Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2006

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

Image:Dawn over field with hay bales panorama.jpg not featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 11:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting. Photo is too dark (in particular the foreground) norro 12:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- lighting -- YolanC 13:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added two other panoramas of the same field at slightly different times of day --fir0002 11:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi fir0002. Please nominate them singly. It's nearly not possible to count the votes when mixed like here. Thanks, norro 19:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have done that --fir0002 22:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Support the first. Lightness of the shadows is perfectly ok on my monitor. In the second picture I don't like the cropped hill top. In the third the compostition makes prominent the telegraph pole, and both are boring compared to the first one. --Wikimol 16:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose → not featured Calderwood 11:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dawn on the great alpine road.jpg not featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 11:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 12:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 13:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- i'm feeling in Gran Turismo :) -- YolanC 13:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- saturation is fine for me --che 13:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 15:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tbc 00:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't know... I don't like the road, somehow. pfctdayelise 13:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral very nice, except spoiled a bit by too many street signs - MPF 22:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose / tsca ✉ 11:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC) (nice pic, but why featured?)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neutrality 03:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Lycaon 10:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Wikiwert 04:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support YolanC, I immediately thought of Need for Speed! Anyhow the atmosphere's really there in this. --Lumijaguaari 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Calderwood 13:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dawn at swifts creek panorama.jpg featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 11:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is great and i like the silhouettes of the trees and the horizon norro 12:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- but the trees look bad :) -- YolanC 13:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 13:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Pixel8 14:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 15:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 20:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great work capturing the Australian landscape, Fir2000. pfctdayelise 13:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatoute 22:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 22:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjancic 06:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is it intended to illustrate? // Liftarn
Support WibblyWibby 22:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose → featured Calderwood 13:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2005-12-25 Magnifying drop.jpg not featured[edit]

Self nomination. Shows the optical effects of a drop of oil at some distance above a text. Light comes from the upper right. The shadow is very dark in the outer parts and bright in the interior. To the eye the drop works like a lens. --Roger McLassus 11:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Roger McLassus 07:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 13:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- it's illustrative, but I don't think it's that exceptional picture --che 13:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is too dark. I would have taken this kind of picture under very bright light. A lighter background would help the magnification of the droplet. — Pixel8 14:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Husky 15:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks great. Erin (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - indeed, it's informative... but a featured picture should be more Tbc 00:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 16:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 09:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 17:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack che, Tbc --Spundun 05:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hrmn --Quasipalm 04:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 16:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Samsara 11:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose → not featured Calderwood 13:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006-01-14 Surface waves.jpg featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support —Roger McLassus 18:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Tatoute 22:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wikimol 23:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 16:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very nice, but also very noisy norro 01:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Briseis 18:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK norro — Pixel8 19:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beautiful Erin (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 01:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support there are some GREAT pictures here lately :) pfctdayelise 13:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 16:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 01:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 09:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godewind 12:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is this really water?? It's been linked to the water page here. Doesnt look the slightest bit like water... its like liquid metal, can someone explain/hit me in the head? --Spundun 04:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is water contained in my shower tub. The metallic effect is due to the small angle between the surface of the water and the light. --Roger McLassus 07:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hein 11:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca ✉ 11:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjancic 06:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 16:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose way too noisy, even without zooming in, I have to agree with norro on that one -- Gorgo 18:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 17 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Calderwood 13:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006-01-14 Rust and dirt.jpg featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support —Roger McLassus 18:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - great colours, with some imagination you could say it is a satellite photo of Mars :-)--Tone 10:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 12:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 15:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good! --Briseis 18:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Pixel8 19:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 13:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 16:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 01:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 09:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godewind 12:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hein 11:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 16:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose → featured Calderwood 13:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Notre-Dame de Montreal Basilica Jan 2006 edit.jpg featured (original = right)[edit]

description

Nominate and support --David.Monniaux 19:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent quality and no noise. Fantastic! ♦ Pabix ℹ 20:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit LoopZilla 21:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original LoopZilla 10:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the non-edited version --Piolinfax 21:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- évident Tatoute 22:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original version (listed second), Oppose edit. I thought self-nomination is used when you nomitate a picture you have contibuted yourself? --Wikimol 22:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Woops - I copied and pasted and didn't even check whether I copied the "self" template or not!) David.Monniaux 09:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry Wikimol but the edit version is really splendid. no? Tatoute 23:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is lenghty discussion about it at en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica. If you want my opinion, the edit does no good to both the atmosphere and realism of the photo ...obviously I would support it if it was the only version. You may say I have double standard - which is absolutely true. When voting in FPC I usualy compare the candidate with what else is availiable on the subject. (Which is also why I have different demands on a FPC eg. of the Statue of Liberty and FPC of a volcanic eruption) --Wikimol 00:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fantastic! I like the edited/left version more than the original norro 01:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~the edited version~~ the original version -- It's true churchs are often dark, and the edited version is too bright. -- YolanC 11:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support any of the two --Briseis 17:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the edited version --SehLax 18:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support left one (edited) Tbc 00:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support either pfctdayelise 13:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support orignial version Calderwood 16:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original version (listed second), Oppose edit.--Dschwen 22:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit. Oppose original --fir0002 23:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit. -- Get_It (Talk) 01:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original only. I just want to add my two cents. I'm the original photographer of this image and I feel that the edit is inaccurate and doesn't express the same atmosphere that the original does. Sure, it appears prettier and more striking and to some lifts the dark shadows, but I don't think that is something we should mess with. There are some situations where a photo is obviously in need of alteration to recreate the aesthetics of being there, but as I was there and I KNOW the basilica was dark and selectively artificially lit at the front, and there WAS a stark contrast between the dark and light. The edit removes this contrast and at the expense of accuracy. Diliff 02:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original version Kessa Ligerro 09:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original version. Fantastic work, gratulation -- Godewind 12:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (the edited) Hole sh.... --FML ^hi 15:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support fantastic work. Darkone 16:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original. It captures more a serene feel when dark. enochlau (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a really great picture. I personally would be in favour of the edited version, but because I'm in strong opposition to featuring two versions of the very same image I just trust the word of the author of the image. So please feature the original and Oppose to the edited version. Andreas Tille 06:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support left one (right one is a bit dark) - MPF 23:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support non-edited version.... it requires the viewer to concentrate more to actually get all the details, but they are all there! And it looks more real, and still spectacular --Spundun 04:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original version (right), Oppose to the edited version. You must look at the original size. See the beautifull nuances of colors in the original which looks authentic. It's a church, not a laser performance. --wau 16:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Roger McLassus 18:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca ✉ 11:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (the edited) --Boris23 20:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjancic 06:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit, Oppose original Jon Harald Søby 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support both Mayamaxima 16:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edited version -- Gorgo 18:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original version only , Oppose edited : I'd like to respect the photographer's wish. -- Fabien1309 15:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support both versions --Hein 08:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support both versions, prefer original. I neither think pictures of churches always have to be dark because some churches are (some swans are black, too!), nor do I object to editing (the edited version looks good, too). As for arguments about the photographer's wishes, has he been notified? I left a msg on his talk, just in case. Perhaps he likes the edited version. - Samsara 12:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result for both: 11 support, 0 oppose
Result for original (right): 14 support, 1 oppose
Result for edited (left): 11 support, 3 oppose
→ featured (original) Calderwood 14:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dewy web at dawn.jpg, not featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 11:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting, background is too disturbing and partly out of focus (upper left part) norro 12:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with norro's comments, but I like it nevertheless. Rex 20:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very "Charlotte's Web" pfctdayelise 13:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 01:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 05:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Support Reminds me of Charlotte's Web too. 69.163.150.70 04:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

annons can't vote, sorry -- Lycaon 23:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

RESULTS are: 1 Support, 1 Neutral and 4 Oppose. Not featured. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 16:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dawn over field with hay bales panorama02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 22:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- dark -- YolanC 02:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dark, cut at the top --SehLax 13:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. being panoramic is not enough. --Dschwen 23:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 01:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not enough sky. enochlau (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is intended to illustrate? // Liftarn

RESULTS: 6  Oppose = not featured. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 16:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Field of hay bales03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 22:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 02:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I would like to know where it is in the legend ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 07:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Dschwen 23:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 01:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 05:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the arrangement of elements in this panorama. enochlau (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is intended to illustrate? // Liftarn

RESULTS: 3  Support, 1  Neutral and 3  Oppose = not featured. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 16:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Muybridge race horse gallop animated.gif[edit]

Image:Muybridge race horse animated 184px.gif, featured[edit]

first, bad quality und unused version deleted now (request by uploader) --:Bdk: 08:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate

—Yug 14:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Yug 14:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC) - Beautiful, but a little too small (not 300px). Have we a solution ?[reply]
Support -- Excellent. This is some really interesting (and still useful!) work in the PD. Husky 15:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 16:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Interesting, but i would like to have in in better quality or as artificial animation norro 19:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC) - Here you are! I don't know if it's a thoroughbred. --wau 22:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lovely piece of history in motion --Piolinfax 10:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support our first FP animation! pfctdayelise 13:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 16:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 01:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the enlarged version. --wau 23:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC) - Now 300x200 px. --wau 20:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support agree with Piolinfax -- Godewind 11:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support was immediately impressed --Bjs 22:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: can the component pics be adjusted so (1) the the ground does not rise and fall, and (2) the horse stays about the same colour throughout, instead of some frames much paler? - MPF 16:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, the ground should be fixed at a certain level. I'm working on it. --wau 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the frames here are close to the original frames by Eadweard Muybridge, I wouldn't replace them: its's true it would be more physically accurate but it wouldn't be historically accurate. In case the frames could be corrected, what about editing them as a different file and linking it to this one as an edited version instead replacing it? --Piolinfax 11:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I adjusted the position of the ground and changed the colours very little. See the improved version above. Unfortunatedly I don't have better copies. --wau 19:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Roger McLassus 18:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- specially the modified version, but the original also Tatoute 10:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjancic 06:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — modified version Lycaon 10:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 08:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — modified version (nice bit of work!) - MPF 15:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Classic early animation Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RESULTS: 15  Support, 1  Neutral and 1  Oppose = featured. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 16:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bald.eagle.closeup.arp-sh.750pix.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 12:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 12:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res, dark and JPEG compression in the background — Pixel8 12:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose center composition --che 16:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Pixel8 and the background doesn't look a bit naturally. --SehLax 18:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Pixel8, SehLax norro 19:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background Tbc 00:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 01:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD 11:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Calderwood 11:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 01:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dti 09:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Full of character, sharpness of foreground illustrates keen eyesight of this bird of prey. - Samsara 12:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RESULTS: 5  Support, 1  Neutral and 6  Oppose = not featured. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 16:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fitz Roy 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 12:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 12:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Pixel8 13:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tone 13:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great view --Briseis 17:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very photogenic mountain. --Wikimol 19:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 13:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support shimmery water is gorgeous pfctdayelise 13:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatoute 15:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 16:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 01:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 09:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godewind 12:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Spundun 04:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hein 11:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Roger McLassus 18:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca ✉ 11:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Boris23 20:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjancic 06:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 16:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mikaduki 13:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral What is it intended to illustrate? // Liftarn

