Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2005

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

Image:Comet-Hale-Bopp-29-03-1997_hires_adj.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate LoopZilla 17:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+ LoopZilla 17:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+ -- ADSR6581 19:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Astrograph 05:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 21:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Spundun 23:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support — FoeNyx 08:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+ \ Pabix &; 10:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose norro 19:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Thuresson 01:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Malene Thyssen 12:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Janne Karaste 09:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --PedroPVZ 17:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 11:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 15:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. --Erin (talk) 13:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 17:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Terrific image. --Tysto 21:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Meteor2017 27 June 2005 12:48 (UTC)

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured norro 1 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)

Image:Goteborg_2005.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support Swedish East India Company --Deep750 13:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

~~+ arntkaare 17:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)~~ (This was IP 84.234.183.195) norro 21:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Atamari 19:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Quasipalm 23:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 23:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Janne Karaste 09:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Shaded frames, why? --Hautala 11:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 16:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose confusing picture. --PedroPVZ 20:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Erin (talk) 13:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 17:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Odd angles; lifeless color. --Tysto 21:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured norro 1 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)

Image:NL_BurgersZoo_4589.JPG, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 13:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

+ LoopZilla 13:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Not sure this is illustrative of anything for me... --24.18.46.58 23:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) (that was me, sorry --Quasipalm 23:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC))
+ Nuno Sequeira André 13:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Interesting theme and nice colours, but the composition is lacking. --CSamulili 23:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 23:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Greudin
Oppose. --Hautala 11:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Get_It • 16:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Erin (talk) 12:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 17:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral it doesnt look that bad to have so many "oppositions", but there's something that it isnt very attractive, while the colours are remarkably beautiful. But I wouldnt mind if it was a featured picture...--PedroPVZ 18:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose This is actually a beautiful photo; I just wish there was a big fish in it or something. --Tysto 21:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Meteor2017 27 June 2005 12:48 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with Quasipalm and CSamulili --Malene Thyssen 27 June 2005 19:33 (UTC)

Result: 4 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral >= not featured norro 1 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)

Image:Matterhorn Riffelsee 2005-06-11.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 07:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

+ LoopZilla 07:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An adjusted levels version -- I (Quasipalm 22:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)) support this image:
Support - this one is OK, too. James F. (talk) 11:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support- Adjusetd one is better -Chun-hian 15:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - I like this one too, and better than non-adjusted RHorning
Support - This one is better. ADSR6581 17:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Janne Karaste 09:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. --Hautala 11:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. --Erin (talk) 12:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 17:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral -- I don't find it very remarkable, like i do with the Image:Calanques.jpg. I don't know why... Maybe its the composition. Nice colours though.--PedroPVZ 18:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Tysto 21:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Meteor2017 27 June 2005 12:50 (UTC)
Support --Malene Thyssen 27 June 2005 19:30 (UTC)

Result: 12 support, 1 neutral => featured norro 1 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)

Image:Matterhorn Riffelsee 2005-06-11.jpg, not featured[edit]

[1]

Nominate

LoopZilla 15:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

+ LoopZilla 15:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*+ -- Could be a little sharper, but I like the composition -- ADSR6581 15:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Support adjusted ver. ADSR6581 13:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 21:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. Spundun 23:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Isn't there a roller coaster in that mountain? ;) --24.18.46.58 23:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) (that was me, sorry --Quasipalm 23:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC))
Support Agree with ADSR6581 --Chun-hian 13:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support — FoeNyx 08:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 11:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --PedroPVZ 18:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 16:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Prefer adjusted version. --Erin (talk) 12:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 17:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Supported the adjusted version. --Tysto 21:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Meteor2017 27 June 2005 12:50 (UTC)

Result: 7 support, 7 oppose => not featured norro 1 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)

Image:Erithacus rubecula (Marek Szczepanek).jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support Civvi 16:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support. James F. (talk) 21:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. Let me be the first person to complain about the low resolution! :) Really nice pic though. Spundun 23:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose I second that that complaint! ;-) Great pic -- but too small for me. --24.18.46.58 23:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) (that was me, sorry --Quasipalm 23:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC))
Oppose -- Great picture, shame about the low resolution -- ADSR6581 08:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update, I've just asked the "uploader" if he has got a copy with higher resolution. Let's hope so, I think this picture deserves to become a featured picture :-D --Civvi 10:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pressing the uploader for the hires version is fine, but either way I would like to see this be featured, and if the hires version gets blurry then skrew hires... this pic is so great it doesnt deserve to lose its sharpness. I hope I am making sense. --Spundun 16:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support — FoeNyx 08:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - Rex 23:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose resolution Greudin
Oppose resolution --Hautala 11:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 16:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- PedroPVZ 00:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. I think the resolution is good enough for such a small subject. --Erin (talk) 12:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -Didactohedron 02:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose nice, but the resolution is too low--Pjotr 17:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Weak support because it's much too small to make my desktop background. --Tysto 22:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Meteor2017 27 June 2005 12:53 (UTC)
Oppose resolution --Malene Thyssen 27 June 2005 19:28 (UTC)

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose => not featured norro 1 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)

Image:Lightmatter wild cow.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

WεFt 13:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support WεFt 13:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support James F. (talk) 19:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support — FoeNyx 08:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+ — Pabix &; 11:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose resolution Greudin
Oppose resolution --Hautala 11:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 16:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. Probably the most beautiful cow I've ever seen. --Erin (talk) 12:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - nothing special - Rex 17:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 17:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support nice colours. -PedroPVZ 18:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose I love cattle as much as the next guy, but there's nothing really special here. --Tysto 22:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Meteor2017 27 June 2005 12:54 (UTC)
Support very very nice lighting and composition! Malene Thyssen 27 June 2005 19:26 (UTC)

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured norro 2 July 2005 11:56 (UTC)

Image:Cherry plums.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate, + -Didactohedron 20:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support — FoeNyx 08:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+ — Pabix &; 11:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support James F. (talk) 11:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 11:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 16:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 17:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Tysto 22:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - not very interesting - Rex 23:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Yum Chamaeleon 17:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose norro 26 June 2005 17:06 (UTC)
Oppose well: why I'm against, when I look at it I didnt knew if it was a cherry (the fruit) or a cherry tomato (very small tomatoes). Both look very different in the real word, not in the pic. And, the word "plum" doesn't say much to me... ?:/ The image didn't instruct me either... normally cherries go with a little thing, a very small "stick"... I don't know how to name it. :S -PedroPVZ 26 June 2005 23:34 (UTC)
- They're cherry plums. -Didactohedron 27 June 2005 03:33 (UTC)
- Ok. I get it, a third thing... :S -PedroPVZ 28 June 2005 19:07 (UTC)

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose => not featured norro 2 July 2005 11:57 (UTC)

Image:Walnuts.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate, + -Didactohedron 20:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+ -- ADSR6581 22:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support — FoeNyx 08:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+ ♦ Pabix &; 11:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support James F. (talk) 11:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Something is wrong with the white balance, the parts that are supposed to be white are yellow. --Malene Thyssen 12:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support norro 15:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 16:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 10:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Erin (talk) 12:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 17:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose it isnt full of walnuts, to many white spaces. -PedroPVZ 18:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Skilled but not interesting. --Tysto 22:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 23:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose => not featured norro 2 July 2005 11:58 (UTC)

Image:Kiwi_aka.jpg featured[edit]

Nominate, + -Didactohedron 20:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+ -- ADSR6581 22:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support — FoeNyx 08:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support — Tbc 10:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support James F. (talk) 11:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+ ♦ Pabix &; 11:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Atamari 15:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Malene Thyssen 12:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --fir0002 11:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support mnham (same as above :S)--PedroPVZ 17:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 16:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. --Hautala 10:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. --Erin (talk) 12:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 17:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Not really a fan of "catalog" photography, but this is nice. --Tysto 22:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Nuno Tavares ☜ ^PT 23:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Yum Chamaeleon 17:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - I can smell it ... -- Fabien1309 4 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)

17 Support - 1 Neutral -> featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 15:35 (UTC)

Image:Salami_aka.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate, + -Didactohedron 20:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+ -- ADSR6581 22:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+ ♦ Pabix &; 11:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - Rex 23:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Disturbing, mostly because its meat. --Spundun 07:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Be serious this isnt a kindergarden pleeeeeeeeeeeeaseeeee --PedroPVZ 17:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Nice lighting, sharpness and composition --Malene Thyssen 12:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. --Hautala 13:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support norro 15:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support yack! --PedroPVZ 17:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Get_It • 16:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Too clinical, would like to see a photo of different salami hanging in rows. --Erin (talk) 12:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 17:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Skilled (and delicious) but not interesting. --Tysto 22:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Yuk. Chamaeleon 17:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral I agree with Malene - good picture! - , but it's not an interesting shot. --Martinroell 1 July 2005 08:33 (UTC)
Support / tsca ✉ 2005-07-04 08:32:46 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not a big fan of meat. This is a nice photo, but without any context it's a bit boring. --Komencanto 8 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)

10 Support - 1 Neutral - 6 Oppose : not featured - Fabien1309 8 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)

Image:Fresh water fountain.jpg featured[edit]

User:Juhanson tried adding this image to FPC, but did not create the actual template, so I'm doing it for him. No vote from me. -Didactohedron 23:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+ LoopZilla 07:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+ -- Very nice. -- ADSR6581 08:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support — FoeNyx 08:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 11:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- John
- Invalidated for now. This user was not loggued in.Chun-hian 16:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Quasipalm 21:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Chun-hian 15:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. This is a truly wonderful photograph --Zantastik 22:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Malene Thyssen 12:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Greudin
Support --fir0002 11:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 16:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. --Hautala 10:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. Great quality. --Erin (talk) 12:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 17:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support feels fresh. --PedroPVZ 18:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support A nice photo that rewards the viewer for looking closer. --Tysto 22:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Nice. Chamaeleon 17:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Meteor2017 27 June 2005 12:54 (UTC)
Support Very nice. Would be even better if it was accompanied by a photo that shows the entire object. (What does the thick pole look like in total?) --Martinroell 1 July 2005 08:40 (UTC)
Support Fresh ! -- Fabien1309 4 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

19 Support - 1 Oppose : featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)

Image:Port_wine.jpg featured[edit]

Nominate, + -Didactohedron 20:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+ LoopZilla 21:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+ -- ADSR6581 22:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support — FoeNyx 08:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support James F. (talk) 11:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= disturbed by the uncomplete shadow ; very nice though. ♣ Pabix &; 11:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is it not « Porto wine » ? Pabix &; 05:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In English, it's called simply "Port". James F. (talk) 19:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Thuresson 01:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Nice backgrond with the wood --Malene Thyssen 12:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --fir0002 11:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support my fav drink. :S (I think food and drink should not be listed here! it is cruel.) --PedroPVZ 17:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 16:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Shadows. --Hautala 10:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. Captures the subject perfectly. --Erin (talk) 12:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 17:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Too artsy; not illustrative enough. --Tysto 22:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree with Tysto - Rex 23:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Nuno Tavares ☜ ^PT 23:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Pass the port please! Chamaeleon 17:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Meteor2017 27 June 2005 12:54 (UTC)

