Beautiful light -- Fabien1309 18:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy ♦ ✎ 08:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutral (this scene could have been better without the branches on the left) Quistnix 06:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose the power lines and the tree branches ruin an otherwise very interesting picture. - Jersyko 15:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose ack Jersyko. —MRB 17:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Pixeltoo 13:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Kaneohe_Bay1.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Nominate and Support LoopZilla 13:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Little bit boring. Disturbing background norro 15:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose composition. - Ravn 21:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pixeltoo 12:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy ♦ ✎ 08:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. WεFt 13:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Kamogawa sakura.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Self-Nominate--Moja 17:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak Oppose - slightly leaning, not wholly special enough. Ravn 21:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pixeltoo 10:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy ♦ ✎ 08:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. WεFt 13:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ring tailed lemur and twins.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate and support David.Monniaux 18:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support AtelierJoly 18:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Ravn 21:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Quistnix 22:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - Nice -- Fabien1309 18:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose norro 22:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy ♦ ✎ 08:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
support - tsca 13:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support James F. (talk) 18:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Pixeltoo 13:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support--Fanghong 01:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Strasbourg-RemiLeblond-ENA-MAMC2.jpg -> featured[edit]

Strasbourg - L'ENA et le musée d'art moderne

~~Nominate and Support~~Self-nomination - Rémi
Oppose - very low resolution, annoying border. I do like your pictures though. Please submit them in a higher resolution and remove the border. The textual information is better stored as text in the description page (where it already is). -- Ravn 21:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose low resolution (VGA display), border David.Monniaux 22:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose good pic - it would be nice to see without the text and higher resolution User:Quasipalm

 Thanks for your suggestions. I will change the picture as soon as I can :
 -> remove the border and improve resolution.
 NB : It's my first contribution to Wikimedia Commons. User:remi.leblond

 I've changed the picture, removing the border and increasing resolution. Is it better now ? User:remi.leblond

Support I love the lights and colours. // Solkoll 23:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support I don't exactly like the blue lights in the backround but it is a great shot -Mboverload 07:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. L'ENA en Fp, ça me ferait mal. villy ♦ ✎ 08:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Je pense que l'argument est spécieux... Ce n'est pas parce que c'est l'ENA qu'il faut dire que l'image n'est pas réussie. Tu y vois des politiciens en filigrane ou en stéganographie ?
Pabix &; 16:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment: It is better now. :) Still, the picture is slightly leaning, and the clipping is not that good (stone in the bottom left, reflection of the church is cut, tree) - Ravn 10:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose the picture is leaning, and the composition is almost right - Quistnix 06:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Andreas Tille 06:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
support - tsca 13:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Bogdan 21:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support James F. (talk) 18:24, 26 Apr 2005
Support -- Pixeltoo 14:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(UTC)

Image:Strasbourg-RemiLeblond-Barque2.jpg -> featured[edit]

Nominate and Support - Rémi
Oppose - the border (resolution is better). -- Ravn 21:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose average resolution, border David.Monniaux 22:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 Thanks for your suggestions. I will change the picture as soon as I can :
 -> remove the border and improve resolution.
 NB : It's my first contribution to Wikimedia Commons. User:remi.leblond

I've changed the picture, removing the border and increasing resolution. Is it better now ?

Support Absolutley wonderful, one of the best pics so far. // Solkoll 23:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Dreamy. This is a GREAT photograph. Needs to be pic of the day for 3 days! --Mboverload 07:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy ♦ ✎ 08:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support (now that we have obtained no border and higher resolution) David.Monniaux 09:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - Ravn 10:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - Great light -- Fabien1309 12:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx 21:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - Quistnix 23:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support (great!) Andreas Tille 06:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support My current wallpaper. Väsk 14:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
S U P P O R T Greudin wallpapered too
Support James F. (talk) 18:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Taj Mahal in March 2004.jpg -> featured[edit]