RESULTS: 22  Support and 1  Neutral = featured. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 16:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Blackfriars.tube.station.london.arp.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 12:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 12:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very sharp, noisy in most areas — Pixel8 13:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not a particulary interesting composition. Husky 16:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Briseis 17:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Pixel8, Husky --SehLax 18:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 16:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 01:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a classic "metropolitan" shot, with intense lights, diagonal white lines adding contrast, urban professionals. - Samsara 12:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RESULTS: 2  Support and 6  Oppose = not featured. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 16:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 12:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 12:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's nice, but the raccoon's tail is hidden from view — Pixel8 13:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Husky 16:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 18:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 20:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support reminds me of an Australian saying - "flat out like a lizard drinking" :) pfctdayelise 13:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 01:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lying on rocks close to a photographer doesn't look natural for a raccoon. -CSamulili 19:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dti 09:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the pose plays beautifully to the racoon's character. High quality picture. - Samsara 12:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RESULTS: 5  Support, 1  Neutral and 4  Oppose = not featured. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 16:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Field of hay bales05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 11:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - interesting composition but it is not enough sharp. --Tone 13:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it is sharp but not that outstanding --SehLax 18:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 20:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 13:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bland, not stunning.--Dschwen 22:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 01:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 05:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RESULTS: 2  Support, 1  Neutral and 4  Oppose. Not featured. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 16:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Field of hay bales - omeo.jpg Featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 03:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 11:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Those curves look quite nice. enochlau (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good idea --Ikiwaner 19:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- skINMATE 22:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What does it show? // Liftarn
Support It shows a field of hay bales. Maybe it would be a good idea to cut a bit out of the left side to make it more "symmetrical"? --Piolinfax 12:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Calderwood 09:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hay bale with bird.jpg not featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 03:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this one is quite boring. Do you want to flood us now with your fields? ;-) Isn't one enough? This is already the sixth of the same subject --SehLax 13:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose if you wish, but don't be so discouraging. enochlau (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did oppose and gave reasons why. I was just wondering why I just see fields on the FPC page ;-) --SehLax 13:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack, anytime it's enough. How many pictures are here? Nearly 20, I think. Darkone 16:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Six actually, and I thought this one the best of the lot --fir0002 22:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant on the whole page, and I count 17 at the moment. Darkone 12:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose bland, not stunning at all.--Dschwen 23:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Good for Wikipedia but doesn't stack up at commons sorry. enochlau (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I love the composition but isn't it overexposed? Would support with adjustments. --Spundun 04:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tvpm 23:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It manages well to show the subject. // Liftarn

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Calderwood 09:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Araluen Botanic Park, Roleystone.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

&  Support —Romeo Bravo 03:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--Shizhao 05:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 11:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - cutted people in background -- Godewind 11:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 12:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Godewind - MPF 13:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Godewind and wouldn't be excellent for me without the people --SehLax 13:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose doesn't seem very special --che 01:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 22:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 08:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose better without legs - crop? 81.157.238.41 16:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in to vote :) --Romeo Bravo (T | C) 03:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 9 oppose → not featured Calderwood 09:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rosary 2006-01-16.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

—Shizhao 08:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Shizhao 08:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - crucifix with very hard reflections and slightly out of focus. --Wikimol 09:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto -- Godewind 11:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Piolinfax 11:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Wikimol - MPF 13:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not the best light - and I prefered a picture which shows the use of it --SehLax 13:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special pfctdayelise 13:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose indeed not Calderwood 16:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bender235 19:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 08:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3 support, 7 oppose → not featured Calderwood 09:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panorámica de Las Médulas.jpg featured[edit]

Self nomination I'm not the author but I uploaded it for him.--Piolinfax 11:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC) I have just replaced the lower res pic with the original higher res version. --Piolinfax 15:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the contrast between the misty background and the incandescence of the reddish mountain in the sunset light. --Piolinfax 11:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lycaon 12:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Tatoute 12:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 13:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great colours and composition. But it's leaning extremely (look at the fog) --SehLax 13:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it isn't leaning; fog often looks sloping like this. The trees are a better indication; if anything, they are leaning the other way (and look badly so in the revised version below) - MPF 22:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support pfctdayelise 13:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Briseis 15:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 15:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 16:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 20:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral nice pic, but sky i rather blown, sloping need to gets fixed badly and the uploader states that only a low quality version was uploaded. Why? Isn't policy to always upload higest res and quality. 2.13MB doesn't seem much. We have pics exceeding 8MB. I'll gladly change my vote if these concerns get addressed.--Dschwen 23:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my oppose to neutral since my complaints were addressed, but I'm still not enthusiastic about the pic :-) --Dschwen 14:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about the as-big-as-possible policy. I'll replace it asap (I have to wait for the original to be sent to me) and if the author (who has got 2 other very similar pics) states that the sloping is a fact (I agree it looks like it but I am still in doubt... you should see the place in location, and the horizon is not the hills themselves but behind them) I'll rotate it accordingly, as well. Thanx for your helpful impressions :) --Piolinfax 10:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quality seems ok and I can live with burned out sky, but the sloping is really annoying --che 01:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 01:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 05:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Burned sky, composition not outstanding -- Fabien1309 11:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Neutral Calderwood 11:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC) can change your vote but can't vote twice -- Lycaon 18:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, the former vote escaped my attention. --Calderwood 11:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Tvpm 23:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is not really interesting. --Dada 11:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe without the sloping it would be better, but it´s good anyway.--Wikiwert 07:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original version - Samsara 11:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured Calderwood 09:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panorámica de Las Médulas edit.jpg - (Edited version) not featured[edit]

I tried to fix the leaning (it really was leaning if you look at the fog) and did some lighting corections --SehLax 13:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 08:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fog is not a very reliable feature but, anyway, when having a look to the main patches of fog in the original pic with the Gimp guidelines (which are totally parallel to the top of the pic), one can see that they are in different levels (a logical thing in such a hilly environment, by the way). I edited three pictures rotating the original 0,5; 0,75 and 2 degrees anti-clockwise and then I checked the fog with the guidelines again. It's then when the fog seems to be going up from left to right. Check it yourselves. If it finally had to be edited, I wouldn't rotate it more than 0'3 degrees. The other similar pictures Rafael did support this view. The so-called sloping is just an optical effect. Given the fact that this picture is likely to be used for encyclopedic (and not artistic or aesthetic) purposes, my "ballot" goes for the non edited version. --Piolinfax 15:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support i like this one better --Quasipalm 04:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose → not featured Calderwood 09:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GNER HST on Tyne Valley Line 2005-10-08 05.jpg not featured[edit]

Self nomination --Thryduulf 22:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 00:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Leaning. — Pixel8 06:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't actually leaning, the sides of the carriages are not vertical, and the land either side of the train isn't level. Thryduulf 08:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  I didn't mean the carriages, but you're right about the land. I'll withdraw my vote. — Pixel8 12:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not a very special scenery --che 19:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - actually the photo is leaning, the field should be level. The camber installed on the curved track would mean the train would be tilted into the curve. Curious . . . what was a GNER 125 doing on the Newcastle-Carlisle line??? Very lost! - MPF 22:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC) — playing around with photoshop, a 5° anticlockwise rotation gets it about right - MPF 22:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there was much camber on the track, but looking at the the telegraph pole that should be vertical (or approximately so). As for why the train was there, the ECML was closed between Newcastle and Edinburgh for engineering works of some sort so they were diverted via Carlisle (about 2 hours longer I think they were quoting. Virgin XC gave up at Newcastle). Thryduulf 23:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Must've been a pain! Having the pole vertical is about the same as making the field level, they're at 90° to each other (within the limits of measuring) - MPF 16:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 11:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tvpm 00:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - infraredflower 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Calderwood 09:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Serengeti Lion Running saturated.jpg not featured[edit]

,

a lioness hunting worthogs in the western corridor of the serengeti,

Self nomination --Unununium272 04:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry foreground. — Pixel8 06:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral- I would change to support if better description is included. (E.g. where it was shot.) I like the work with panning, the blurry foreground is great. --Wikimol 08:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Now Support colour adjusted version #2. I think if nobody objects it can be written over original.[reply]

--Wikimol 20:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, i do. As the person who was there, I feel that the original version is more accurate to real life. While, for artistic merit, the color fixed version is nicer, in terms of the wikipedia entry it is linked to, i feel it is better to have it more accurate as apposed to looking better. Unununium272 22:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why I asked. When looking on picture it's hard to say what's due to reality and what's because of the capture. To me the edit looked ok, but as you were there, you know better :)--Wikimol 22:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
updated discription--Unununium272 12:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too little contrast --SehLax 13:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Sehlax norro 16:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support colour adjusted version — Lycaon 17:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support colour adjusted version --che 19:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
uploaded color corrected version, doesnt look as good as Lycaon's, but closer to reality. Unununium272 22:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- the second and/or the third YolanC 08:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all --Calderwood 11:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- bad reflects Tatoute 14:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, stunning subject, but the image quality is not optimal. What are the spots above its tail? --Dschwen 20:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Hein 11:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -CSamulili 19:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Calderwood 09:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ngorongoro_Black_Kite.jpg not featured[edit]

Self nomination --Unununium272 04:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition: the bird is cut off. — Pixel8 06:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the white border caused by overexposure is funny but not that great --SehLax 11:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposure norro 16:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bender235 19:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Norro --Calderwood 11:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I want to support, but the halo effect is too bad, I'm afraid. pfctdayelise 01:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution, overexposure and cut -- Gorgo 03:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Hein 11:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - beautiful illumination - Samsara 11:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 8 oppose → not featured Calderwood 09:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rainbow beads.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 11:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 11:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting, too low depfth of field (blurry foreground and background), upper right and lower left corner are disturbing norro 16:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition --SehLax 19:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support composition --FML ^hi 23:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- colors -- YolanC 08:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Calderwood 11:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition. Lower left and upper right table edges are distracting.--Dschwen 11:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ack norro. I do love the colours though. pfctdayelise 00:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dito norro -- Gorgo 03:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Hein 11:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's not perfect but narrowly deserves my support. --Lumijaguaari 21:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Calderwood 09:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hoverfly.jpg featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 11:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 11:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 12:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 19:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wikimol 20:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- cut -- YolanC 08:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support main subject is the fly, and it is not cut.--Dschwen 11:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- allright, but why don't we cut the right and the top ? it is the main subject ? YolanC 15:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but IMO here the cropping serves a pourpouse and this way it is more aesthetically pleasing. Now the main subject is in the golden section and the flower is supressed by compostion to the role of "environment". IMO its in 99% better to have one clear subject than two or more, and this compostion is more interesting than the "default macro" centered compostion. --Wikimol 17:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 16:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 18:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great framing. pfctdayelise 01:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- missing the identification of the syrphid -- Lycaon 22:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Dakota ~ 09:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Calderwood 13:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 08:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Roger McLassus 07:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Calderwood 09:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mozambique - traditional sailboat.jpg featured[edit]