15 Support - 1 Neutral - 3 Oppose : featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

Image:Oslo palace1.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

--Li-sung 16:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support --Li-sung 16:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose foreground norro 19:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 07:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Not well enough lit (a sort of dull, brown-yellow), the foreground and the subject is not as crisply clear as I would like. Not a bad shot, but standards for featured pictures are (and must remain) very high. --Zantastik 22:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with norro and Zantastik --Malene Thyssen 12:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose proeminent foreground Greudin
Oppose - Rex 00:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose it isn't art --PedroPVZ 17:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Tbc 20:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Get_It • 16:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Bad composition. --Erin (talk) 12:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Avatar 13:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 17:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Needs some tone adjustment and cropping. --Tysto 23:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Meteor2017 27 June 2005 12:55 (UTC)
Oppose Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 4 July 2005 08:32 (UTC)
Oppose - Shadows, Colors-- Fabien1309 4 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)
Oppose --Atamari 4 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)

2 Support - 16 Oppose -> Not featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)

Image:Marguerite 1.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

(self-nomination) El Comandante 00:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- Comment: You wrote this nomination right into FPC; I fixed it for you, but please don't do it again. When nominating pictures in the future, create a separate template. -Didactohedron 01:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Didactohedron 01:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Largely the same reason as the mercedece. The translparant white background maked it lose its depth. maybe try playing with the background colors? --Spundun 07:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 09:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 11:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx 21:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Li-sung 20:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing wrong technically though, I just dont like the flower presented this way - sorry. --Malene Thyssen 12:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- I like this picture, but some of the edges need softening, especially one area in the top left. ADSR6581 20:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 12:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Greudin
Oppose - I agree with Malene - Rex 00:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Andreas Tille 06:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Petals which are supposed to be white look far to grey with no background to conteract the pure white of the web page. --fir0002 11:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --PedroPVZ 17:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Joolz 19:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

~~* Support~~. --Erin (talk) 12:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - Agree with Fir0002. --Erin (talk) 18:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Avatar 13:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 17:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support I think the white levels are quite natural (altho I might give it just a touch of contrast enhancement); highly illustrative. --Tysto 22:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support I like it. Chamaeleon 17:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Impossible to judge the size of the petal. Needs some perspective or annotation (the picture's description lacks any information on the picture's origin btw). --Martinroell 1 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)
Support --Atamari 4 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)

15 Support - 8 Oppose -> not featured (65 % pro) --Fabien1309 8 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)

Image:Calanques.jpg not featured[edit]

Calanques de Marseille (Sugiton vu du Belvédère)

Nominate

- El Comandante (and edits by LoopZilla 08:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Oppose - Rex 23:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 08:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Nuno Sequeira André 09:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Visible JPEG artifacts. If the resolution was lowered slightly say 1280px, plus a despeckle filter, it would reduce its effects substantially. ADSR6581 20:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't understand... There's a lot of pictures not supported because of their too low resolution (I don't understand to which use the resolution of the pictures MUST be very high)... and for this one the resolution should be lowered? El Comandante 01:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Your picture has a high resolution 1536x2048, so reducing it to, for example 1280x1708 won't make much difference. When we oppose a picture with low resolution, we are talking less than 800 pixels wide (or thereabouts). Was the picture straight from your camera, or did you save it with a low JPEG compression setting in your graphics program? If the original is of higher quality, then you can re-upload it. The maximum file size for any picture is 2 megabytes. It is a great picture, if it wasn't for the annoying artifacting. ADSR6581 10:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Trés bien!!!! --PedroPVZ 17:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral - I think it might look better if the bottom was cropped -- Joolz 19:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 16:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. --Erin (talk) 12:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 17:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support (weak) I agree that the compression is too high, but I would never give up resolution; I'd like to see the original. --Tysto 22:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose norro 1 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 4 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)
Support --Komencanto 8 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)

6 Support - 2 Neutral - 5 Oppose -> Not featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

Image:Igel_adj.JPG not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 12:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 12:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+. Commentary: modify it a bit with Gimp and color white, it will be a hoary hedgehog, perfect for a splash screen for Ubuntu (« splashy » package)Pabix &; 12:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Quasipalm 21:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+ Nice.El Comandante 21:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. I can't say bad things about it technically but the environment (I know, you didn't do that) depresses the picture. --CSamulili 23:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 23:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+ Didactohedron 01:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Fabien1309 15:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose The hedgehog is cut. --Malene Thyssen 12:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with Malene. The picture would have been fine if the hedgehog was centered. ADSR6581 20:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --PedroPVZ 17:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - Hedgehog in his natural environment. -- Joolz 19:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 16:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 10:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. Love it. --Erin (talk) 12:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Me too, very nice: the background (true envirnment of the animal) and the (how you you call it?!?!) hedgehog (wierd name it has in English) looks perfect to me. The pic also shows that the animal is very shy, and that is typical of the hedgehog, it is a very charming animal. I've saved one once! -PedroPVZ 18:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 17:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Weak support due to levels problem at top (altho it's an improvement over the original); highly illustrative tho. --Tysto 22:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Meteor2017 27 June 2005 12:55 (UTC)

11 Support - 7 Oppose -> Not featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)

Image:Red army soldiers raising the soviet flag on the roof of the reichstag berlin germany.jpg featured[edit]

Nominate

Thuresson 01:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support <- don_t forget to sign (Did you forget to sign, Thuresson? norro)
+. villy ♦ ✎ 06:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+. Didactohedron 06:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 07:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Li-sung 15:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support James F. (talk) 01:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Chun-hian 05:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-. Poor resolution. --Hautala 13:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Yes, the resolution could be igher and the compression is IMHO to high. A better scan would be very nice (or is it a photo? You can see the borders). But the picture is just great norro 21:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - Rex 00:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Should have been higher res. Nah just kidding! --fir0002 11:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - I bet there is a higher resolution version. We just can't find it... WB 11:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support what the communists do best: destroying. -PedroPVZ 13:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 16:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. Very interesting, but could the border at the top and top left be cropped off? --Erin (talk) 12:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support no question Avatar 13:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose (weak) One of the great photos of WW2, but it is small and has artifacts, and the edges are sloppy. --Tysto 23:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 4 July 2005 08:32 (UTC)
Support --Komencanto 8 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)

17 Support - 2 Oppose -> featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)

Image:Templo de Diana.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

<- Roman Temple in (Évora,Portugal)  Nuno Sequeira André 23:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - Rex 00:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose LoopZilla 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
~~support~~ -PedroPVZ 20:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - Ee97056 22:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Malene Thyssen 08:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Quasipalm 14:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 16:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Doesn't do justice to the subject. --Erin (talk) 12:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Avatar 13:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose strange exposure--Pjotr 17:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
changed to Neutral I agree with Erin... makes it look just being a few columns and small. Although I like the surrounding of Evora... the temple is still the centre of the city after 2000 yrs and the pic shows that. -PedroPVZ 19:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Good, but not great. --Tysto 23:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 28 June 2005 11:52 (UTC)
Oppose --Martinroell 1 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)

1 Support - 2 Neutral - 10 Oppose -> not featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)

Image:Londres.jpg not featured[edit]

London by night (including view of the Palace of Westminster)

Nominate

- Ee97056 14:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support (hey, guess what? - you can tell the time on the Clock Face, not that that makes the picture any better), but the reflexion irritates me - perhaps crop to remove? James F. (talk) 19:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- I like this picture, a little noisy, but that is to be expected in dark conditions. It looks much better after a despeckle filter is applied to it. (Try it out if you have Photoshop.) ADSR6581 20:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support nice clock :) Greudin
Support LoopZilla 17:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support very nice --Alexan (reclamations here) 18:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like the saturation, the light, the mood norro 21:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 00:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - I regard Image:Westminster_from_London_Eye_night.jpg much better which was not accepted for strange reasons like "can't read the time" etc. If the previous image was not accepted this one should not be accepted as well. Andreas Tille 07:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Baby, meet bath-water. James F. (talk) 23:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Great photo but too grainy. --fir0002 11:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- WB 23:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --PedroPVZ 17:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Tbc 20:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Quasipalm 14:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 15:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. I'd support a version with less sky. --Erin (talk) 12:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 17:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support This is a great photo; a little clarify filter and cloning out the reflection would be nice, tho. --Tysto 23:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral I'd prefer "London" to "Londres". Chamaeleon 17:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What that has to do with the picture itself? This is commons isn't it? Londres is Portuguese for London. -PedroPVZ 23:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Sim, mas Londres não fica em Portugal ;) Chamaeleon 00:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - mas quem tirou a foto é. ;) -PedroPVZ 28 June 2005 19:09 (UTC)
Oppose Far too much sky. --Martinroell 1 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)
Support villy ♦ ✎ 1 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)
Oppose too blury, bad proportions (less sky would be better) -- Gorgo 6 July 2005 21:35 (UTC) vote closed

10 Support - 2 Neutral - 8 Oppose -> not featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)

Image:Compass in a wooden frame.jpg not featured[edit]

300px|Compass in a wooden box

Nominate

--Hautala 13:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support --Hautala 13:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Object is cut, I could live with the top cut off, but not the bottom as well. ADSR6581 14:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support I like it norro 09:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Greudin
Oppose - Rex 00:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --fir0002 11:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 19:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- WB 23:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Tbc 20:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with ADSR -PedroPVZ 20:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 16:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - might be better if the bottom wasn't cut off but it's stille good. --CSamulili 17:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. I think the composition could be better. --Erin (talk) 12:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral Avatar 13:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 17:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support (weak) --Tysto 23:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Nice pic. Malene Thyssen 27 June 2005 06:58 (UTC)

7 Support - 2 Neutral - 8 Oppose -> not featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)

Image:Lavendelveld_adj.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 19:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 19:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support The composition and debt in this pic are great! The blurry feel makes me think of a painting of Van Gogh. --Malene Thyssen 20:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Lavender fields are beautiful, but this picture is too fuzzy. My camera, an ultracompact sometimes takes fuzzy distance photos but good closeups, so I can relate to this problem. --Zantastik 22:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose very nice, but blurred norro 08:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Blurry. --Hautala 13:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Agree, too blurred. ADSR6581 14:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose blurry Greudin
Oppose Nice, but too much blur -- Fabien1309 15:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
~~Support~~ --PedroPVZ 17:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Tbc 20:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. Very good. --Erin (talk) 12:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Avatar 13:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral I like the color adjustment (what did you use?), but it's still rather gray. --Tysto 23:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose artificial. The levender field continues being nice though. -PedroPVZ 00:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --ka-em-zwei-ein

4 Support - 1 Neutral - 10 Oppose -> not featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

Image:Ljvfhsdljfjdsloiewoir.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 19:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 19:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Zantastik 22:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support James F. (talk) 01:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose too chaotical, the plug is below the cable, en:chromatic aberration in the whole photo, strange image name. -- aka 10:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with aka. --Malene Thyssen 12:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose ack. aka norro 12:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 13:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Cable is messy, which is too distracting. ADSR6581 14:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Shadows look a wierd bluey color --fir0002 11:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral - Rex 23:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Tbc 20:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Get_It • 16:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral - Great quality, but the subject doesn't grab me. --Erin (talk) 12:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Avatar 13:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with aka.-PedroPVZ 19:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Skillful, but I just don't much like "catalog" photos. --Tysto 23:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --FML ^hi 4 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)