Nominate and Support Thuresson 04:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support nice, but it's so close to center, I wish it was perfect center User:Quasipalm
- Me too, but notice that all Taj Mahal pictures are off center, probably something blocking the way? Thuresson 07:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support nice and sharp; but is it normal that the colors are so "pastel", i.e. somewhat dull? David.Monniaux 06:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 07:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support norro 15:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy ♦ ✎ 08:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Fabien1309 12:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
support - tsca 13:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support--Fanghong 01:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ament_inflorescence.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Nominate and Support LoopZilla 07:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Nice, but fairly low-res, and would need to be cropped on the left and right. David.Monniaux 07:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose norro 15:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy ♦ ✎ 08:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pixeltoo 13:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. WεFt 09:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Strasbourg-RemiLeblond-J2R-Passerelle2.jpg -> featured[edit]

~~Nominate and Support~~ Self-nomination - Rémi
Oppose too dark, one cannot really see the footbridge. David.Monniaux 08:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutral - I really like the image (and I do not agree that it is to dark) but I do not like the black border and I do not like your name on the lower left corner. If this could be fixed I would give a clear support. Andreas Tille 15:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) Now: Support Andreas Tille 06:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support norro 15:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - I would support without the writing on the image --Quasipalm 19:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support - awesome photo --Quasipalm 18:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - ~~too dark, border~~ -- Ravn 11:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the picture, increassing the resolution and removing my name. Is it better now ? I also push up the shadows in the left bottom corner. Rémi

Support Wery good, the only thing to make a note about is that the sun is partly hidden by the wire. // Solkoll 23:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy ♦ ✎ 08:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Fabien1309 12:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Quistnix 23:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support though I wish it could be more zoomed out (if it were possible) Dori | Talk 04:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:TGV train in Rennes station DSC08944.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Shameless self-nomination. I like the metallic reflections (same on the TGV and buildings) and the convergent lines of perspective (building, tracks, train)... David.Monniaux 08:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose I don't like the disturbing background and the fact, that the object (TGV) does not stand out against it norro 15:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose ack norro Ravn 11:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy ♦ ✎ 08:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose ack -- Quistnix 16:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Pixeltoo 13:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Vietnamkrieg Bootsflüchtling 1980.jpg -> featured[edit]

self-nomination.--BenHur 13:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support (would you have a better quality copy?) David.Monniaux 16:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Ravn 11:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy ♦ ✎ 08:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support' (I thought, it was already a featured one?) --Thomas G. Graf 18:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No, but it's Picture of the Day on April 27. Thuresson
Support' -- Bernd Untiedt 16:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support --Quasipalm 18:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Pixeltoo 13:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support yes I remember voting on this already, I'm sure it should already be a featured pic. Christiaan 00:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2nd_Breakfast_E3.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Nominate LoopZilla 13:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose uneven lighting, bad composition (parts of chairs surrounding etc.) David.Monniaux 14:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - is there some contest going on about who is first able to have his lunch featured? Then make an effort ;)-- Ravn 15:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. villy ♦ ✎ 08:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - ack David.Monniaux -- Fabien1309 12:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Thomas G. Graf 12:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Rémi
Oppose mmmm beans --Quasipalm 18:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose English cooking. Thuresson 01:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:KreidefelsenRuegen.jpg -> not featured[edit]

Selfnomination - Andreas Tille 20:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Oh, i wish we could see the top of the rock. The picture is so nice and the composition is really great besides that. norro 20:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason for the oppose is fair enough. The image was taken using a 20mm lens and I do not own a lens with even wider angle - so I just had no chance. :) - Andreas Tille 04:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support. I think it's a good picture.Pabix ܀ 06:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. villy ♦ ✎ 08:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Quistnix 23:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose it seems artsy for the sake of being artsy. Dori | Talk 04:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support --Quasipalm 18:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. Nothing wrong with artsy. --MarkSweep 19:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support Pixeltoo 14:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Not particular -- Fabien1309 17:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. ack Fabien1309 WεFt 09:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes: 7 Support, 4 Oppose. No consensus for featured status. --Conti|✉ 13:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]