{Nominate}} — Fabien1309 11:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 11:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Lycaon 17:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting subject, great exposure --SehLax 19:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 19:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't like the lighting (not contrasted enough) ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 19:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a shame picture from flickr has better description than many FPC made by commoners :) --Wikimol 20:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 05:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- and I agree Wikimol :) -- YolanC 08:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dschwen 11:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 22:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjancic 06:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 15:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wikiwert 07:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support love the colours in the picture — Pixel8 17:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose → featured Calderwood 09:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Red-knobbed.starfish.arp.jpg not featured[edit]

Red-knobbed starfish

Nominate

— Fabien1309 11:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 11:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Briseis 12:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose partly overexposed, too much compressed, don't like the environment norro 16:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose aquarium background :-( -- Lycaon 16:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose should be cut at the right side --SehLax 19:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- but it should be cut at the right side. -- YolanC 08:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, it should --Calderwood 11:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have done it myself --Calderwood 14:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - ditto to Lycaon and norro - MPF 16:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 22:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose spots all over the picture (compression or spots on the glass?) and I don't like the composition that much -- Gorgo 03:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - an absolutely beautiful picture; highly commended, but not at this compression rate; original framing preferred. Samsara 11:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 4 support, 8 oppose → not featured Calderwood 09:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oktoberfest 2005.jpg not featured[edit]

Self nomination --Bjs 22:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Oktoberfest sure is about the people attending, but in this shot they are far too dark compared to the bright rollercoaster.--Dschwen 11:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring - MPF 16:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 22:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition -- Gorgo 03:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Hein 11:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 08:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 22:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kessa Ligerro 07:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 0 support, 8 oppose → not featured Calderwood 09:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Snowboard-Negative0-05-3A(1).jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

— Self-nomination, just to see how far it flies, and learn from the mistakes (therefore I will not support it). Rama 23:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- but I think it could be better if the guy on the top wasn't there. YolanC 08:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, yeah, he spoils it for me. --Dschwen 11:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the legs are gone, but this subject is not a one in a lifetime chance. I'd rather have a picture featured which is right from the start. The edit looks ok at first glance, but has some noticable flaws. Strange variations in sharpness and hue and a washed out part of the snow plume. --Dschwen 14:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment uploaded edit with corrected color of snow. --Wikimol 10:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral edit - as YolanC. distracting legs. --Wikimol 10:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Support --Wikimol 19:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the colour correction, Wikimol. I am colour-blind, so these things are far beyond me. I have considered the problem of the legs, and there might be attempts at erasing them. Thank you for your interest and comments. Rama 11:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The legs have now been removed by the talented User:Inisheer. Rama 13:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Full of movement. Kudos to Rama for the photo and to Inisheer for cleaning the other guy out. David.Monniaux 14:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment snow is now slightly greenish. Inisheer, can you play a bit with curves to make the snow less green and the cloud snow less red? --Wikimol 16:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
done inisheer 17:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks --Wikimol 19:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I looked at it at full size and saw the particles of snow, I had no other choice :-) --che 00:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supportimpressive pfctdayelise 03:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special. -CSamulili 19:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I liked it better when the legs were still there, now there is a strange looking dark area. --SehLax 15:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK SehLax Calderwood 08:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeRomary 11:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose warm colours undersaturated. Unfortunate that his face is in the shadow. Samsara 12:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes and no: this is what allows to publish the photograph without infringing on private life. Rama 12:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can claim for private life on a ski slope, but I get your point. My comment about undersaturated warm colours stands, however. - 81.157.238.41 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose → not featured Calderwood 09:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cloud timelapse02.ogg not featured[edit]

Self Nom Not sure if this is the right place to put videos though --fir0002 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Oh come on, first there is dirt on the lens, then (I suppose while cleaning it of) the camera gets moved in a different direction so there is some dark wall in the upper left corner. Unsharp and bland colors as the other two. Please, Fir do a little prefiltering of what you post here. --Dschwen 16:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose → not featured Calderwood 09:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cloud timelapse03.ogg not featured[edit]

Self Nom Not sure if this is the right place to put videos though --fir0002 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Extremely unsharp for the chosen resolution. Clouds are blown out and the ground looks just brown. You have a great camera, why don't you use it to capture a timelapse? You could generate awesome quality hires video with it. --Dschwen 16:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose → not featured Calderwood 09:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cloud timelapse04.ogg not featured[edit]

Self Nom Not sure if this is the right place to put videos though --fir0002 21:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Green color band on the right, parts of the sky blown, dirt on the lens, and either show a full horizon or none, the tiny tree bit is irritating. --Dschwen 16:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose → not featured Calderwood 09:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SheepsAtMyvatn.jpg not featured[edit]

Sheep (Ovis aries) near lake Mývatn, Iceland

Self- Nominate

Andreas Tille 21:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I love sheep!! (BTW, the source English link you provided on the image descrip page was wrong) pfctdayelise 22:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marvellous! -- Tvpm 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 00:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose don't see anything sharp. Darkone 11:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose reluctantly. Fabulous composition but unfortunately the sheep are a bit out of focus. --Dschwen 14:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 16:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support WεFt 17:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Darkone -- Godewind 17:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 07:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca ✉ 11:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neutrality 15:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MartinD 12:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same prob as always: doesn't look sharp. But good composition --SehLax 14:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sharp enough for my screen resolution. PS 1 sheep, 2 sheep, 3 sheep (no 's' :-) MPF 21:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Dschwen Calderwood 08:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support composition --Ikiwaner 19:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — ack Dschwen — Lycaon 10:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halibutt 12:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a perfect illustration of an ecological niche on the tundra. - Samsara 17:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Remember to use correct English grammar if you use English. Also remember to supply the Latin name for species. Fairly nice picture. — Erin (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a silly request from Erin. About the photo: the great composition and out-of-sharpness have both been noted and in this case, the former outweights the latter. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 15:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Use of the binomial species name (generally Latin) is recommended; see Commons:Language_policy#Summary_of_proposals. As for correct spelling and grammar... it is so obvious, nobody has needed to make a proposal. — Erin (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree composition is cool but I find the blurred foreground distracting and the out of focus sheep bother me. Veledan 01:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 13 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Calderwood 09:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wayanad Yana.jpg not featured[edit]

Self nomination Nice shadows on trees, and by the way there is an elephant. --BostonMA 04:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see anything special and the elephant is hardly seen. --Dada 11:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 15:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, ack Dada --che 15:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 01:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 08:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If you have to explain the picture, then it does not work LoopZilla 11:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 0 support, 6 oppose → not featured Calderwood 09:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Abbey Averbode 1.jpg not featured[edit]

Self nomination Well, it captured the atmosphere excellently. Myself I like the available detail but, just fire away.. :) I'm pretty new to photography and this is one of my early Powershot S70 pics--JH-man 09:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)//[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 15:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose foreground is too dark, masked curves adjustion on local contrast enhancement might be able to improve that --che 15:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 01:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 08:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting -- Gorgo 12:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 08:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Rex 23:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 0 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Calderwood 09:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Steam locomotive work.gif featured[edit]

Support and Nominate Was featured on de.wikipedia, bevor it has been uploaded. Schaengel89 19:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatoute 12:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. the original size version looks good. --SehLax 18:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Roger McLassus 18:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 01:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Janeznovak 08:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wikimol 09:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca ✉ 11:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice and clear, but: ~~Way too fast for me (e. g. you can hardly see what's happening at the second wheel),~~ the small wheel doesn't seem to rotate properly and you don't see, where the gas exhausts norro 11:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe the speed of animated gifs is often dependent on the user's browser, regardless of what speed the creator has set. I think IE used to have quite a slow "max" speed, whereas Firefox actually follows what the file has set, so images that used to look OK in IE often look awful in Firefox. pfctdayelise 14:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, speed is given by the delays between the single pictures. I doubt that current browsers (like IE, FF for example) ignore that. The duration of one loop of this animation is not even one second, when i look at it with Firefox or Konqueror. norro 20:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Tbc 13:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC) I agree with norro[reply]
Support - MartinD 11:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- skINMATE 22:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slowed down. ed g2s • talk 15:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LoopZilla 23:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - thanks ed for making it slow enough to follow! - MPF 16:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI: There's another, very similar animation on Wikipedia, which I think is graphically much better: Walschaert_gear_forward.gif --Janke | Talk 08:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Calderwood 09:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006-01-21 Ring of love.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support --Roger McLassus 18:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Pouétique. Also, can't help a diagonal smile when I see that the most proeminent word on the dictionnary is LOATH (in small caps) :p -- Rama 13:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Briseis 14:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nyeh. a bit contrived, although well executed. pfctdayelise 14:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 08:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 07:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Contrived. --Pmsyyz 16:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neutrality 03:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bit much, sorry --Quasipalm 04:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 16:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 05:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support OldTV 08:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dti 09:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 08:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - does it illustrate anything or is it just art for itself? Halibutt 12:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is both art and illustration. The picture shows the dependency of the shape of an object's drop shadow on the geometry of the plane of projection. --Roger McLassus 20:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with the opposers — Pixel8 17:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Calderwood 09:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006-01-21 Detaching drop.jpg featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support —Roger McLassus 18:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Rama 13:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Briseis 14:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- i corrected the wall color Tatoute 22:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting norro 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive Calderwood 08:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 07:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 23:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mayamaxima 16:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 08:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose → featured Calderwood 09:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brazilian_National_Congress.jpg, Featured[edit]