4 Support - 2 Neutral - 12 Oppose -> Not featured - Fabien1309 8 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)

Image:Sunset with funnel clouds.jpg not featured[edit]

Support Self Nom. --fir0002 07:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 18:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Avatar 13:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - I prefer the one above - Rex 17:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 17:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose not very informative. --PedroPVZ 18:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Picturesque, but not very illustrative. --Tysto 23:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 28 June 2005 11:54 (UTC)
Oppose agree with Tysto. --Martinroell 1 July 2005 08:22 (UTC)
Oppose LoopZilla 2005-07-01 08:44:59 (UTC)
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 4 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)

4 Support - 7 Oppose -> not featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)

Image:Rolls-Royce Spirit of Ecstasy.jpg not featured[edit]

Self-nom: very sharp, eye-catching, informative. — Dan | Talk 00:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support - I think so -- Fabien1309 15:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support, given that I suggested nomination. :-) James F. (talk) 18:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - Rex 23:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose too much noise in the background and see debate on en. BrokenSegue 02:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 16:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support (Where can one see debate?) --CSamulili 17:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support La classe! El Comandante 20:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
bricks reflection... -PedroPVZ 20:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. --Erin (talk) 12:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral bricks Avatar 13:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose norro 21:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support I like the perspective and the color. The reflection of the bricks is leading my thoughts to castles - I can almost se the car parked in front of one :-) Malene Thyssen 07:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- that's a nice way to see it... changed to Neutral -PedroPVZ 15:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose strange perspective--Pjotr 17:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support do you see the crane reflecting on the hood, unfortunately my thoughts don't go to castles anymore Nuno Sequeira André 23:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Get_It • 23:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Don't jump, lady! --Tysto 23:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose The perspective doesn't illustrate the figure well. --Martinroell 1 July 2005 08:22 (UTC)

8 Support - 1 Neutral - 6 Oppose -> not featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)

Image:Bentley badge and hood ornament.jpg not featured[edit]

Self-nom: very sharp, eye-catching, informative. — Dan | Talk 00:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support, given that I suggested nomination. :-) James F. (talk) 18:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose too confusing image. I can even see buildings and the shooter. -PedroPVZ 20:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - you can see too much in the reflection Tbc 20:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - Rex 23:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose LoopZilla 15:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - reflection makes it too confusing. -- Get_It • 15:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Too messy with reflections - people mostly. --Erin (talk) 12:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose reflections Avatar 13:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support I like it--Pjotr 17:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support (weak) The reflections of people are unfortunate, but it's a very nice photo. --Tysto 23:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 28 June 2005 11:53 (UTC)

4 Support - 7 Oppose -> not featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)

Image:WhiteRose.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

Thuresson 21:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support Thuresson 21:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 23:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -Didactohedron 18:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support YolanC 21:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose bad cut in the right, I can see someone else's hear o.O -PedroPVZ 12:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Get_It • 15:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Poor resolution. Something's in the way in the lower right-hand corner. --Hautala 10:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. Very interesting, great expressions. --Erin (talk) 12:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose resolution Avatar 13:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 07:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support good picture, and with historical value Nuno Sequeira André 22:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Historically interesting but not a great photo. --Tysto 23:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- aka 20:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Meteor2017 27 June 2005 12:58 (UTC)
Support Agree with Erin and Nuno --Malene Thyssen 27 June 2005 19:14 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with Tysto. Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 4 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)
Oppose --Atamari 4 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)
Support --Komencanto 8 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)

10 Support - 8 Oppose -> not featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

Image:CambridgeSunset.jpg featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support. James F. (talk) 18:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support almost neutral, the trees should be a little more visible (sharped). But it is art. :) -PedroPVZ 20:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - Rex 23:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose better resolution would be nice -- also, this seems artificially saturated and contrasty --Quasipalm 14:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 15:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose LoopZilla 17:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. Wow. --Erin (talk) 12:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral because of resolution Avatar 13:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx 11:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 17:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support (weak) Very dramatic but could use a fill flash. (This has already been pic of the day?) --Tysto 23:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- ADSR6581 13:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Florenco 27 June 2005 15:55 (UTC)
Support. Yet another sunset, but I guess it's OK. --Hautala 28 June 2005 11:54 (UTC)
Support - I guess I had better support ;-) The colours are pretty much as they came out of the camera. Although it is actually a montage of two exposures, with the lower, river portion coming from a bracketed exposure, ~1 f-stop brighter, to try and bring out more detail in the boats and trees and strengthen the reflected cloud. -- Solipsist 30 June 2005 20:12 (UTC)
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 4 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)
Support --Komencanto 8 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)

13 Support - 1 Neutral - 3 Oppose -> featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

Image:Arrabida.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

<- Nuno Sequeira André 22:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 08:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Quasipalm 14:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Too dull and grey. --Erin (talk) 12:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Avatar 13:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose — Nice viewpoint. Photo could have been better —Juhanson 14:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 17:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral It doesnt makes justice to downtown Porto. this photo should have been in a cloudless day or in a cloudless night (in which the city looks very beautiful).-PedroPVZ 18:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 22:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Atamari 4 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

2 Support - 2 Neutral - 5 Oppose -> not featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

Image:Capela dos ossos cornija.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

<- Nuno Sequeira André 22:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose bad composition, bad angle norro 08:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -PedroPVZ 17:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support I like it, very interesting. --Erin (talk) 12:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Avatar 13:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Quasipalm 15:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 17:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Good photo; I don't think the angle is awkward. It's illustrative and rewards the viewer for looking closer. (Well, that's a nice example of ancient archi... holy carp!) --Tysto 00:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with norro -- ADSR6581 14:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 4 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)

3 Support - 6 Oppose -> not featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

Image:Capela dos ossos parede.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

<- Nuno Sequeira André 22:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose bad composition, bad light norro 08:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support good light. -PedroPVZ 12:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose bad light ;-) --Quasipalm 14:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Dull. --Erin (talk) 12:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Avatar 13:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 17:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Fascinating subject, but weak as a photo. --Tysto 00:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with norro ADSR6581 14:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 4 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)

1 Support - 8 Oppose -> not featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)

Image:Ribeira do Porto.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

- Ee97056 22:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support one of the nicest places of Porto, especially for students. -PedroPVZ 12:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Quasipalm 14:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Not enough focus on the buildings, too much sky and water. --Erin (talk) 12:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think that makes it artistical: the sky and the water, and the city rising in the middle. I think it is a very nice pic. -PedroPVZ 19:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the composition is good in the sense that it's balanced, but the buildings are too hard to see, and they are a very important factor. --Erin (talk) 01:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Avatar 13:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 17:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support (weak) Very nice, but clarify/contrast and a little straightening would help it. --Tysto 23:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- ADSR6581 14:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Meteor2017 27 June 2005 12:58 (UTC)
Oppose --Martinroell1 July 2005 08:18 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 4 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)

3 Support - 7 Oppose -> not featured -- Fabien1309 8 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)

Image:Dracaena_draco_adj.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 12:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 12:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose background Avatar 13:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose artificial. -PedroPVZ 13:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose artificial--Pjotr 17:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose => not featured norro 8 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)

Image:Dracaena_draco.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 15:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 15:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 15:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --PedroPVZ 17:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - MPF 19:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Nice tree, but i would wish it to be more outstanding against the background norro 21:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- that's not a nice tree, that's a beautiful tree. I think the background is good, makes it look big. -PedroPVZ 01:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral Yes a beautiful tree but I dont like the almost white sky - If the photo is cropped, so the sky is removed, I would support it. Nice by the way with the person in the background - its a really BIG tree :-) Ups forgot to sign - that was me :-) Malene Thyssen 27 June 2005 19:08 (UTC)
Support. But I would prefer it if some brightness could be added. --Erin (talk) 12:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose background Avatar 13:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 17:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose background, white clouds--Pjotr 17:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose nice tree, but the picture itself is nothing special -- Gorgo 6 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured norro 8 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)

Image:Eurasian.coot.london.arp.jpg, not featured[edit]

Eurasian Coot in St James Park, London, England

Nominate

LoopZilla 15:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 15:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose I dont like the iron net behind the bird. -PedroPVZ 17:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Nice, but you can't really see the head in a proper way norro 19:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Nice and sharp, but to much light for the white parts. I don't like the yellow thing growing out of the birds head. --Malene Thyssen 08:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. For all of the above. --Erin (talk) 12:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Avatar 13:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 17:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 22:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Best picture of a Eurasian coot I've seen all week, but.... --Tysto 00:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Background -- Fabien1309 4 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured norro 8 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)

Image:Siberian Tiger by Malene Th.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

(self-nomination -> no vote) --Malene Thyssen 20:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 21:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Of course :) norro 21:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support, lovely. James F. (talk) 22:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. Perfect. --Erin (talk) 12:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - too obviously in a zoo with that ugly wall behind. Now, if it had been in the wild . . . MPF 12:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that I change the background? I would like to try that, if I can find a suitable background to "steal" :-). Regards Malene Thyssen 14:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Avatar 13:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Excellent detail --fir0002 05:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx 11:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral In a natural environment would be one of the world's nicest animal pictures. --PedroPVZ 15:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree with MPF - Rex 17:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 17:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 22:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Great image; highly illustrative. --Tysto 00:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Outstanding! —Juhanson 09:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support ~~until the misspelt name is corrected~~ (should be "Siberian tiger" or Panthera tigris altaica). As for the issue of the unnatural background, try Image:Cute tiger cub.jpg. Chamaeleon 17:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ok since tree voters would like a different background I'll have a look at it tonight :-) And I will of cause change the file name to Siberian tiger Panthera tigris altaica. or maybe to sibirisk tiger (in danish). Regards 80.162.84.242 26 June 2005 12:44 (UTC) (that was me Malene Thyssen)
  - I think that, ideally, all pix of species should include the scientific name plus an explanation in another language (both correctly spelt!), e.g. Image:Panthera leo (Lioness, sleeping in sun).jpg. Chamaeleon June 26, 2005 13:27 (UTC)
Oppose Not as good as editted one. --Komencanto 8 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)
Support - Didactohedron 8 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)
Support --Atomo64 8 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured Malene Thyssen 11:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panthera tigris altaica (Amurtiger straekker sig).jpg, not featured[edit]

Right - I changed the file name according to the instructions. And I tried to change the background to something looking a bit more natural...I'm not quite sure it works? If this version gets a lot of votes so both pics could be featured, I think only the most popular one should become a featured picture (being optimistic :-) Regards Malene Thyssen 26 June 2005 21:56 (UTC)