Self nomination --Zimbres 2006-January-22
Neutral maybe a bit too gray... Isn't there a law about the photos of recent architectures and copyright in Brazil? ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 19:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no image copyright of any permanent public work in Brazilian copyright Law. This building is a work of Niemeyer, an important brazilian architect" Zimbres 13:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support correction of grey foreground overexpose the sky, so it is the real ligth of the scene... Tatoute 22:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- and the rain is amazing -- YolanC 23:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Wikimol 00:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --che 02:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 23:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Confusing: is the rain thing always on this sort of a cup ? (I don't think so, but it looks like a nuclear station funnel; I would prefer something which describes the subject rather than play with it). Rama 16:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjancic 06:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is the subject? The rain or the building? Both is not that special and i don't understand the composition norro 20:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sam916 03:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose funny picture (is it really just raining into that bowl?), but appart from that it's not that special -- Gorgo 12:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - A clever pic lining up the distant rain shower with the bowl on the roof so that it looks like the one is falling in the other. But as a building, its photogenicity leaves a lot to be desired! A good mark for the photography, a bad one for the building's architect. - MPF 12:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The building was planned and executed at some time between late 1950s and early 60s (wp article on Oscar Niemeyer does not give the exact date). Many of the architectural details are typical of this period. Samsara 12:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hein 08:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice futuristic shot, the Earth extending into the sky and the sky into the Earth. Circle of life. Allegorical, but unclear what its use in an encyclopedia would be. - Samsara 13:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Samsara. Its usability for an encyclopedia is not necassary. The commons are the media project for all other wikimedia projects. Wikipedia is just one of several of them. norro 16:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Parassimpa 14:19, 01 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not exceptional. --Lumijaguaari 22:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 23:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: should Image:Brasilia_National_Congress.JPG be nominated as well? Samsara 12:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Witty. Impressive. Beautiful cold hues and great composition (both physically and allegorically)--Piolinfax 14:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a long time to decide. The qualities of both the photograph and the building are not convincing, but the rain that seems to fall into the "bowl" definitely gives some distinction to the picture. So finally I Support it. Calderwood 16:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 Support, 4 oppose, 4 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 08:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Polistes chinensis antennalis flickr.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

File:Polistes chinensis antennalis flickr crop.jpg

Nominate

and  Support --Jnn 04:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Rama 13:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, lighting, noisy norro 23:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Rex 01:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Norro --Calderwood 08:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quasipalm 04:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 05:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dito norro -- Gorgo 12:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 08:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral a cropped version would be beautiful for an article about the insect. - Samsara 13:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I performed the cropping. But unfortunately only parts of the animal are sufficiently sharp. Calderwood 19:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 6 Oppose, 3 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 08:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Puente de San Vicente.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

—Alhen ♐... 03:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Alhen ♐... 03:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bridge is not the subject of the photograph; it's a rather common photo, otherwise. Rama 16:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition is a little bit weird. -- Gorgo 12:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 07:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfection! LoopZilla 18:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great even if the bridge would be not the subject - which I think it is - this would be no reason to vote against a picture here Andreas Tille 11:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with Andreas and praise for unusual low-tide perspective. - Samsara 12:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture — Pixel8 17:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shot. --Piolinfax 14:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 Support, 3 Oppose => Featured--Shizhao 02:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bill Thompson (Tasmanian convict).jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

Picture of a prisoner brought to Australia, dates to the 1870s. Resolution is OK. I find it quite haunting. --pfctdayelise 02:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support pfctdayelise 02:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Low --Shizhao 02:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. IJzeren Jan 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Facial expression signals uncertainty. A constrained man in a wild and new country - romanticism and punishment - what awaits? Great historic material, let's have more of this! - Samsara 12:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really interesting--Piolinfax 14:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the colours, but I Support the edited version without them. Calderwood 16:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

origin: 4 support, 1 Oppose. =>Not Featured.--Shizhao 02:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
edited: 5 support, 1 Oppose=>Featured.--Shizhao 15:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Raia da Atalaia Fernando de Noronha 05.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nom & Support - uploaded from flickr --Wikimol 00:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 17:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 21:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatoute 17:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tbc 00:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Pixel8 17:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 support => Featured--Shizhao 02:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chinese_Hibiscus.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

I'm quite new here, and I'm trying to get used to this process. If you oppose my picture, please tell me why, as I am trying to improve my photography skills.

Self nomination --P. B. Mann 19:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just another pretty flower picture. --Dschwen 19:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 07:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition (centered), partly blurry (too low depfth of field), low contrast norro 15:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 00:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 23:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Calderwood 11:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - more focus in foreground required (stigma) -> longer exposure? Warmer lighting and slightly more saturation desirable. Nice rain drops. - Samsara 12:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 6 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 06:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jiuzhaigou Pearl Waterfall 2005-08-21.jpeg, Featured[edit]

Self nomination & Support -- Jiuzhaigou National Park in China. No-w-ay 04:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC) invalid vote (fake-signature) Kessa Ligerro 21:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC) - not a fake this case Roger McLassus 09:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice! MPF 16:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dti 09:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it surely is a nice waterfall, but I think the point of view is not the best one, so it doesn't seem that impressive. In this pictures it's just another waterfall. Also needs color correction. -- Gorgo 12:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 23:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Gorgo Calderwood 11:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - imaginative photography. The mist, the wilderness, the well-spaced diagonal composition with the waterfall gently curving away, out of sight. - Samsara 12:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Samsara put it well. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 15:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Samsara — Pixel8 17:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Piolinfax 11:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 2 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Featured --Shizhao 06:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured Kessa Ligerro 21:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
corrected back (see above) Roger McLassus 09:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:United States Northern Command emblem.png, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Would be better as PNG or SVG, but high enough resolution not to matter that much.  --Pmsyyz 16:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I can't see anything special and it really should be available as SVG or PNG norro 19:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, ACK norro.--Dschwen 23:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, agree Norro--Shizhao 01:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It´s undoubtly not a featurd picture.--Wikiwert 07:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Frankly, it is ugly. Rama 15:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 23:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 08:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Dti 09:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 11:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- PNGed. ed g2s • talk 23:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Georgia Aquarium - Giant Grouper.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

—Shizhao 03:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Shizhao 03:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjancic 06:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- yes! Tatoute 06:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- yes!, but image would have much more value with the grouper identified -- Lycaon 07:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 07:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 14:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support IJzeren Jan 16:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC). Lovely![reply]
Support --Mayamaxima 16:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 01:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --69.163.150.70 04:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please login or register before voting. -- Get_It (Talk) 23:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 23:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fabien1309 15:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 08:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 11:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 11:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Piolinfax 13:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Roger McLassus 19:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15 Support, 1 neutral => Featured --Shizhao 02:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coix lacryma-jobi inflorescence.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

Mikaduki 13:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - not outstanding --Buchling 22:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 23:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Buchling Calderwood 11:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - valuable depiction of a monoecious plant. Commended but maybe not featured quality. Crop? - Samsara 12:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like the other featured nature pictures, very well done. Messedrocker 15:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (now that I've look at this for a 100 times) I find this plant photo very good - sth I would definitely cherish finding if I were searching for info about this particular plant. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 4 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 15:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ruppberg Sonnenaufgang.jpg featured[edit]

Self nomination. I hope it's okay to nominate panoramas in a bigger width so they're not that small --SehLax 21:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Light. -- Get_It (Talk) 23:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support even tho' the shadows look odd - MPF 00:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support i like it --Buchling 01:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 04:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Briseis 12:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 13:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dti 09:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral What is it intended to illustrate? // Liftarn
Support Tbc 17:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is intented to illustrate a Sonnenaufgang! Sehr schön. --Lumijaguaari 21:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The pinkish languid light... The firs, wrapped up in warm snow, as if they were silently worshiping a sun calmly dying... --Piolinfax 13:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- removed ~~ugly electric cable~~ nice beer rope ;D Tatoute 15:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even see it on my own pic, but thanks anyway. PS: It was the rope of a lift which is used for beer in summer :-) --SehLax 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just... beautiful. Messedrocker 15:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support VIGNERON 16:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 12 support, 2 neutral →  Calderwood 09:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006-01-28 Bread canyon.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support. What appears to be a lack of sharpness is just a feature of this kind of bread. It looked asame through a magnifier. —Roger McLassus 21:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great idea and well done. --SehLax 21:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - snow-capped peaks as well as a canyon! - MPF 00:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice idea, quality is ok, too --Buchling 01:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good idea --Briseis 12:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - i don't think it a very special view --che 17:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 08:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would like to look deeper into the canyons (less direct light, longer exposure, closer) norro 10:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive Calderwood 11:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 21:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK che — Pixel8 17:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Tatoute 17:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kessa Ligerro 18:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - can't bring myself to like it. - Samsara 02:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - The same for me. Maybe because of the blue light from below - No-w-ay 12:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC) invalid vote (fake-signature) Kessa Ligerro 21:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too close up. Messedrocker 15:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose => not featured Kessa Ligerro 21:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Smooches (baby and child kiss).jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Picture of the day on Valentine's :). Thought it would be fitting for this to be a featured picture before the big day comes.

Nominate. --64.231.190.171 21:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - maybe sweet, but not that exceptional --Buchling 22:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Buchling Hein 08:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Romary 11:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – dangerously borderline to pedophilia. Not to mention pouétique and vulgar and bad taste. Rama 16:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this has anything to do with pedophilia. It's only a picture of 2 kids. And how is it vulgar and in bad taste? --65.95.201.142 04:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with pedophilia, I was merely mocking both the usual chant of people who would, say, see a teddy bear on an image depicting grow-ups making love, and the fascination for "childish innocence". That said, I consider the image vulgar because there are gazillions of postcards showing precisely this, all of them being certain that they are very cute, and most, if not all of them, being very wrong. Vulgarity is just this: doing exactly what others do, because they do it, without thinking any further. Children kissing are not cute, they are sticky. Rama 01:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word you're looking for is cliché or kitsch, but I don't see how this picture in particular is very wrong. --64.231.212.208 07:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose has nothing to do with pedophilia, but looks like an every day shot. Not that exceptional norro 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. And it has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia, vulgarity or bad taste. MartinD 08:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a nice picture, but not outstanding. I guess nearly everyone with two or more children has got a similar one. ~~Only a sick mind can associate it with pedophilia or vulgarity.~~ Calderwood 11:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no personal attacks, please. Rama and every user has the right to give reasons for his vote norro 15:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC) - Sorry. I stroke my last sentence out. Calderwood 21:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC) - Thank you. norro 17:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sisterly affection for a younger child. Could be worked into many articles, including biology of helpers at the nest. If you have better ones, submit and nominate them! - Samsara 12:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice picture, but not very sharp and the colours don't match. Roger McLassus 07:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Everytime I go into a bookstore&co. I see photos of this type on calendars, etc.. that has become common.. and boring, for me. Tvpm 11:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 17:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support， 8 Oppose， 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 06:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Montreal City Hall Jan 2006.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 15:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Sharp and beautiful 29 Megapixels picture ... Looks like a haunted house ! Fabien1309 15:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 17:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 08:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatoute 15:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 20:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 11:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To show the building it would be better with a daytime photo. But it's a nice picture. // Liftarn
Support Roger McLassus 07:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome. Why is my screen only 17"? --Lumijaguaari 21:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice -- Gorgo 22:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great resolution and light! --Jacopo86 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support—FoeNyx 12:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very big feat for taking a picture at night. A daytime picture of the same thing would be great too! Messedrocker 15:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support background image FML ^hi 03:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 Support, 1 Oppose => Featured--Shizhao 06:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:US Capitol dome Jan 2006.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