Neutral norro 26 June 2005 22:40 (UTC)
Support Looks nice and funny. -PedroPVZ 26 June 2005 23:19 (UTC)
Support Yep. Chamaeleon June 27, 2005 18:52 (UTC)
Oppose - background clearly artificial, nice try though - Rex 27 June 2005 23:30 (UTC)
Support Nicely done. But what is that thing appearing in the black part of the stump? --fir0002 3 July 2005 11:03 (UTC)
- A tiger. ;) Chamaeleon 3 July 2005 11:08 (UTC)
  - Ha ha - great comment Chamaeleon :-D ehm I'm not quite sure which thing you mean fir0002? The stumb is not clear cut so maybe Its just shadows from that? Regards Malene Thyssen 6 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 4 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)
Oppose. --Hautala 4 July 2005 13:01 (UTC)
Support Nice edit. --Komencanto 8 July 2005 14:10 (UTC)
Oppose. The edit isn't bad technically, but the choice of background leaves something to be desired. - Didactohedron 8 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Malene Thyssen 11:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lota da Povoa de Varzim em 1960 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

'Azulejo' (Portuguese blue tile art) with the fishing market in the seaport of Povoa de Varzim, Portugal in the 1960s and Povoa's family signs (runes). new version--PedroPVZ 15:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose --Pjotr 17:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)

Support. I like it, but not the nominated version. I have made some adjustments and support the adjusted version. --Erin (talk) 13:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose bad quality, overdriven colors norro 14:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 17:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 17:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Better, but still not great. --Tysto 00:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Atamari 4 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)
Oppose -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)

Result (adjusted): 1 support, 6 oppose => not featured
Result (original): 1 support, 2 oppose => not featured Joolz 17:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wil_Altstadt_8375.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 22:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 22:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support James F. (talk) 01:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- I really like the background and the smooth feel of the mist. Malene Thyssen 06:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. Nice feel. --Erin (talk) 09:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx 11:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Wonderful! Chun-hian 15:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support very nice! Muito bom! --PedroPVZ 15:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support --Atamari 15:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose strange foreground--Pjotr 17:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 22:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - foreground - Rex 23:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- Fabien1309 13:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Nichalp June 27, 2005 12:40 (UTC)
Oppose. A bit grainy. --Hautala 28 June 2005 11:56 (UTC)
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 4 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)
Neutral -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)
Support annoying foreground, tight but still support -- Gorgo 6 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
Support Overall nice. --Komencanto 8 July 2005 14:16 (UTC)

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured -- Joolz 18:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Uhu-muc.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

norro 13:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support norro 13:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Too distractive background —Juhanson 14:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- background. --PedroPVZ 15:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support -- I like the background Nuno Sequeira André 16:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - clearly domesticated, subject not centered, even not completely on the photo - Rex 16:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support I like it --Pjotr 17:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Erin (talk) 20:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 22:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Composition. --Malene Thyssen 26 June 2005 19:26 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like the green perch --Quasipalm 27 June 2005 19:24 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 2005-06-30 10:25:15 (UTC)
Neutral - Animal is great, but the green thing at the bottom is disturbing. --Fabien1309 4 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)
Neutral -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 18:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Street motorbyke ice.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

15:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose motion blur. bad quality. --PedroPVZ 15:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Bad composition. --Chun-hian 15:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Disturbing person in the foreground - Rex 16:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose too blurry--Pjotr 17:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. --Erin (talk) 20:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Subject matter is very sharp LoopZilla 20:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - Agree with Loopzilla Nuno Sequeira André 22:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with Chun-hian and Rex --Malene Thyssen 26 June 2005 19:24 (UTC)
Support That's amazing --fir0002 30 June 2005 08:54 (UTC)
Support --This is a great photo. The subject is in sharp focus and motion blur appropriately obscures everything else. I suggest a little fill flash filter to lighten the subject's face and color correction to reduce the blue tint. I've posted a rendition here. --Tysto 1 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
Support - The motion blur helps make this panning shot, giving visual weight to the central motorbike. The foreground guy is a bit of a problem, but the arrangement of geese on the bike more than makes up for it. -- Solipsist 5 July 2005 08:22 (UTC)
Oppose, due to the boy in the foreground on the left side. -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 18:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alqueva_panorama_29_5_5.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

- Alqueva dam in Alentejo, this dam made the biggest artificial lake in Europe Nuno Sequeira André 21:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support Nice photo on engineering subjects. Looks nice. -PedroPVZ 21:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 22:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 23:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. Interesting. --Erin (talk) 10:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. Quite breathtaking --CSamulili 11:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Unfortunately on this photo you can't understand the sense of this construction norro 26 June 2005 09:23 (UTC)
Neutral Nice but its a bit too light and the pic could be cropped to remove some of the sky and to fokus on the fundamental objects that tells us the story (I would make the dam and the splashing water stand more out). --Malene Thyssen 27 June 2005 07:10 (UTC)
Oppose I like it, but would like to actually see the damn also, but it's cut off --Quasipalm 27 June 2005 19:26 (UTC)
Oppose The photo does not illustrate the dam well. It only shows parts of it from which it is hard to grasp a sense of the whole structure. --Martinroell 30 June 2005 00:54 (UTC)
Oppose --I find it a bit confusing. --Tysto 1 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)
Oppose -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 18:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Feeding a Bearded Dragon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

norro 13:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support norro 13:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral disgusting but informative, somewhat funny. The Dragon should be in a natural environment. -PedroPVZ 15:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The dragon usually does not sit on the blue sofa, but this was the only way to keep the grasshopper from hiding behind plants and stones and so on. He probably does not like to get eaten. -- aka 16:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - ok. but in the middle of the grass and a stone near it... would be perfect.--PedroPVZ 19:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - no photo of the actual catch, not in natural environment - Rex
Support very cool--Pjotr 17:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose The sequence should be presented as 6 individual pictures, and stuck together with a table. Aren't the originals more than 325 pixels wide? dbenbenn | talk 19:04, 24 June 2005
Oppose. That lizard is sooo cute, but I'll oppose these pics on the sofa. --Erin (talk) 20:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 21:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Get_It • 22:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - doch, auch wenn der Grashüpfer das nicht gerne mochte ;-) -- Farbenfreude 29 June 2005 22:23 (UTC)
Support -- I really like this. It perfectly illustrates not a bearded dragon but a bearded dragon feeding. I especially like his cheerful smile at the end. --Tysto 1 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)
Support; the last panel really sells this one. :) -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)
Support Nice last panel! --Komencanto 8 July 2005 14:09 (UTC)
Support - Didactohedron 16:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I like it, but I think the blue is overwelming -- Joolz 18:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - could possibly be improved by changing background color.--Eloquence 22:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 01:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lisboa-rua.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

-- Get_It • 22:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support I like it :) -- Get_It • 22:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - resolution, mediocre quality - Rex 23:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
STRONG Support I honestely love it... It was love at first sight when I first saw this picture. I would like a picture of it in my living room, so romantic... the light... the alley... the colours... everything for me is perfect. --PedroPVZ 00:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Living in a very simillar looking town, I know there can be better shots than this. It is also too blurry and low res. --Erin (talk) 10:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't agree with you, especially on the "better shots" thing. In my city there are also similar places, but will not work as good as this did. --PedroPVZ 01:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - I've seen more than a few better pictures of such streets. But that's just my opinion. --Erin (talk) 30 June 2005 09:23 (UTC)
Oppose lighting, but very nice norro 26 June 2005 09:19 (UTC)
Support Malene Thyssen 26 June 2005 19:22 (UTC)
Oppose great pic / pitifully low resolution -- printed at 300dpi this thing would be a postage stamp --Quasipalm 27 June 2005 19:27 (UTC)
Oppose -- Small and short focus. --Tysto 1 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)
Support Amazing motif. Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 4 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)
Support -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
Oppose Good idea, but not good enough quality image. Try again but with better camera. --Komencanto 8 July 2005 14:09 (UTC)

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose => not featured -- Joolz 01:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Phoenicopterus ruber.jpg, featured[edit]

Rosy flamingo: adjusted for contrast

Nominate

Image:Lightmatter flamingohead.jpg is currently featured, and I find that Image:Phoenicopterus ruber.jpg is slightly better.  If you agree, then vote support.  If you like both pics, also vote support.  Chamaeleon 19:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support Chamaeleon 19:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support — Very nice picture. But I think it gets even better when you increase contrast a bit. —Juhanson 20:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. I think this flamingo is better than the Featured one. --Erin (talk) 21:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral There is no need, to unfeature the Image:Lightmatter flamingohead.jpg, because there is no problem with having to featured pictures of a flamingo. norro 22:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah OK. I just thought that nobody would support this one without un-featuring the other one. Feel free to vote for this one, and we'll vote separately on the question of what to do with the other. Chamaeleon 22:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is no need to do so. The other one is featured. This vote is not dependent on that. If you think, the other flamingo photo should not be featured, you can think ob starting a deselection, but i think it's still an excellent shot. I would suggest, to remove your de-list statement at the beginning of this vote, because in my opinion it's capable of being misunderstood. Regards, norro 26 June 2005 09:15 (UTC)
Oppose featured picture looks way better. -PedroPVZ 01:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support, just so long as we don't de-list the current one. James F. (talk) 01:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Copyright notice? LoopZilla 26 June 2005 21:17 (UTC)
- What about it? It's effectively CC-BY. Nowt wrong with that... James F. (talk) 27 June 2005 03:03 (UTC)
  - Effectively or precisely? LoopZilla 27 June 2005 07:53 (UTC)
    - It is under a freer licence than the GFDL. Chamaeleon June 27, 2005 08:47 (UTC)
      - I'm not sure this is correct. 1) The GFDL doesn't require you notify the copyright holder. 2) The GFDL cannot be revoked once applied. If you retain the copyright of your image, you theoretically could. I've asked this question here: Commons_talk:Licensing#Notify --Quasipalm 27 June 2005 19:46 (UTC)
        1) Did I say there were no conditions? 2) You retain the copyright of your image under the GFDL. Chamaeleon June 27, 2005 20:06 (UTC)
Support Striking. --Tysto 1 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)
Neutral, due to license. -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)
- OK, I'll vote oppose on all GDFL photos on that basis! Chamaeleon 6 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => featured -- Joolz 01:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Capela_dos_ossos.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

<- Bone Chapel in Évora  Nuno Sequeira André 22:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - not sharp - Rex 23:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - enquadramento (please translate) -- Nuno Tavares ☜ ^PT 23:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
enquadramento = composition Nuno Sequeira André
Support nice horror scenery. :S and very nice composition. But you would have to pay me to enter in that place. -PedroPVZ 23:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose blurred norro 08:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Blurry. Good composition though. --Erin (talk) 10:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --Malene Thyssen 27 June 2005 07:04 (UTC)
Oppose bllllury --Quasipalm 27 June 2005 19:29 (UTC)
Neutral - somewhat blurry, yes. -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
Support --Atomo64 8 July 2005 23:25 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 01:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Castle Arenberg, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

Castle Arenberg in the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven --Juhanson 18:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose the large version has a very bad image quality -- Pjotr 20:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral strange image.--PedroPVZ 23:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - I like it. James F. (talk) 01:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's up to you to decide, but I like my original photo more than adjusted. It gets too dark. And morning mist get boring colour... Please, take closer look! Juhanson 30 June 2005 12:29 (UTC)
Support / tsca ✉ 2005-07-04 08:24:36 (UTC)
Support -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)
Support Andreas Tille 07:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 support (incl. nominator), 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured -- Joolz 01:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Castle Arenberg, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven_adj.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 26 June 2005 20:32 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 26 June 2005 20:32 (UTC)
Support --Malene Thyssen 26 June 2005 22:16 (UTC)
Support -- Meteor2017 27 June 2005 13:01 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 27 June 2005 23:28 (UTC)
Support this version, too. James F. (talk) 29 June 2005 12:32 (UTC)
Support --Tysto 1 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)
Support / tsca ✉ 2005-07-04 08:24:42 (UTC)
Support --Atamari 4 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)
Neutral, I like the other version better. -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)
Support nicely done -- Gorgo 6 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)
Support --Chun-hian 17:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured -- Joolz 01:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jersey-city-new-jersy-night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

-- Pjotr 20:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support -- Pjotr 20:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support looks good. --PedroPVZ 23:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 01:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
strong Oppose this picture is overexposed (pure white in the lower left part), it is very noisy, unsharp and has a lot of chromatic aberration arround the ligths. Please see the full size version of this image. Regarding the unsharpness, it is too large and should be resized. Uploading original resolution images made with such cheap cameras is usually not a good idea, because the sensor resolution is much higher than the optical resolution. -- aka
- No, there is no such thing as "too large" for Commons. Please do not spread such disinformation. James F. (talk) 26 June 2005 10:56 (UTC)
  - It is too large, because it can be half the size without losing any information due to the bad lens used. You are right - the resolution should be as high as useful possible. But not higher. -- aka 26 June 2005 14:32 (UTC)
    - One should always upload the original. Then you can upload a tweaked version on top; but it's important to give the original first. In fact, since Tysto was good enough to put up the original, now anyone can do the resizing you suggest. dbenbenn | talk 27 June 2005 16:09 (UTC)
      - Yes, I think the best thing to do would have been to upload the original, and immediately reupload an improved version. Chamaeleon June 27, 2005 18:16 (UTC)
      - If the tweaked version does not contain less information (important!) than the original one, then the original version is useless. Thats all I talked about ;) BTW, thanks for improving this image @ Chamaeleon. -- aka 27 June 2005 20:48 (UTC)
Oppose blurred, bad composition norro 26 June 2005 11:47 (UTC)
Support. I've reduced the size and therefore the blur. Chamaeleon June 27, 2005 18:26 (UTC)
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 4 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
Support -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)
Oppose odd composition, looks somehow cut off at the boddom -- Gorgo 6 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
Oppose Doesn't quite do it for me. --Komencanto 8 July 2005 14:13 (UTC)
Oppose -- Don't like composition and colors Andreas Tille 07:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose => not featured -- Joolz 01:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Liberty-statue-from-below.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

-- Pjotr 20:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support -- Pjotr 20:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- bad composition, but nice in the rest. -PedroPVZ 23:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What do mean by composition? It's a statue and a sky. --Tysto 1 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)
- enquadramento. I think the statue shouldn't be cut. -PedroPVZ 2 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)
Oppose - composition - Rex 23:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - composition is striking, but I don't like it all the same. James F. (talk) 01:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -composition. --Malene Thyssen 26 June 2005 19:18 (UTC)
Neutral It's OK. Chamaeleon June 27, 2005 18:14 (UTC)
Support I thought about it several times and now i think, i like the composition most. You can't really see the flame, there is shadow on the face, but the statue seems momentous from worms eye in front of the sky. The resolution and sharpness is great. norro 27 June 2005 20:37 (UTC)
Oppose. There are better pictures of the statue. --Hautala 28 June 2005 11:57 (UTC)
Support -- Urban 4 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)
Support -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)
Oppose nothing special, just the statue of liberty from below badly cut -- Gorgo 6 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
Neutral -- Chun-hian 17:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 01:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pomegranate.jpg, not featured[edit]

Support Self Nom.--fir0002 02:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose shadows, background norro 26 June 2005 11:48 (UTC)
Neutral I really like the lighting and the colours in this image! The wooden background is perfect - but the plastic-basket is ruining the image. Because of that I don't support this beautiful image. Malene Thyssen 26 June 2005 19:17 (UTC)
Neutral The plastic basket ruins it for me. Chamaeleon June 26, 2005 20:33 (UTC)
Neutral I also don't like the plastic basket :( the rest is perfect. I love romãs (pomegranate?! LOL. That's its English name?)--PedroPVZ 26 June 2005 23:41 (UTC)
Support - I don't mind the plastic basket at all. -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)
Oppose (just because I love the second much more :) --FoeNyx 7 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 02:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pomegranate02_edit.jpg, featured[edit]

I don't think this one is better, but I'll see what you guys think. --fir0002 27 June 2005 05:04 (UTC)

Support I'll go for that. Chamaeleon June 27, 2005 18:14 (UTC)
Support mnham... seems tasty now. --PedroPVZ 27 June 2005 18:45 (UTC)
Support I'm glad to be able to support this nice pic - good work with the manipulation :-) Malene Thyssen 27 June 2005 19:04 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't like the new background (and I didn't like the one above either) Rex 27 June 2005 23:26 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx June 28, 2005 12:09 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 29 June 2005 12:31 (UTC)
Oppose The background is ugly. The outside of the fruit is not visible. --Martinroell 30 June 2005 00:50 (UTC)
Support Excellent! --Ricadito 1 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)
Support -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)
Oppose, clearly artificial. The background is too blurry and too bright. - Didactohedron 20:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thuresson 11:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose => featured -- Joolz 02:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Frühlingslandschft Aaretal Schweiz.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

Thuresson 26 June 2005 22:45 (UTC)

Support Thuresson 26 June 2005 22:45 (UTC)
Weak Support. The photographer could have done a better composition. The tree isn't well placed in the picture. You couldn't move the tree but you could move yourself. But nice pic though. -PedroPVZ 26 June 2005 23:44 (UTC)
Neutral Agree with PedroPVZ. If there had been some more of the field in the right side I would have supported. -Malene Thyssen 27 June 2005 07:19 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 2005-06-27 11:27:33 (UTC)
Support Nice photo Nichalp June 27, 2005 12:38 (UTC)
Support -- Meteor2017 27 June 2005 13:02 (UTC)
Oppose blurred, can't see something special norro 27 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)
Neutral Pretty, but not outstanding. Not an interesting subject. Chamaeleon June 27, 2005 18:12 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 27 June 2005 18:20 (UTC)
Neutral Technically very nice picture. And I like the subject. Composition is doubtfull. In which article could it be used? Juhanson 27 June 2005 21:02 (UTC)
- spring, or in an article about that type of tree or about the town itself. I think. I've tried in my desktop. Everything is so nice. But the tree could really be better placed. -PedroPVZ 30 June 2005 23:06 (UTC)
Support - Rex 27 June 2005 23:25 (UTC)
Support - Shivanayak 28 June 2005 08:12 (UTC)
Support - Stahlkocher 3 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)
Support -- aka 4 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)
Support -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)
Support -- sunny impression :-) -- Farbenfreude 6 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)
Support -- Chun-hian 17:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral => featured -- Joolz 02:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Storskarv skansen juni 2005.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Bird in natural environment. Some slight over exposure in places, but I don't think detracts sigificantly. Zeimusu 27 June 2005 14:01 (UTC)

Support Zeimusu 27 June 2005 14:01 (UTC)
Support very informative. -PedroPVZ 27 June 2005 14:56 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 2005-06-27 16:31:20 (UTC)
Oppose Disagree about the lighting --Malene Thyssen 27 June 2005 19:38 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 27 June 2005 23:24 (UTC)
Oppose over exposure is distracting --Pjotr 28 June 2005 17:10 (UTC)
Oppose. --Erin (talk) 28 June 2005 19:50 (UTC)
Oppose Overexposed. --Martinroell 30 June 2005 00:41 (UTC)
Support - a shy species, not easy to get a good photo of in the wild - MPF 4 July 2005 23:59 (UTC)
Support --Franz Xaver 5 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)
Neutral - should be bigger. -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 02:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lightning animation.gif, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Meteor2017 27 June 2005 12:26 (UTC)

Support Meteor2017 27 June 2005 12:26 (UTC)
Oppose window frame in the foreground norro 27 June 2005 15:30 (UTC)
Neutral Couldn't the windowframe be cropped out? Chamaeleon June 27, 2005 18:09 (UTC)
Oppose it isn't beautiful. problems: composition, colours, only marginally informative. -PedroPVZ 27 June 2005 18:40 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 2005-06-27 21:52:49 (UTC)
Oppose - for the reasons given above - Rex 27 June 2005 23:24 (UTC)
Oppose. Poor resolution. --Hautala 28 June 2005 11:58 (UTC)
Oppose agree with PedroPVZ --Pjotr 28 June 2005 17:11 (UTC)
Oppose --Atamari 4 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)
Oppose -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)
Oppose --Atomo64 8 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 8 oppose => not featured -- Joolz 02:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PotsdamSanssouciChineseHouse.jpg, featured[edit]

Selfnomination. This image was formerly put on the FPC list but caused at least two enhancements which drifted away. So I stopped the voting for the image and tried to bring in all suggestions in the new version now. For those who just voted: You might have a look at your old vote at Template:Featured_pictures_candidates/Image:PotsdamSanssouciChineseHouse.jpg (but remind that the image above is just the new one). Andreas Tille June 27, 2005 14:09 (UTC)
Support :-) --Malene Thyssen 27 June 2005 15:01 (UTC)
Support I love the trees, the water,... seems the paradise to me. It's in China? It seems very European.... -PedroPVZ 27 June 2005 15:04 (UTC)

It's in Potsdam (near Berlin) Andreas Tille June 27, 2005 16:58 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 2005-06-27 16:29:50 (UTC)
Oppose Still don't like it. Everything is cut norro 28 June 2005 07:40 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx June 28, 2005 12:12 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 29 June 2005 12:31 (UTC)
Support -- Stahlkocher 3 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)
Oppose - good, but not great. -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)
Support - impressive --ka-em-zwei-ein 6 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 7 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose => featured -- Joolz 12:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Raspberries (Rubus Idaeus).jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

There were no good raspberry pictures so far :) --Juhanson 27 June 2005 20:53 (UTC)

Oppose - not perfect: raspberry on the front is not sharp, medium resolution - Rex 27 June 2005 23:22 (UTC)
Support not bad at all... Rex maybe because it is becoming rotten... -PedroPVZ 28 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)
Support. Very nice, great colours. --Erin (talk) 28 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 2005-06-28 21:51:19 (UTC)
Support --Malene Thyssen 29 June 2005 10:42 (UTC)
- it looks great in my desktop (I don't change my desktop image for ages, thx). Hey Juhanson, it is a pitty that one of the raspberries is becoming rotten. Still it looks gr8 ;) -PedroPVZ 29 June 2005 18:51 (UTC)
  - If you're looking for desktop backgrounds, try en:Category:Featured desktop backgrounds! Chamaeleon June 29, 2005 23:29 (UTC)
- I am pleased, that you like it :) But where did you find a rotten berry? It's just ripe, tell you for sure. I tried it myself when the photo was taken :) Juhanson 29 June 2005 20:15 (UTC)
Neutral So-so. If it's featured, it should be de-listed if we get a better raspberry pic. Chamaeleon June 29, 2005 23:29 (UTC)
- that's not how featured pictures work, it is not the best picture of something we could get right now, it should be one of the best pictures you could think of. And that doesn't become outdated by definition. -- Gorgo 15:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jordgubbe 1 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)
Oppose --Tysto 1 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)
Support - a good pic as it shows the foliage as well as the fruit, which makes it more useful for the encyclopedia page - MPF 3 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)
Support, although the blur on the front raspberry is unfortunate. -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)
Oppose little bit blurry, the raspberries are too messy, good encyclopedian value though ;) -- Gorgo 6 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)
Support Thuresson 11:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Yum. Nice colors, sharp. That's what good raspberries look like. Blueroan3 12:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC) voting closed[reply]