— Outstanding resolution : please, see full size - Fabien1309 12:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 12:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it is a pity that until just now such an amazing picture was a total orphan. pfctdayelise 13:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - fantastic and high-quality -- Godewind 14:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 18:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urban 04:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 08:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 11:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatoute 15:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 20:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 11:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Roger McLassus 07:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Morio 04:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow...! —Pixel8 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGreat image! --Jacopo86 17:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 01:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supportfantastic, great work--Florian K 04:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- skINMATE 22:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikimol 22:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like the one of that Montreal building, very nice nighttime footage. Messedrocker 15:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 18:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20 Support => Featured--Shizhao 06:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Georgia Aquarium - Sawshark Jan 2006.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 12:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 12:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 17:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 18:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On a photo of a sawshark, you should be able to see the saw in a proper way norro 10:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<joke>ok, next time i will ask him to present the best profile</joke> ;-) Tatoute 15:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you just have to show him the logo of the commons. He will know, what to do ;) norro 08:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatoute 10:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Samsara 11:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack norro -- Lycaon 23:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 23:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Piolinfax 13:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support weak support but nevertheless Calderwood 14:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poppy 23:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support—FoeNyx 12:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support, 2 oppose => Featured--Shizhao 06:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FlowersInAbbayeSaintAndre.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Park of Abbaye Saint-André inside the fortress Fort-Saint-André of Villeneuve-lez-Avignon, France

Nominate

Andreas Tille 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I pronounced not to vote for my own images - but this one was shot by my wife Andreas Tille 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral looks slightly tilleted to the left. --Dschwen 20:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not really sharp and I think the composition is boring --Buchling 22:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 08:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 11:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What does the picture want to say? Is it the vase or the flowers I should be admiring? The flowers are not that great at this angle, the background is meaningless. Also, standing right in front of it doesn't help. I'd like a shot where photographer is standing diagonally above (say, on the railing shown) and using the vase as a foregound element for a shot of the vast expanse of property behind (I assume?). Anyway, so much for wishing... - Samsara 12:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 17:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 13:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very heartwarming. Messedrocker 15:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 6 Oppose, 1 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rogatywka.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Soldier of the Polish Army Honour Guard Company wearing a rogatywka cap at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Warsaw at Saxon Square

Self nomination --Halibutt 12:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I must say that I can't really see an obvious usage to this photo on Wikipedia, but it says what it says, and quite well. Rama 16:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me it does not say anything Calderwood 11:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - again, not clear what the meaning is - the name of the picture is apparently the name of the hat of the soldier. However, it is shot as though illustrating some meaningful historical moment. A solder visiting another soldier's grave. However, the actual event seems to have been minor, routine. Do we believe that this soldier was touched by the experience, that he had the deep feelings (gratitude, reflection on his own sacrificial position) implied? It is a wonderful picture, maybe it needs more explanation? - Samsara 12:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great pathos LoopZilla 09:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Piolinfax 13:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 13:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 22:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 04:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 07:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 6 Oppose => Not Featured --Shizhao 02:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Procyon lotor (xndr).JPG, Not Featured[edit]

This is great. --Paroxysm 03:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- very cute - Urban 04:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 08:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing special — Lycaon 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Rama 15:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose maybe cute but too simple lighting and composition --SehLax 17:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SehLax. --Dschwen 20:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Calderwood 11:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tongue stuck out is nicely caught, but dull eyes and nervous background spoil. Better racoon picture nominated further below. - Samsara 12:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 13:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 23:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cute, but this isn't the stuff of featured pictures. Messedrocker 15:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 Support， 7 Oppose， 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Knaeckebroed.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nomination, it's a nice picture that shows the subject. Liftarn 18:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same problem as with the bugatti engine pic. Too cluttered. Wood panel wall, tree and dominating paper wrapping distract from the main subject. Also the pic is too small. --Dschwen 19:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Dschwen Calderwood 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 09:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Romary 12:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 17:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support not too bothered about the tree; overall, the picture conveys an appealing rural atmosphere. - Samsara 12:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 14:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Dschwen norro 16:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Dschwen + I somehow dislike the colours of the image --Wikimol 22:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 8 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Charleston Hot peppers white background.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nomination, very nice picture and not so arty it obscures the usefullness. // Liftarn 18:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very sharp. Also, a cyclic arrangement is inappropriate, since the development of pepper is not a cyclic process. Red pepper will never get green again as the picture suggests. Calderwood 11:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp and a bit grainy even. — Lycaon 14:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 05:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - cut-out from background - MPF 18:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 20:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose so, a couple of chilis against a glaring white background. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Nice imaginative picture No-w-ay 12:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC) invalid vote (fake-signature) Kessa Ligerro 21:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Piolinfax 13:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously it's not a cyclic process--Neutrality 04:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really mean "support"? Your comment is an argument for "oppose" - and it is correct, therefore

Oppose Hein 14:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is obvious that it is not a cyclic process, and no reasonable person would make such a conclusion after looking at the photo. My support stands. --Neutrality 02:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC) support-symbol replaced by ordinary word to prevent miscountig of votes Calderwood 22:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - can see it having a place in articles about peppers and (premature) harvesting. - Samsara 10:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 12:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tbc 17:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TommesAC 23:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe it's unexpectedly difficult to take such a kind of photo --Morio 04:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support VIGNERON 16:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on grounds of technical quality. Grainy & fuzzy in full size, dust specks on original slide. --Janke | Talk 09:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, agree with Janke. --Dschwen 07:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very cool. pfctdayelise 07:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support awesome. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 14:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support, 10 oppose => not featured Kessa Ligerro 21:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bugattiengine.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

The engine bay of a 1929 Bugatti T 37 A.

Self nomination, Just look at the engine. They don't make them like that any more. The clean engine bay makes a nice contrast to the mud splatted exterior. // Liftarn 18:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cluttered composition, legs in the foreground. --Dschwen 19:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Dschwen Calderwood 21:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Samsara 10:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose legs in foreground Tbc 17:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose you'd better make another picture without the leg Hein 14:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice picture and lends variety Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Piolinfax 13:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support VIGNERON 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A better composition might get my support. --Janke | Talk 09:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 7 Oppose => Not Featured --Shizhao 02:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Asterisk with jpg-artefacts.png, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support. The graphics was produced from Asterisk.png () by reduction in size, conversion into jpeg (with low quality),  re-magnification, and automatic colour-correction in photoshop. -—Roger McLassus 07:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Technically instructive, esthetically appealing, and funny Calderwood 11:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't see a featured picture here. -- YolanC 17:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think that this is really illustrative. There are several effects mixed, so it does not show the influence of JPEG-compression, because the layman can't seperate it from the influence of resizing, and colour-correction. Furthermore you would need to see the original picture, to evaluate the effects. Btw: I like the paradoxical fact, that this is an PNG, to illustrate JPEG-arteacts ;) norro 17:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It demonstrates what it is supposed to, but I see no beauty or excellence. — Erin (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 17:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 21:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 23:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the unexpected face gives the picture some distinction Hein 14:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this not an ideal picture to illustrate jpeg artefacts — Pixel8 16:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the jpeg artefacts are demonstrated here in quite a dramatic way. Could you explain your judgement? Roger McLassus 10:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--Shizhao 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral FML ^hi 03:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Wing-Chi 07:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 Support, 8 Oppose, 1 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006-02-01 Bulb.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Roger McLassus 20:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Cut at the bottom and a bit dark. --Dschwen 20:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I agree Dschwen and there is Image:Gluehlampe 01 KMJ.jpg. YolanC 21:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the "Gluehlampe", but it has a big disturbing cloud which my picture is free of. Roger McLassus 10:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per YolanC. Samsara 12:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Piolinfax 13:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Dschwen Hein 14:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would not mind the cutting, since the bulb cannot levitate, but the picture is too dark anyway Calderwood 12:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 03:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Map Chuuk Islands1.png, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Map is in PNG, because all maps from Featured pictures are in this format, see: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Maps Aotearoa 16:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've been doing it like this for ages is a really weak argument, especially since the policy is pretty new. Commons supports the SVG only for a few months now. Don't feel offended by the oppose, provide an SVG version and I'll happily support. (check SVG Factory if your mapping software does not support SVG). --Dschwen 18:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ anonymous votes do not count Calderwood 11:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose Hard work but we're encouraging SVG format for maps these days. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inappropriate file format. SVG please (clickable text would be the sugar on top). --Dschwen 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Dschwen & Bastique comments. Furthermore SVG would offer the possibility to translate into other languages ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 21:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is an excellent map. But if someone can show that maps in png-format generally must not be favoured, I'll change my vote. Hein 14:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ACK Hein Calderwood 12:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support out of opposition to those who think SVG is a good thing (how does one edit SVG? I tried with another SVG pic, and none of my 3 picture editing progs would even open it) - MPF 19:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Inkscape or Sodipodi, both are free. Or Adobe Illustrator if you own it. I didn't make up the rule, but it is a fact, that the desired format for vector graphics is SVG. And frankly there are good arguments against it. --Dschwen 18:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Roger McLassus 19:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- it could be better in SVG, MPF which software did you use ? -- YolanC 23:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSPaint, Paint Shop Pro 7, Photoshop 5.0 LE - MPF

Dschwen said it, you can use Inkscape or Sodipodi they open SVG and they are free. YolanC 13:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--Shizhao 01:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 04:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 Support, 6 Oppose => Not Featured --Shizhao 03:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Karachi - Pakistan-market.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 22:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Lovely colours ! - Fabien1309 22:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dschwen 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aotearoa 07:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many colours for my taste. And I miss the consent of the person shown. Hein 14:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Composition is nearly perfect. Lighting of the person is not too good, but sufficient => pro. But did the man give his agreement, to release this picture under the terms of CC-BY? norro 15:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little on the small side, but good colours — Pixel8 16:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 19:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great pic Veledan 01:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 14:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Piolinfax 15:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 19:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 01:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Great colours Oliver Kurmis 17:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ACK norro Calderwood 14:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice picture even though resolution is a little bit smallish. While I somehow agree with the license problems, I don't think it's a good reason to opose the fp request, the normal way of dealing with license issues is to ask the author and/or a deletion request. -- Gorgo 00:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Absolutely. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 14:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13 Support, 1 Oppose, 2 neutral => Featured--Shizhao 02:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zion angels landing view.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 22:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in the English Wikipedia Roger McLassus 10:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Fabien1309 22:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dschwen 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban 05:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 09:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Roger McLassus 11:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support a good picture of an impressive valley Hein 14:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surreal mood. I like it norro 16:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great view! Roger McLassus 16:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Pixel8 16:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kessa Ligerro 18:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 12:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 14:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Piolinfax 15:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice image but strong compression artefacts (higher quality?) —Cyc 16:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent view, quality is fine for me --che 17:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (tho' would like to see a bit more location detail on the pic caption) - MPF 19:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack MPF -- Lycaon 03:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 09:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution too low and "enhanced with Photoshop" appearance LoopZilla 11:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, reluctantly. I refer to LoopZilla's comments. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mikaduki 16:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful picture, but the quality is a bit dull. Messedrocker 14:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wing-Chi 07:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support *drew 22:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 13:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Psy guy 23:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22 Support, 4 Oppose => Featured --Shizhao 02:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gélinotte huppée réserve de matane (2005-08).JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