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured -- Joolz 12:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Street_bike.jpg, not featured[edit]

Selfnomination. Same street, different situation - see Street motorbyke ice.jpg. In my humble opinion there is a major difference between e.g. raspberry pictures und picture taken on a busy street. Motion blur is sometimes importent to accentuate main subject (thanks to LoopZilla and Nuno Sequeira André). Hope, in this picture there is better image definition ;). Regards Kordian Kassner June 29, 2005 14:35 (UTC)
- You are 100% right. Pictures of raspberries, flowers, babies, etc, which many people would consider "beautiful" are much easier to take, then e.g. street photos or a good portret. And still it doesn't mean, that every street picture is good, only because it was difficult to take it. On the other hand for the really good street photo you would get more respect from professionals and the ones who understand.
Oppose — I like the idea of your photo, but realization could have been better. Overlapping cycle and bike make a mess. I'm sure you can take one more photo of this street and I believe, you will catch the right moment! —Juhanson 29 June 2005 20:31 (UTC)
Support I don't know how are the laws in your country. But in Portugal you can't take pictures of people as the "main target" and made them public without their explicit authorization. I wouldnt like a pic of mine in a website... although there is because of a disco, but anything like this. I think you also wouldn't like. Portugal has very restrictive laws in personal data and image for nationals. I believe in that country there is anything like that. so I support. --PedroPVZ 29 June 2005 18:59 (UTC)
Oppose - mediocre quality pictures shouldn't be featured for the reason that it's difficult to make a good one. Rex 29 June 2005 23:51 (UTC)
Oppose - agree with Johanson. The overlap of the two cycles is ugly. --Martinroell 30 June 2005 00:44 (UTC)
Oppose --Tysto 1 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)
Neutral -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)
Oppose not bad, but strange colors --Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 16:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rectangle_to_square_difference2.gif, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 2005-06-28 13:25:16 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 2005-06-28 13:25:16 (UTC)
Oppose The resulting rectangle is not a square norro 28 June 2005 15:13 (UTC)
This (tottering, size chaning) is due to an old rescale bug of the MediaWiki software. Please click on the animation and view it in the original size. --Pjotr 28 June 2005 17:05 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. Thanks. I updated my vote norro 28 June 2005 18:36 (UTC)
Oppose too simple, even after viewing it ten times I don't know what this animation would like to say. -- Pjotr 28 June 2005 17:05 (UTC)
Oppose strongly agree with Pjotr. -PedroPVZ 28 June 2005 19:19 (UTC)
Oppose confusing Chamaeleon June 29, 2005 23:18 (UTC)
Oppose -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose => not featured -- Joolz 16:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Frog_india.JPG, not featured[edit]

Frog india

Nominate

Shivu 28 June 2005 08:23 (UTC)

Support Shivu 28 June 2005 08:23 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 2005-06-28 09:12:37 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx June 28, 2005 12:11 (UTC)
Oppose — Distracting background, "front side" is not visible. Top view is not the best for such objects. Juhanson 28 June 2005 14:30 (UTC)
Oppose agree to Juhanson. Bad angle norro 28 June 2005 15:15 (UTC)
Oppose agree with Norro --Pjotr 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)
Oppose agree with Pjotr. eheh -PedroPVZ 28 June 2005 19:16 (UTC)
Neutral not too bad. Chamaeleon June 29, 2005 23:18 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 29 June 2005 23:54 (UTC)
Oppose agree with Juhanson. --Martinroell 30 June 2005 00:47 (UTC)
Neutral, not too bad, but not that great, either. -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 16:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Butterfly at Fjärilshuset Solna Sweden 2005-06-28 small.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Jordgubbe 30 June 2005 23:01 (UTC). I think it is a Idea Leucone.

Support Jordgubbe 30 June 2005 23:01 (UTC)
Oppose --Very small. --Tysto 1 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)
Oppose Small resolution, unknown species, disturbing surrounding norro 1 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)
Weak Support because of small resolution. the surronding for me looks great. I like it. -PedroPVZ 1 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
Oppose Too much plants. villy ♦ ✎ 1 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with norro —Juhanson 3 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)
Neutral, due to small size. -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)
Oppose low resolution, too much stuff arround --Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 16:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sun behind the Heel Stone.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

- Self-nomination. I've got some other pictures which better illustrate the alignment of the sunrise at Stonehenge on the summer solstice, but this one gets the atmosphere nicely. Solipsist 30 June 2005 19:44 (UTC)

Support - Solipsist 30 June 2005 19:44 (UTC)
Support - Nuno Sequeira André 30 June 2005 20:39 (UTC)
Support - LoopZilla 2005-06-30 22:30:56 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 30 June 2005 23:15 (UTC)
Oppose - bad composition (because of the lower part of the photo, the upper seems very nice), people that you can't see right, or shouldnt be there, etc. etc. I can't see nothing in detail. -PedroPVZ 30 June 2005 23:32 (UTC)
Support --fir0002 30 June 2005 23:40 (UTC)
Support -- Wonderful photo. I suggest a bit of fill flash filter to bring out the people. --Tysto 1 July 2005 03:04 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 1 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 3 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)
Support - Good atmosphere ! -- Fabien1309 3 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)
Oppose awesome pic! resolution is a bit low for me tho --Quasipalm 4 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)
Support -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)
Support Marjikins 9 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with PedroPVZ, without the description I had no idea what this was - apart from a nice sunrise. --Malene Thyssen 18:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured -- Joolz 16:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Opium_poppy.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 2005-06-30 09:51:00 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 2005-06-30 09:51:00 (UTC)
Oppose — The background is not convincing. —Juhanson 30 June 2005 12:09 (UTC)
Oppose nice garden,, but I agree with Juhanson. --PedroPVZ 30 June 2005 23:17 (UTC)
Oppose Good but not great. --Tysto 1 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)
Neutral -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)
Oppose strange background, strange (no) crop --Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 16:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hautes-Fagnes.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Found this photo by accident. The scene shows a typical landscape of the Hautes-Fagnes, in East-Belgium; brilliant mood, nice arrangement, perfect colours. -- Farbenfreude 29 June 2005 22:13 (UTC)

Support -- Farbenfreude 29 June 2005 22:13 (UTC)
Neutral nice, but doesn't depict anything special. Chamaeleon June 29, 2005 23:16 (UTC)
Support, it illustrates typical wilderness. It's a feature-able image of that, at the very least. James F. (talk) 29 June 2005 23:27 (UTC)
Oppose - nothing special - Rex 29 June 2005 23:49 (UTC)
Neutral Strange pic. I don't know that kind of landscape... but I would like a little more of the tree in the front, to see how it is like. And the weather looks terrible, should be taken in a sunny day. Why everything has that brown-like colour? is it because of snow (vegetation typical of that kind of climate) or lack of sun in the winter? -PedroPVZ 30 June 2005 23:15 (UTC)
Oppose -- Nice for what it is, but doesn't seem special. --Tysto 1 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 3 July 2005 01:16 (UTC)
Support - very nice atmospheric pic of natural bogland vegetation on a frosty winter morning with no human intrusion - MPF 3 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)
Support -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)
Neutral Very grainy and I'm not sure I like the composition - very nice colours and light though. --Malene Thyssen 18:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thuresson 11:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elgaard 02:34:16, 2005-07-14 (UTC)

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 4 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 16:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MotoX racing_edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Support Self Nom. --fir0002 30 June 2005 23:46 (UTC)
Oppose Technically wonderful but not especially beautiful. --Tysto 1 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 2005-07-01 08:27:36 (UTC)
Oppose nothing special. -PedroPVZ 1 July 2005 15:23 (UTC)
Oppose Nice but common. villy ♦ ✎ 1 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)
Support Great action! Great colours, sharpness and composition. Nice that you got both drivers on the photo, it tells the story about racing well. --Malene Thyssen 3 July 2005 09:34 (UTC)
Support - You see the competition beetween the two drivers -- Fabien1309 3 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)
Oppose --Quasipalm 4 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)
Oppose --Atamari 4 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)
Support -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose => not featured -- Joolz 16:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MotoX racing04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Support Self Nom. --fir0002 30 June 2005 23:46 (UTC)
Support Bingo. --Tysto 1 July 2005 03:21 (UTC)
Oppose LoopZilla 2005-07-01 08:41:27 (UTC)
Support Great composition norro 1 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)
Support agree with norro -PedroPVZ 1 July 2005 15:22 (UTC)
Support villy ♦ ✎ 1 July 2005 19:50 (UTC)
Support I like this one more than others. There is feeling of competition. —Juhanson 3 July 2005 10:38 (UTC)
Oppose --Quasipalm 4 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)
Oppose -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 7 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
Oppose --Atomo64 8 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose => not featured -- Joolz 16:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MotoX racing03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Support Self Nom. --fir0002 30 June 2005 23:46 (UTC)
Oppose -- Technically terrific, but not especially beautiful. --Tysto 1 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)
Oppose LoopZilla 2005-07-01 08:41:59 (UTC)
Neutral -PedroPVZ 1 July 2005 15:23 (UTC)
Neutral villy ♦ ✎ 1 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)
Support - I like it ! -- Fabien1309 3 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
Oppose -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 16:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MotoX racing02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Support Self Nom. --fir0002 30 June 2005 23:46 (UTC)
Oppose -- Technically terrific, but not especially beautiful. --Tysto 1 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)
Oppose LoopZilla 2005-07-01 08:42:30 (UTC)
Support nice action Chamaeleon July 1, 2005 09:37 (UTC)
Support i like it. --PedroPVZ 1 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)
Neutral villy ♦ ✎ 1 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
Oppose -- Technically good, but not very special. -- Fabien1309 3 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)
Support i like this one more than the others --Quasipalm 4 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)
Support -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 7 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 16:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Betula Pendula at Stockholm University 2005-07-01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Jordgubbe 1 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)

日本語: (missing text)
Jordgubbe 1 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing special, tree tops aren't even focused villy ♦ ✎ 1 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)
Oppose. I can't see the trees in detail :S. Já?! Mas é que já... a seguir!!!... LOL -PedroPVZ 2 July 2005 02:09 (UTC)
Oppose Ordinary picture —Juhanson 3 July 2005 10:36 (UTC)
Oppose - Not very special -- Fabien1309 3 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)
Oppose not bad, but nothing special -- aka 4 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)
Oppose --Quasipalm 4 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)
Oppose -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)

Result: 0 support, 8 oppose => not featured -- Joolz 16:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PalaceOfWestminsterAtNight.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

Third time lucky: if you can't support two previous pictures of the Palace of Westminster, perhaps this one will do the trick. Or maybe it needs a daytime picture. On this one you can also see the time, but I should warn you it only tells the right time twice a day. Self-nomination. -- Solipsist 2 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)

Support -- Solipsist 2 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)
Support -- LoopZilla 2005-07-02 22:59:36 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 3 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)
Support. --Hautala 3 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)
Support - This one is THE one :) --Fabien1309 3 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
Support Great lighting --fir0002 4 July 2005 07:34 (UTC)
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 4 July 2005 08:18 (UTC)
Support very good. -- aka 4 July 2005 08:54 (UTC)
Support Great norro 4 July 2005 09:49 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 4 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
Support -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:33 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx 6 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)
Support --Tysto 6 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)
Support -- Farbenfreude 6 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)
Support very nice -- Gorgo 6 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)
Support --Taichi 09:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice as a desktop wallpaper. Do you also have a 1280x1024 Version? --SehLax 10:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose => featured -- Joolz 15:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hilbert_transform.png, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 2005-07-02 19:50:11 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 2005-07-02 19:50:11 (UTC)
Oppose a very usual graph. Nothing special, not even any captions norro 2 July 2005 23:00 (UTC)
What captions should it have? - Omegatron 4 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)
Oppose I love the math, but this is kinda mundane for me --Quasipalm 4 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)
Oppose -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)
Oppose It is clearly taken in a zoo: this southeast European species doesn't occur naturally together with (South American) Ringed Teal (represented by the blue squiggle). --Tysto 6 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
(cf. MPF re: Image:Aythya_nyroca16.jpg) --Tysto 7 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)

Huh?? - Omegatron 7 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)
Oppose hmm?-PedroPVZ 6 July 2005 11:09 (UTC)
Neutral - Omegatron 7 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)
Oppose --Komencanto 8 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
Oppose --Atomo64 8 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)
Oppose --Taichi 09:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 15:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aubrey_Beardsley_1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 2005-07-02 12:08:48 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 2005-07-02 12:08:48 (UTC)
Oppose grainy, jpeg compression artifacts --Quasipalm 4 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)
Oppose --Atamari 4 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)
Oppose -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)
Oppose Evocative, but not quite what I'd hope for a featured pic. --Tysto 6 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)
Oppose better but not yet FP worthy. -PedroPVZ 6 July 2005 11:07 (UTC)
Oppose Just not a pretty picture. --Komencanto 8 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
Oppose them all, that I do! Foolip 13:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 8 oppose => not featured -- Joolz 15:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AubreyBeardsley.png, not featured[edit]

300px|Aubrey Beardsley photographed by Frederick Evans

Nominate

LoopZilla 2005-07-02 21:02:08 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 2005-07-02 21:02:08 (UTC)
Oppose grainy, jpeg compression artifacts --Quasipalm 4 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)

This version is a PNG (hence no loss in compression) LoopZilla 2005-07-06 13:54:41 (UTC)

Oppose --Atamari 4 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)
Oppose -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)
Oppose --Tysto 6 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
Oppose agree with quasipalm -PedroPVZ 6 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
Oppose them all, that I do! Foolip 13:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose => not featured -- Joolz 15:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Helicopter rescue sancy takeoff.jpg featured[edit]

Self-Nomination - French Gendarmerie (Police) Helicopter flying over Sancy mountains. No vote -- Fabien1309 3 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)
Support Greudin
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 4 July 2005 08:18 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 2005-07-04 09:45:08 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 4 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
Support --Quasipalm 4 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)
Support - Omegatron 4 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
Support -- Solipsist 5 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)
Support -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:33 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx 6 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)
Support Technically remarkable and especially nice that it's not at an airport. --Tysto 6 July 2005 00:50 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 6 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)
Support --Malene Thyssen 6 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
Support -PedroPVZ 8 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)
Support --Taichi 09:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC): Awesome!![reply]
Neutral Doesn't look that spectacular to me. Foolip 13:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good pilot, but the picture is IMHO a lucky snapshot - sorry --Herrick 10:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

15 Support - 1 Neutral - 1 Oppose -> Featured -- Fabien1309 15:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:90 mile beach02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Support. Self Nom. --fir0002 4 July 2005 07:28 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 2005-07-04 09:54:36 (UTC)
Oppose shadows norro 4 July 2005 13:25 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 4 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 4 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)
Support now this i like, but could we remove the half-child in the far right? Once I saw that, it was all i could look at ;-) --Quasipalm 4 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)

Fixed --fir0002 5 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)

Support -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx 6 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
Support (weak) --Tysto 6 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)
Oppose, it's the shadows I guess. CSamulili 6 July 2005 09:04 (UTC)
Oppose nice colous, nice pic, but a small problem: not informative enough. -PedroPVZ 6 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 6 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)
Oppose nothing special--Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)
Neutral --Atomo64 8 July 2005 23:25 (UTC)
Oppose nothing special Andreas Tille 08:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose don't like the lighting -- Gorgo 18:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --.:Ajvol:. 08:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 21:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herrick 11:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 8 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured

Image:New York-NLT Landsat7.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 4 July 2005 08:13 (UTC)

Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 4 July 2005 08:13 (UTC)
Oppose LoopZilla 2005-07-04 09:48:52 (UTC)
Oppose. It's ugly. —RadRafe 4 July 2005 13:11 (UTC)
Oppose. Gotta agree with RadRafe. And it isn't even taken by a Wikipedian (which I think should be a criterion for being a featured pic) - MPF 4 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)

Many featured pics aren't taken by wikipedians but are just in the Public Domain. :)

Oppose I've seen better resolution images of nyc, like google maps for example; this is just ok --Quasipalm 4 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)
Oppose -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)
Oppose where can I get PD space pics of around the world??? -PedroPVZ 6 July 2005 11:15 (UTC)
Oppose -- Get_It • 6 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)
Oppose --Atamari 21:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 9 oppose => not featured -- Joolz 13:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:90 mile beach.jpg, not featured[edit]

Support. Self Nom. --fir0002 4 July 2005 07:28 (UTC)
Support That's just a perfect, classical beach. Nice and great composition norro 4 July 2005 09:47 (UTC)
Oppose LoopZilla 2005-07-04 09:55:07 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 4 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
Support. Nicely free of human intrusion, not even any obvious footprints. - MPF 4 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 4 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)
Oppose a bit too over saturated and artificially contrasty for me --Quasipalm 4 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)
Support --Atamari 4 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)
Oppose - nice, but not special. -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx 6 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
Support Absolutely terrific. --Tysto 6 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)
Support Pwetty. CSamulili 6 July 2005 09:03 (UTC)
Oppose because the beach of my city is very similar, the sand looks like artificial. While the sea is very nice coloured!!!! So real. Should be taken in a day with better weather. -PedroPVZ 6 July 2005 11:14 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 6 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 7 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)
Oppose nothing special --Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)
Support --Atomo64 8 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)
Neutral Very nice colors, but not quite special enough for FP --Malene Thyssen 18:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special Andreas Tille 08:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Taichi 09:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing remarkable about that picture. It is not bad, but simply too ordinary. -- Gorgo 15:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. The length of the beach and height of the waves is hard to judge. --Martinroell 11:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --.:Ajvol:. 08:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- looks good to me. -- Joolz 15:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support The division of the photo into thirds is great -- Mlm42 18:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 13 support, 10 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 13:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Weighting_curves.png, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 2005-07-04 11:10:36 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 2005-07-04 11:10:36 (UTC)
Oppose usual graph + the fact, that the axes are of logarithmic scale is not really clear in this drawing, but that's important for this issue norro 4 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)
What do you mean? The x axis is logarithmic (10, 100, 1000), and the y axis is linear (0, 10, 20). The y axis is also logarithmic in a sense, though, since the dB unit is logarithmic. - Omegatron 4 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)
Oppose it's ok... --Quasipalm 4 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)
Oppose, not really special. -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
Oppose --fir0002 6 July 2005 05:12 (UTC)
Oppose nothing that is FP worthy. -PedroPVZ 6 July 2005 11:16 (UTC)
Oppose -- Get_It • 6 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
Neutral - Omegatron 7 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)
Oppose --Atomo64 8 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)
Oppose --Atamari 21:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 13:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Misty morning03.jpg, featured[edit]

Support Self Nom. --fir0002 4 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 4 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)
Support --Quasipalm 4 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
Support -- Fabien1309 4 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)
Support -- LoopZilla 2005-07-05 08:10:26 (UTC)
Support -- Solipsist 5 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)
Support -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx 6 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
Support --Tysto 6 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)
Support well done -- Farbenfreude 6 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)
Support so beautiful, althoug not very informative. -PedroPVZ 6 July 2005 11:18 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 6 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
Support --Malene Thyssen 6 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)
Support --Taichi 09:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - wow -- Joolz 16:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Foolip 13:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 17 support => featured -- Joolz 13:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chatsworth_House_Fountain.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 2005-07-04 14:17:21 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 2005-07-04 14:17:21 (UTC)
Oppose --Quasipalm 4 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 4 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)
Support --FML ^hi 5 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)
Neutral - I like the image, but it looks like there are a lot of blocky jpeg artifacts in the borders of the spray. -- Solipsist 5 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)
Oppose, ditto Solipsist -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)
Support Nicely dramatic. I don't see artifacts until I blow it up beyond 100%. At 100% and below, they're just water droplets. --Tysto 6 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)
Support -PedroPVZ 6 July 2005 11:21 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 6 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)
Support, lovely. James F. (talk) 8 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)
Oppose artefacts, blurred, looks like a usual fountain norro 9 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)
Support Marjikins 9 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)
Oppose I don't know if its artifacts or strange water, but the photo's nothing special. Foolip 13:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 21:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured -- 13:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:City lights in motion.jpg, not featured[edit]

Self-nomination —RadRafe 4 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)
Support —RadRafe 4 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)
Neutral nice picture, but not really any information in it norro 4 July 2005 13:23 (UTC)

Well, it does serve as an example of motion blur. —RadRafe 4 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)

Hmmm, i didn't think about that... norro 4 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)

Oppose LoopZilla 2005-07-04 14:32:12 (UTC)
Oppose --Quasipalm 4 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)
Support Nice example of motion blur. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 5 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)
Oppose, unintelligible -- Solipsist 5 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)
Support - abstract, but nice. -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)
Oppose, not really a good example of motion blur. ed g2s • talk 6 July 2005 01:26 (UTC)
Oppose a bad example of motion light. -PedroPVZ 6 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)

Ed, Pedro, I'd like to hear your suggestions for a better one. —RadRafe 15:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[2] if this had more moving cars it would be a nice example. BTW, it's my city. --PedroPVZ 05:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)
Oppose move the object, not wave the camera. Kind of funny... Darkone (¿!) 21:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's enough late-night traffic in Prince George. —RadRafe 11:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Atamari 21:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 13:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Australian cart.jpg, featured[edit]