—Sébastien Savard 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Sébastien Savard 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good pic but don't like composition: bird too small and partly hidden ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose subject too small and distracting background/environment. --Dschwen 23:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Dschen and the exposure is also not very outstanding --SehLax 11:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for already mentioned reasons Hein 14:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Dschwen, SehLax norro 16:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 12:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why should only the bird be the thematic centre of the pic? I like the slightly chaotic mix of its few colours, and many elements in different degrees of sharpness. I find interesting the "distraction" created by the richness of the general, complex texture. The soft, uneven mix of greens, browns and lilacs dotted with reds makes the feeling linger. --Piolinfax 15:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree strongly with Piolinfax. And how many of the opposers have actually tried to take photos of wild birds? - MPF 19:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me, and I'm still not wowed. --Dschwen 18:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--Shizhao 01:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject blends into background. --Janke | Talk 08:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If this picture were a generic picture of nature, I'd support. But this is supposed to be the picture of a specific bird, who is not as visible in the photograph as it should be. Messedrocker 14:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's neither a very good picture of the bird, the nature nor both. -- Gorgo 16:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 9 Oppose, 1 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sinclair_Wetlands.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

- Samsara 11:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 11:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pictures don't become better by simply combining them to a panorama Hein 14:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Dschwen and SehLax Calderwood 12:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Hein --che 17:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too wide. Either you can only see a little bit at a go, or else you can only see a narrow strip. - MPF 19:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 04:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral not too thrilling (apart from beeing panoramic) and the horizon is pretty wavy. --Dschwen 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral don't like the cut trees at the left top. Maybe it's even too wide ... --SehLax 11:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Is it entirely made with photoshop, or with other Panorama software? ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 13:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatoute 14:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Samsara 17:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice! --Dada 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this! I think the quality is really good. Though the uses might be a bit limited due to a huge size...--Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting, beautiful picture... Messedrocker 15:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support VIGNERON 16:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Somehow, the horizon (even not actually visible) seems crooked, also blown-out sky. Nice picture, though. --Janke | Talk 09:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto dschwen + Hein -- Gorgo 16:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 Support, 7 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Egypt-hurghada-sea03.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

Ebief 16:09, 3. Feb 2006 (UTC) (Signature added by norro 13:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose boring Calderwood 12:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ...and not really sharp --Buchling 18:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Vague" comes to mind. Samsara 22:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - bad composition - horizon line "somewhere near the middle". Interesting objects - the kitesurfers - are really tinny. Major part of the image is occupied by boring sky and uninteresting sea. --Wikimol 22:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 20:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Wing-Chi 07:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 oppose → not featured Calderwood 20:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amiga500_system1.jpg not featured[edit]

Self nomination —Pixel8 12:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good rez and a nice full system. // Liftarn
Oppose Technically good, but boring. Could be out of a sales catalog Hein 14:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow does this bring some positive memories to mind... Anyhow, I guess the question is "Should we have featured pics of pieces of hardware?" I reckon the community's answer is a reluctant 'yes' and I'm giving this 'friend' a roman-emperor-style thumbs-up since the quality of the picture is good. I'd take it into my catalogue if I were a computer dealer. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Me too. But the quality-criteria for computer dealers are different from those for featured pictures. Roger McLassus 16:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I changed my mind, I enjoy more this one Image:Amiga500 system.jpg
Support -- Rama 17:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Hein Kessa Ligerro 18:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 05:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 12:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 11:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mmm... Messedrocker 14:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! very good FML ^hi 03:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Professional looking image! --Janke | Talk 09:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, good resolution --startaq 21:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose → not featured Calderwood 20:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006-02-03 Segmental reflection.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support. The picture shows a flourescent lamp with segmental reflectors. The background is necessarily black, otherwise the lamp would be too bright. Roger McLassus 11:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't like the composition --SehLax 11:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do Hein 14:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I didn't get an idea of the object, when first looking at it. Composition is boring and i don't like the colours norro 15:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with norro — Pixel8 16:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kessa Ligerro 18:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 05:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The colors on the picture are too warm for a fluorescent lamp No-w-ay 12:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC) invalid vote (fake-signature) Kessa Ligerro 21:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you tell the colour of my lamp? -:) Seriously - the colour is intended, because the luminosity of the lamp is reduced to enhance its visibility. This reduction means a decrease in ratiation temperature and therefore a redshift according to the laws of physics. Apart from this, the topic of my picture is not the flourescent lamp but the segmental reflection with leads to the (at least for me) attractive effect of repetition. Roger McLassus 09:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrmmm... "redshift" is something else (check the wikilink). And it's only incandescent lamps that get really reddish when dimmed. This is fluorescent, right? I bet the color is more due to the color temperature setting on your camera. --Janke | Talk 08:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply made it clear to me that I misformulated what I wanted to say. I didn't manipulate the lamp itself, only its apparent luminosity by selecting a very short exposure time. By the way: I didn't mean the redshift of the Wikipedia-article (I am a physicist myself and quite familiar with this concept). The word "redshift" has more meanings, some of which you find listed under red shift, but the use of one or the other spelling is rather arbitrary. Roger McLassus 15:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, by the way. --Janke | Talk 08:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, but what's segmental reflection? It would be nice if some of the beautiful images nominated here were actually used in articles when appropriate...! Don't hide them away! pfctdayelise 07:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose => not featured Kessa Ligerro 21:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Antelope Canyon Mittags.jpg featured[edit]

Nominate

— Rainer Haessner 11:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support great atmosphere --SehLax 11:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice atmosphere but low quality Hein 14:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ACK SehLax, quality seems good to me norro 15:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting — Pixel8 16:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- Tatoute 17:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- dark -- YolanC 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Urban 05:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral bad lighting, ~~and what country?~~ -- Lycaon 13:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC) edit Lycaon 16:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arizona, USA Roger McLassus 15:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Support (but would like to see the above details added to the pic) - MPF 19:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The vertical ray makes the picture too complex. I'd support otherwise. - User:Samsara 21:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. From what I know, the vertical ray is what tons of photographers are waiting for each day :-). Well captured. --Dschwen 08:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MartinD 09:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support weak support (nice but low quality) Calderwood 14:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice, quality is ok, but license lacks traceability (uploader = author? permission from author somehow given?) -- Gorgo 23:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, what could be improved? I am the uploader, I made it with the agreement of the photographer, who didn't want to create an own account. Shall I append this notice to the picture description? At least the email address of the photographer is given, it is not difficult to google additional informations. Rhaessner 08:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]

ya, just add a short sentence that you got the permission from the author, or that you are the author yourself and everybody is happy :) Otherwise it's just unclear why a particular file is under this license. Thanks for the update. -- Gorgo 15:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just for information : see also, Image:Bild_478.jpg, an already featured picture of Antelope Canyon. (it's not intented to lower the value of the current candidate) --FoeNyx 12:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support FML ^hi 03:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wing-Chi 07:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 14:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral →  Calderwood 20:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006-02-04 Metal spiral.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support — Roger McLassus 23:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Shizhao 01:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 21:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Samsara 22:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am not all that fond of the colours, I fear. Rama 08:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 09:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ubuntuist 19:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 14:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Subject is goog but don't like the grey background. White would be better -- No-w-ay 09:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC) User No-w-ay is a fake (really ID 139.165.204.186) and his vote invalid. Therefore I stroke it out, which led to a change of the result Kessa Ligerro 20:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If the background were exactly white, it would simply disappear and could not show the effect of distance by gradually getting darker Roger McLassus 09:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose yes boring. Darkone 13:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautifully illustrates the slinky. Messedrocker 14:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, very much shadows. FML ^hi 03:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK No-w-ay norro 10:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Andreas Tille 06:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 13:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 13:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very interesting --Tq 22:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => Featured Kessa Ligerro 20:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pardalotus06.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Pretty good shot of a v. small bird

Self Nom --fir0002 10:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 19:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --- Urban 05:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 21:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - excellent capture of the bird, but needs more contrasting (lighter) background. - Samsara 10:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ubuntuist 19:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Messy background is distracting. --Janke | Talk 08:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 5 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 12:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Haeckel Actiniae.jpg featured[edit]

Nominate and support Ragesoss 07:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
in the English Wikipedia Roger McLassus 10:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 07:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--No-w-ay 09:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Rhaessner 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose---Poppy 23:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC). I just don't like it.[reply]

Comment Ummm, are we now voting on paintings from the 19th century?!--Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of featured pictures already that are old maps or diagrams or other non-photographic images. Why wouldn't we vote on a 19th century lithographic, if it's interesting, attractive, and historically significant? It's about to become a FP on English Wikipedia, 14 to 0.--Ragesoss 05:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well it's just that there's a ton of lovely lovely paintings here on Commons by the great masters and the not-so-well-known masters - would it be okay to start nominating them or will the angry mob crush me if I do? Well, not that I am absolutely going to, now that I think of it - it's kind of pointless, isn't it... oh well. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly be likely to support such images, if they are hi-res and high quality. But I'm pretty new to this process; maybe there really is a policy or consensus against that/this kind of thing.--Ragesoss 05:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this question at Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Pictures_of_art and received precisely zero comments. pfctdayelise 07:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a short reply there. Come on people, let's have some opinions on this. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a typical encyclopedic illustration of its era. Beautiful lithography! --Janke | Talk 08:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Before I decide I'd like to learn about these horizontal lines in the centre. Are they scanner-artefacts or part of the picture? Since only one of the many objects on the picture is scratched in this way, they probabely were already on the scanned print. But they make no sense to me. Calderwood 09:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are either artifacts of the original lithographic process or actually part of the original template. In any case, they are not scanner artifacts (and neither is the diagonal pattern that can be seen when you view it at full resolution)--Ragesoss 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further investigation, I found that other scans elsewhere, from other copies, also have those horizontal lines.--Ragesoss 03:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the techniques used for lithography were truly amazing, sometimes a dozen stone plates were prepared for as many printing colors, and the artist had to do the colour separation in his mind! The lines are the actual handiwork of the artist - sometime they used tools, like finely toothed steel knives, to scratch in details of their design. --Janke | Talk 08:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Samsara 02:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support awesome. pfctdayelise 07:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the lines in the middle are distracting (if people will submir historica stuff I will criticise it). Also scans should be higher resolution as there is no reason not to. Justinc 10:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rodge500 20:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support totally cool --Groucho 23:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong support Jossifresco 23:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral →  Calderwood 07:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Snow Scene at Shipka Pass 1.JPG featured[edit]

Nominate

— Martyr 13:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Martyr 13:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Calderwood 14:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Little bit leaning, but very nice norro 15:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 19:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Tatoute 21:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 22:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wikimol 22:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC) looks more like a frost than "normal" snow[reply]
Neutral - cut at the top --Buchling 22:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as before (on :en). 86.138.87.64 00:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, anons can't vote -- Lycaon 07:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Wow!!! - MPF 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 06:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 07:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - What does it illustrate? // Liftarn 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It need not illustrate anything. The commons are not a wikipedia. Roger McLassus 11:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful --che 13:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 13:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MGo 20:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dschwen 22:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poppy 23:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Xauxa 23:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice high-key, "artsy" feeling. I opposed this on Wikipedia (little encyclopedic value), but support here. --Janke | Talk 08:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as before (on :en). Samsara 14:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely and wintery. pfctdayelise 07:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 13:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 13:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 08:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 24 support, 1 2 oppose, 1 neutral →  [User:Calderwood|Calderwood]] 07:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
corr. Roger McLassus 14:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panorama Girona Cases del Riu.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

— Tallaferro 00:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Tallaferro 00:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose more contrast than the camera could handle, blown out sky vs. underexposed buildings. --Dschwen 12:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 14:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Dschwen. Overexposed, lighting norro 15:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- too bright on the left, and there are 2 black strange things on the top -- YolanC 15:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- ACK Dschwen Tatoute 21:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - terrible lightning, cut at the top, and not sharp --Buchling 13:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting problems. Though I don't see the terrible lightning that Buchling mentioned...--Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ooops... ;-) --Buchling 13:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 8 oppose → not featured Calderwood 07:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hollow tree detail.jpg not featured[edit]

Self nomination. Specific angle was chosen for the partial see-through effect.
Description available in English and German. Contributor 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, I don't see anything really outstanding. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose partly unsharp and overexposed Calderwood 09:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 00:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high quality image, in my opinion. Messedrocker 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot see the high quality mentioned by Messedrocker Hein 21:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting, not that outstanding -- Gorgo 16:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose → not featured Calderwood 08:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LightbulbGlow.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate No-w-ay -- A lightbulb glowing in the dark -- 12:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting composition, very smudgy glass, blurry, noisy, cut at the bottom and no image description norro 15:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK norro MGo 20:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose glowing lightbulbs in the dark are nice indeed, but this is not "one of the finest images on Commons". --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You can do better! A new attempt, with a clean bulb, some backlighting to bring out the glass bulb and the socket, and a less conspicious clamp (hint: use leads soldered to the lamp socket, and hang it upside down by the leads while shooting - no clamp needed!), and you may have a winner! --Janke | Talk 09:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I suggest you clean the bulb before taking a photo of it Calderwood 09:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, and the lightbulb's rather smudged. Messedrocker 14:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 21:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 oppose → not featured Calderwood 08:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:8 - AmStar 7.JPG featured[edit]

10:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Nominate

— Fabien1309 12:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in the German Wikipedia Roger McLassus
Support — Fabien1309 12:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rama 14:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralVery impressive and good composition, but unfortunately cut at the top norro 14:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support not perfect but good Calderwood 16:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Awesome mood & colours. I can very well imagine a bunch of little kids standing on the rocks in awe... I agree with Norro about the cutting, but it sure does not spoil an exhilarating shot like this here. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — --Dwaipayanc 09:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 22:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 05:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wing-Chi 07:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support *drew 22:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 14:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice -- Gorgo 16:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 21:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tq 23:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow this shot is nothing short of amazing! Miskatonic 07:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting -Quasipalm 17:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit noisy, but still really nice --Groucho 23:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Go see here, pictures of the present state of the wreck. Not much left! It'll soon be fish food for good. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 07:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 08:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Solipsist 11:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice composition but the main subject is quite bright and noisy and I don't like the sky color --SehLax 15:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 19:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 19 support, 2 neutral →  Calderwood 16:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Animhorse.gif not featured[edit]

An animated cartoon, based on Eadweard Muybridge's classic photographs

Self nomination This is already a FP on Wikipedia, thought I'd nominate it here, too. This is one of the rather few animated images on Wiki, other than diagrams - perhaps the only "animated cartoon" proper? (The cartoonish face is intentional!) The sequence is rotoscoped from Eadweard Muybridge's classic 19th century photos, and contains 8 "looped" drawings, shown at 12 frames per second. --Janke | Talk 08:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
in the English Wikipedia Roger McLassus 10:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this smiling horse :) - Fabien1309 12:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support So do I Calderwood 16:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What the ...? For me just a poorly done cartoon and no clear affinity to the so said original. norro 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 00:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose...I don't know - we just elected an animation of a galloping horse to featured status, and I guess rightly so. This just doesn't cut it. Runs faster though. Sorry: gallops. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it does not illustrate the Muybridge article on WP, the animation with the real photos replaced it there, and rightly so. This illustrates rotoscoping, animated cartoon and persistence of vision in WP. --Janke | Talk 09:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tbc 14:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, we already had a galopping horse recently, but I cannot see why one horse should be an argument against another. Hein 22:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support simple FML ^hi 02:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 13:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Cute. — Erin (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A travesty of the Muybrudge photos with a horrible cartoon. Justinc 09:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 13:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- YolanC 08:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --SehLax 15:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MGo 11:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 9 oppose → not featured Calderwood 16:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:F-15 wingtip vortices.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 12:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 12:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring, seen all too often, and does not even show the vortex well — Rama 14:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 01:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's not boring, not all people work in the Air Force like U guys... --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 09:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- if I had not looked at the description, I would not have understood that the thing on the top is a KC-10 Extender. -- YolanC 13:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tbc 14:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty interesting for me, but the upper right object is distracting and the right vortex seems to be disturbed by the vortices of the photographers aircraft. Background is quite fitting norro 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can't understand how one can like military things. --SehLax 18:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said he does? I could also like good pictures of bad things, but this one does not belong to them -

Oppose Hein 16:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this photo only expresses to me "the army is glorious" --SehLax 21:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this picture should really glorify anything, then it certainly would be the air force, not the army. Calderwood 18:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3 support, 8 oppose → not featured Calderwood 17:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Utterly.butterly.aerobatics.arp.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 12:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 12:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not show the figure well (too soon in the manoeuver) — Rama 14:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose d'accord avec Rama. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose → not featured Calderwood 17:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CandlesInBuddhistTemple.JPG not featured[edit]

Self nomination Candles in buddhist temple near Emeishan, China -- No-w-ay 23:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The candles are pretty but composition and angle are not that good...--Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Lumijaguaari Calderwood 08:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. *drew 22:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 16:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Look interesting -- Lerdsuwa 13:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose → not featured Calderwood 16:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TibetanVillage.JPG not featured[edit]

Self nomination Tibetan village in Jiuzhaigou National Park, China -- No-w-ay 23:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like an enchanting place. And looks like this picture does not do justice to it. Anyway, Free Tibet! --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad composition Calderwood 08:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - makes me want to go there. The clouds make it look particularly nice - MPF 23:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fear you would be disappointed. The actual Tibet has nothing to do with "7 years in Tibet" Rhaessner 09:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Never heard of "7 years in Tibet" before and couldn't give a toss about it (had to google it to find out it was a film). I'm far more interested in those trees growing on the slopes behind the village ;-) MPF
Oppose Urban 06:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the central theme of the picture is not vividly portrayed. --Wing-Chi 07:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose *drew 22:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition (would prefer more at the bottom), lighting (foreground quite dark) --SehLax 18:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 16:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto sehlax -- Gorgo 16:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 9 oppose → not featured Calderwood 16:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Salzwasser Wavisbay.JPG not featured[edit]

Self nomination Hsuepfle 18:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's explanation: "Salt-crust on saline pond" Calderwood 21:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support cropped version Calderwood 21:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'd still prefer the uncropped version due to the prettier range of colors. But the image is missing some scale, the thumbnail looks like a sat pic from mars.--Dschwen 07:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Urban 06:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the cropped version --SehLax 18:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's probably a good picture to illustrate a wp-article but I don't think it's good enough to be featured -- Gorgo 16:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose → not featured Calderwood 16:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mh eisenbahnweiche mit handhebel.jpeg not featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support This is a very nice image. Messedrocker 15:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You made quite a mess with the templates. Please read the instructions carefully before nominating a picture! Calderwood 16:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but quality too low norro 17:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Forgot to vote - ACK norro Calderwood 17:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if the resolution was sky high, I couldn't see the exceptionality - I guess I'm just enough of a train fan. I had a big set of Märklins as a kid though...but I have to oppose this. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. illustrative for the ones who never saw such a point but composition & resolution are not that exceptional --SehLax 18:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto sehlax -- Gorgo 16:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK SehLax Hein 16:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose → not featured Calderwood 16:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Posttower Bonn 001.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

— Shizhao 03:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Shizhao 03:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Amazing architecture, nice framing, good photography. I only wonder whether there is an angle that gets the bushes (bottom left) out of the way, and whether we have to half look into the sun - or is that the great thing about it? Sitting on the fence here. - Samsara 04:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Framing is great, but resolution is low LoopZilla 09:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, but the lighting isn't that great. Messedrocker 14:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Messedrocker Calderwood 21:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --che 01:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 05:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice framing. pfctdayelise 07:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support *drew 22:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support after some hard thinking. PS. I don't know what kind of resolution requirements LoopZilla has - to me it was adequate. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 14:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tower is leaning a bit and I don't adore it that much anyway --SehLax 18:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ditto to Messedrocker - MPF 01:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not so impressive Hein 16:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 17:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A higher resolution would be nice, but the overall effect is spectacular. --Groucho 22:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --137.248.1.11 15:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Please sign in to vote for or against featured pictures. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Calderwood 16:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tulip closeup.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support. Lovely colors and we can see details like stamen and carpel (I think, I am not an expert) with a great resolution. MisterMatt 23:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support LoopZilla 09:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The petals are blurred Calderwood 15:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not bad, but not exceptional either. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 04:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tq 13:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 2 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 13:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kerala India tea fields.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate The resolution could be higher, but just look at the surreal colouring and mood. It almost looks like a computer-generated image. This doesn't really help my travelling-fever, this... Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose insufficient resolution and lack of sharpness Calderwood 08:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support resolution is not that great, but the pictures compensates it --che 21:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 21:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The leaves in the foreground are a very good thing. Rama 23:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 07:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support *drew 22:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd support it, if the quality were better Hein 16:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 Support, 2 oppose => Featured--Shizhao 13:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006-02-13 Drop-impact.jpg featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support — Roger McLassus 22:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - illustrative, but not that exceptional and visualy striking for me. I'd like more a picture where instead of the glass would be two parallel planar glass desks, with water in between. That way it would be just watersurface + impact. Also even with the glass, lighting could be better. --Wikimol 23:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I really like it. Striking, for me. pfctdayelise 01:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Calderwood 08:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a supplement I also show the drop before its impact (the smaller image on the right) Roger McLassus 09:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rama 11:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice one --che 13:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool! Briseis 13:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SehLax 18:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wing-Chi 18:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also like the other picture Hein 16:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lighting could be better, and since this is not that hard a picture to take I'll oppose until a better version comes up. --Dschwen 19:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Dschwen norro 22:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree 100% with Wikimol --Groucho 22:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 08:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ack Wikimol -- Fabien1309 22:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 19:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too grey. --— Erin (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 12 support, 6 oppose →  Calderwood 00:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nightly Rotation above San Jose International Airport.jpg not featured[edit]

Self nomination --Wing-Chi 07:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 08:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose definitely not -- Gorgo 15:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 16:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anybody gives me some useful comments on how to improve this picture? With 1.3 seconds exposure time, the image is not shaked (as seen from the plane's wing), so the lights from the city blends into nearly concentric "tragetories" that reflect the rotation of the plane. --Wing-Chi 00:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the picture cannot be improved. It is already well done, but simply not sufficiently attracting. Calderwood 16:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a good experiment, but the result is not pleasing. --Groucho 22:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Kessa Ligerro 19:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 oppose → not featured Calderwood 00:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xanthoria parietina with hoar frost.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 07:33:27

InfoXanthoria parietina with hoar frost created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background – was there no way to get this branch in front of some nice shadow patch? --Siebengang (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It was already hard enough to find a branch that didn't show the rest of the bush behind it :(. Lycaon (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support—kallerna™ 13:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coffee Grinder Zassenhaus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 13:48:45

Info created by Siebengang - uploaded by Siebengang - nominated by Siebengang -- Siebengang (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Siebengang (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I raised the exposure/brightness a bit, according to the suggested File:Coffee Grinder Zassenhaus edit.jpg by User:Richard Bartz. Furthermore I tilted the crop slightly (old version did not look completely vertical). I think voting should reflect only one version, so I merge the two sections (hope that's ok). --Siebengang (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following five votes/comments were originally posted with regard to File:Coffee Grinder Zassenhaus edit.jpg, but I think they reflect the present version of the image as well (--Siebengang (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)):[reply]

Info I was bold and raised the exposure (of the first version) up 1 step with Adobe Lightroom. No further adjustments.
Support Nice grinder --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 19:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the colors went somewhat off by that. I can do the adjustment on the raw image as soon as I find the time for it. --Siebengang (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klar, du hast die Referenz. Ich habs mal mechanisch angehoben ;-) lg --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice ianaré (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is ordinary. The picture is composed well and this is solid work, but not extraordinary. Crapload (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just common picture. No reason for nomination for FP. --Karel (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Peripitus (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Artificial composition. Although effective at demonstrating that the mill is associated with coffee, an actual coffee mill would never be operated under these conditions. The thought evokes visions of beans shaking and spilling onto the floor. Durova (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your critique! And, yes the beans were spilling on the floor, but I just saw them as decoration and a nicely colored dark background... Maybe I will try a more encyclopaedic coffee mill action shot some time in the future, but until then this version will have to suffice. --Siebengang (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no wow factor - Man On Mission (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beckground fits perfectly. --Lošmi (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carnegiea gigantea Sonora.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 16:15:34

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sahuaro from the Sonora Desert, in Mexico -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the use of DOF here. Lycaon (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something hypnotizing here. I like it. —kallerna™ 19:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same comment as Lycaon (talk · contribs); for a close view, I think such a depth of field is disruptive. →Diti the penguin — 20:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's an odd crop, leaves the picture feeling unfinished. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. --Karel (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Without main motive--Jagro (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have the same opinion as Karel, I also think composition should have been explored better. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tachysphex specie.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 16:55:47

Info Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 16:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad 16:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 19:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impressive composition. Issues: 1) DOF - not everything is in focus, most regrettably the eye. 2) Harsh frontal flash ~~sucks~~ is suboptimal. Crapload (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasps are not like flies such that they hardly stay motionless in one place for a long time. What one can do is to burst photograph when the opportunity is right and choose from the pictures. Unfortunately, in such cases, focus stacking to get a perfect focus of each part is impossible. Thanks for your comment. --Muhammad 11:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the explanation. I think when and if everything cannot be in focus, the priority should be given to eyes. Crapload (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose subject is not clear enough and composition could be better - Man On Mission (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old man and tourists.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 19:50:38

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A contrast between cultures, economies and realities -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, location? --Aqwis (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* San Miguel Allende, Guanajuato, Mexico. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image is way too noisy and unsharp. →Diti the penguin — 20:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- should have stayed FPX ianaré (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Diti. —kallerna™ 12:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impresive. Congratulations! --Karel (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMHO too gray, no differentiation between foreground and background--Jagro (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old church door.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 20:24:17

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Graphic elements on display: Texture and contour -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The rightmost part of the door does not bring a good contrast to the photo. Maybe you should crop that part out. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Support could be a little sharper in some areas but a striking image --ianaré (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support What's behind the keyhole ? Where is it from ? Feed the hungry image description --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is at the Cuernavaca Cathedral in Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico... What´s behind??? Secrets! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great detail, and it's a picture with atmosphere. What secrets lurk behind? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition. Durova (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In my view this is an almost "Featured picture". I just don't feel this is an example of our best work... with all due ~~regard~~ respect to the creativity shown here. Crapload (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you add a category? I don't think images should be promoted to FP without one. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No, no wow. --Karel (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Needs a crop on the right. Maciej (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dori - Talk 03:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow factor - Man On Mission (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, needs a crop. —kallerna™ 13:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition and colours --Muhammad 16:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cropped. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You might want to put the cropped version in a second listing. 118.208.46.132 00:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - ** Comment Well, on a good look I do like the cropped version better. But it doesn't matter anymore, nomination is about to close. But thanks for the comment. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was me, I forgot to log in. And yas, I also prefer the cropped version. It appears a re-nomination might be in order. Any disagreement? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vierfleck Libellula quadrimaculata rb.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2009 at 20:26:39

Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Vierfleck (Libellula quadrimaculata). <- 10Mpx ->
Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot. The well-balanced DoF nicely brings up the attention to the Libellula. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Support Good shot. Could you crop it? —kallerna™ 12:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it before but I want it to be a wallpaper or a photoprint. High size doesn't work I'm afraid. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose i dont like the light --Simonizer (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There have been a few tidy-ups to the focus stacking on this image since it was nominated on en wiki here but there are still several poorly done areas --Fir0002 www 03:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low contrast between the insect and background. Crapload (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice focus on the bee. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentYou have done better. For me, the space to the left comes across as unbalanced composition since the eye is left just about dead centre. Good otherwise. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose subject mixed with background - Man On Mission (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above - mainly not appropriate background. --Karel (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colors. --Lošmi (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Broken home of adivasi.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 16:50:58

Info created by Sambit Basu - uploaded by Koustav2007 - nominated by Koustav2007 -- Koustav2007 (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Koustav2007 (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very noisy. —kallerna™ 18:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting subject, but the noise issues prevent it from being an FP. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Kuvaly (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => Rule of the fifth day: not featured. -- Lycaon (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tree dear.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2009 at 17:54:24

Info created by Asim - uploaded by Koustav2007 - nominated by Koustav De -- Koustav2007 (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Koustav2007 (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy. —kallerna™ 18:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's an interesting photo, but you should have explored better how to compose it. There are many elements in the photo, which makes a bit difficult, at the first sight, to know where to draw attention to. In my point of view, you could have explored DOF for this photo, letting the background a bit blurred. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

--ianaré (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Kuvaly (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BMW Welt interior.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 08:51:51

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna™ 12:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too noisy, composition --ianaré (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. --Karel (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => Rule of the fifth day: not featured. -- Lycaon (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Psusennes I mask by Rafaèle.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 10:14:52

Info created by Ms. Rafaele - uploaded by Leoboudv - nominated by Leoboudv -- Leoboudv (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Leoboudv (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting especially the top. Andreas 06 (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMHO subject should be centered and background totally black. A bit soft too.--Pom² (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of composition --Twdragon (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As other opposers. —kallerna™ 14:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for above reasons Maciej (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You have a potential subject in this photo. However, I oppose this photo for the same reasons above mentioned. (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Neutral--Kuvaly (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => Rule of the fifth day: not featured. -- Lycaon (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cam-based analog computer.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 13:45:55

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Twdragon (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose May be valued, but not featured. —kallerna™ 16:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor composition --ianaré (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => Rule of the fifth day: not featured. -- Lycaon (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bennett four-bar linkage.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2009 at 14:06:58

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Twdragon (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To be honest, I think this is more a descriptive picture rather than a featured one (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose May be valued, but not featured. —kallerna™ 16:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Kuvaly (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => Rule of the fifth day: not featured. -- Lycaon (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iguanamexico.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2009 at 16:59:05

Info created by Jongleur100 - uploaded by Jongleur100 - nominated by Mike Searson -- Mike Searson (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mike Searson (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow factor - Man On Mission (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My impression is that this photo is a bit overexposed Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background of the photo is distracting. —kallerna™ 16:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Kuvaly (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => Rule of the fifth day: not featured. -- Lycaon (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aphrodite (genitalia).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2009 at 06:14:43

Info created by peter klashorst - uploaded by TwoWings - nominated by -- Claus (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claus (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose useless - nothing special Gérard Janot (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lycaon (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Maciej (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, while I welcome more attempts at FPC with similar (nude) photos, this one is not good enough for FP status in my eyes. --Aqwis (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hmmm, no. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Vierge au lys.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2009 at 13:12:33

Info created by William-Adolphe Bouguereau - uploaded by Thomas Gun - nominated by Thomas Gun -- Thomas Gun (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thomas Gun (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lycaon (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is it possible to have this photo in a bigger resolution? I would approve it, but as Lycaon pointed out, its current size is below the FP requirements. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Kuvaly (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:60163 Tornado at Newcastle 31 Jan 09 pic 4.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 20:39:30

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Ultra7. Technically better then the other nomination of this pic, but easier to get due to the train being stationary. Hopefull some Wow factor? As said in the other nom, there are far better images of the particular event out there, but proper trainspotters seem to have no love for the creative commons movement). Still highly significant imo - a unique moment in railway preservation history. For full background, see image Description page. -- Ultra7 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ultra7 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of unsatisfactory image quality (noise, balance, sharpness). Sorry --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:60163 Tornado at Newcastle 31 Jan 09 pic 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2009 at 20:39:20

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Ultra7. Not a particulary great technical shot (there are far better ones out there of this particular event, but proper trainspotters seem to have no love for the creative commons movement), but highly significant imo, and difficult - a one time chance to capture a unique moment in railway preservation history, through a crowd of jostling onlookers. For full background, see image Description page. -- Ultra7 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ultra7 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of unsatisfactory image quality (color noise, overexposure, balance). Sorry --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Might I suggest Commons:Valued images? 118.208.46.132 03:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Kuvaly (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]