Support Self Nom. --fir0002 4 July 2005 12:31 (UTC)
Support —RadRafe 4 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 4 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 4 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)
Support very good -- aka 4 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)
Support --Quasipalm 4 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)
Support --Atamari 4 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)
Support Greudin
Support LoopZilla 2005-07-05 13:51:28 (UTC)
Support -- Solipsist 5 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)
Support -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx 6 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry. It's a bit too artsy and doesn't illustrate anything. --Tysto 6 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)
Support it illustrates this article, of course - a brilliant photo -- Farbenfreude 6 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)
Neutral not very informative.I would prefer to see the cart in a more informative position. But very nice. -PedroPVZ 6 July 2005 11:18 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 6 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
Oppose --Atomo64 9 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)
Support --Chun-hian 18:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 18:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 16 support,2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured -- Joolz 13:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aythya_nyroca16.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 2005-07-04 21:22:10 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 2005-07-04 21:22:10 (UTC)
Oppose - while it is a nice pic, it is clearly taken in a zoo: this southeast European species doesn't occur naturally together with (South American) Ringed Teal (bird at back right of photo), and is also not in its usual habitat (swamps, not mown grass) so the whole photo looks un-natural - MPF 4 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)
Oppose what MPF said --Quasipalm 5 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)
Oppose, as per MPF -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)
Oppose --Tysto 6 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
Oppose Artificial. --Komencanto 8 July 2005 14:00 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)
Oppose -Agree with MPF -Chun-hian 17:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --PedroPVZ 03:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 21:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 13:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lightning cloud to cloud (aka).jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

-- Fabien1309 4 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)

Support -- Fabien1309 4 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)
Support --Quasipalm 4 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)
Support —RadRafe 5 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 2005-07-05 08:08:32 (UTC)
Support -- Solipsist 5 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)
Support -- Meteor2017 5 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)
Support -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx 6 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
Support --Tysto 6 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 6 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)
Support --Malene Thyssen 6 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)
Support cool -PedroPVZ 8 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)
Support --Avatar 8 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:58 (UTC)
Support norro 9 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)
Support --Chun-hian 12:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Taichi 09:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 23:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC) show[reply]
Support Yay! Foolip 13:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 19 support => featured -- Joolz 13:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lance-Armstrong-TdF2004.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

--Patrick-br ^msg 5 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)

Support --Patrick-br ^msg 5 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)
Support Not only is Lance Armstrong an excellent cyclist, its a good photo. Shame about the low resoloution, any chance of a higher res version? --Cyr 5 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)
Oppose --Atamari 5 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)
Oppose -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)
Oppose (weak) Good photo for cycling or Tour de France or Lance article, but not quite featured photo quality. --Tysto 6 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)
Oppose too small, and although the photographer has tried to keep up with Mr. Armstrong, he's still too blurred. ed g2s • talk 6 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 6 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)
Oppose --Komencanto 8 July 2005 14:09 (UTC)
Oppose resolution --Avatar 8 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)
Oppose too blurred --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 15:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Deep Impact approach 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Taichi 5 July 2005 09:14 (UTC)

Support: --Taichi 5 July 2005 09:18 (UTC)
Oppose. Poor resolution, to begin with something. --Hautala 5 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)
Oppose LoopZilla 2005-07-05 11:57:23 (UTC)
Oppose. But perhaps better version will become available once they've had a chance to process the data. -- Solipsist 5 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)
Oppose -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 6 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)
Oppose extremely interresting subject (Just thinking in it, amazes me), uninterresting picture though. I've seen MUCH MORE interresting astronomy pictures. -PedroPVZ 6 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)
Oppose --Avatar 8 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)
Oppose Foolip 13:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 21:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 15:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tree_hadrian's_wall.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 2005-07-05 08:14:42 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 2005-07-05 08:14:42 (UTC)
Support -- Solipsist 5 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)
Oppose --Atamari 5 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)
Neutral - Hey, I know that tree! Seen it many a time :-) Not sure I like the monochrome and overdone cloud effects, though. BTW the tree is an Acer pseudoplatanus. - MPF 5 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)
Support -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)
Neutral Am I a bad person for preferring the original? --Tysto 6 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)
- Have to admit I prefer the original too - MPF 6 July 2005 09:30 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 6 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)
Support nice -- Gorgo 6 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)
Oppose the sky has a lot of problems and it is too big, and it destroys the picture. -PedroPVZ 6 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)
Support - art - Rex 7 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)
Support --FML ^hi 8 July 2005 04:52 (UTC) I like this. :)
Support --Avatar 8 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)
Oppose too much sky --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with MPF --Malene Thyssen 18:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Martinroell 11:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joolz 16:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it! Foolip 13:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it for the clouds vs. tree action, but Hadrian's wall is far from centre stage.. -- Mlm42 18:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a coincidence that Hadrian's wall was there. I simply thought "tree.jpg" was a little unimaginative -- Tomhab 23:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support great, would be nice as a poster. Maybe you could upload a version that doesn't has such an extreme contrast increasing. The original in SW and with contrast +15% would be enough IMHO -- SehLax 20:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually all I did (and reduce the brightness by 15% or so) - image Image:Tree hadrian's wall (original).JPG shows the original. The rest was just photography :) -- Tomhab 23:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral => featured -- Joolz 15:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AubreyBeardsley_uncompressed.png, not featured[edit]

300px|Aubrey Beardsley photographed by Frederick Evans

Nominate

LoopZilla 2005-07-05 14:29:49 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 2005-07-05 14:29:49 (UTC)
Oppose -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)
Oppose --Tysto 6 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
Oppose the pic quality didnt change a lot. -PedroPVZ 6 July 2005 11:03 (UTC)

This version is a PNG (hence no loss in compression) LoopZilla 07:50:30, 2005-07-12 (UTC)

Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
Oppose --Atamari 22:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose them all, that I do! Foolip 13:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose => not featured -- Joolz 15:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:European-parliament-strasbourg.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by Stunter - uploaded by Stunter (this time in high-res!) - nominated by Stunter 23:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stunter 23:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Solipsist 09:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gread image. High resolution. Akriesch 13:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a daytime pic would look nicer - MPF 21:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also have loads of daytime pics of the same building and they don't look that good, according to me and quite many people I asked for their opinion - The building's other side looks indeed better during daytime --Stunter 15:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -LadyofHats 07:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support So great !--Hi-tacks 16:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XN 22:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good work. Snowwayout 01:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res, not usable on printouts. Lightening, colors and composition perfect except slightly cut on the right. --Ikiwaner 21:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't get it. How can you like a picture much and oppose for a reason that is in my mind disconnected from quality features. Wiki does not mention anything about minimum size. Maybe, they should? SVGA is by far enough to print out, except if you wanna print a poster...

No it's not. FP should at least be usable as a destop wallpaper on a larger screen without upsizing or printable on a standard 11x15 cm printout. --Ikiwaner 18:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Nice but just a bit small. Beautiful colors Ceridwen 23:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to MPF and Ikiwaner norro 15:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jonathunder 01:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 13:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 support, 3 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 10:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tresco_-_aerial_photo6.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

Self nominated - I like this one, plus it is the UK so it's very rare that it is not raining --Cyr 5 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)

Support --Cyr 5 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)
Support - fascinating photo - MPF 5 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 2005-07-05 22:38:29 (UTC)
Support -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)
Support Aerial photography! Woo hoo! I wish I flew over beautiful islands instead of Indiana. Tysto's aerial photography project. --Tysto 6 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)
Support fine one -- Farbenfreude 6 July 2005 03:52 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 6 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)
Neutral too less color --Avatar 8 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
Oppose cut on the left norro 9 July 2005 15:22 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with norro --Malene Thyssen 18:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prefer this version --Elgaard 00:55:39, 2005-07-15 (UTC)
Oppose --Martinroell 11:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Mlm42 18:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kernow bys vykken. Very nice. QuartierLatin1968 21:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Meur ras, I took quite a few pics coming back on the helicopter, have a look Category:Photos by Tom Corser --Cyr 14:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral => featured -- Joolz 16:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Traineira_afundada.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

- Partially sunk fishing boat, we can see Afurada on the background (Vila Nova de Gaia,Portugal) - Nuno Sequeira André 6 July 2005 11:54 (UTC)

Oppose LoopZilla 2005-07-07 07:15:06 (UTC)
Oppose Yawn --fir0002 7 July 2005 08:33 (UTC)
Oppose --Quasipalm 7 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)
Oppose --Avatar 8 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)
Oppose --Atomo64 8 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)
Oppose Ó Nuno que foto feia. :S -PedroPVZ 05:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 0 support, 7 oppose => not featured -- Joolz 15:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Novgorod_Russia-v1-p98.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 2005-07-06 08:31:06 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 2005-07-06 08:31:06 (UTC)
Oppose not signed: User:Komencanto
Oppose --Avatar 8 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)
Oppose --Atomo64 8 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)
Oppose --Atamari 21:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose => not featured -- Joolz 15:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bush in fog.jpg, not featured[edit]

Support Self Nom. --fir0002 6 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 2005-07-06 08:34:42 (UTC)
Support I love it. -PedroPVZ 6 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 6 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)
Support --ka-em-zwei-ein 6 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)
Oppose fog + forest ... nothing special about that picture -- Gorgo 6 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)
Oppose - Rex 7 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
Oppose doesn't sit right with me --Quasipalm 8 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
Oppose not 'special' enough --Avatar 8 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)
Oppose ack Gorgo and Avatar --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)
Support --FML ^hi 19:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Ygrek 23:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Martinroell 11:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mlm42 18:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose => not featured -- Joolz 15:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tresco_-_aerial_photo6_edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Support --fir0002 6 July 2005 05:06 (UTC)
Support much better. The reflection that the original pic had it is solved, nice colours, although the main island (if it is an island) is cut in the left. It shouldnt. -PedroPVZ 6 July 2005 11:26 (UTC)
- True, it would have been better to see the whole island, but the damn tail of the helicopter was in the way! The colours look more artificial, but that might just be me.--Cyr 6 July 2005 14:21 (UTC)
Yes, but the above image has poor colours, it is like in my pics :(. it also has a reflection made by the window of the airplane (this hasn't, and I cant see any problem in the pic. It almost seems a tropical island with barrier reefs. LOLOL. I cant believe that in the UK. Does it really rain a lot as you complain? almost everyday? In here rain is not that common, and we maybe get one day of rain in 30. The pic looks artificial if you see a thumb of it, but in full screen, I compared it with the original and, honestly, it didnt seem that artificial. although I think the green should be a little more darker. --PedroPVZ 6 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)
- Yep, it's really the UK, http://www.tresco.co.uk is the "official" site of the island. The weather is very changeable in the South West UK, one day it can be 30°C blue skies and sunshine and the next misty with rain. Although it never really drops below 5°C even in the winter.

I treated it like a tropical island --fir0002 7 July 2005 08:32 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 2005-07-06 14:00:56 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 6 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)
Support nice, a little bit artificial colors though -- Gorgo 6 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)
Oppose. Lurid. The original was far better! - MPF 7 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)
Oppose Too much. --Tysto 7 July 2005 17:18 (UTC)
Neutral too much color --Avatar 8 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
Oppose tooooooo much color --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)
Oppose colors norro 9 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)
Oppose the colors look very artificial --Franz Xaver 16:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Colors -- Fabien1309 11:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Mlm42 18:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much color --Atamari 21:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 15:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:London-07.07.2005-trapped_underground.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 2005-07-07 21:29:54 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 2005-07-07 21:29:54 (UTC)

Post vote comment: see also [3] LoopZilla 20:19:17, 2005-07-25 (UTC)

Oppose bah! --PedroPVZ 8 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)
Neutral --FML ^hi 8 July 2005 04:49 (UTC) I like, but I see this image in the newspapper. It's free?
Yes, it is. It's licensed unter Creative Commons License. norro 21:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 8 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)
Neutral Surely there are better pictures than this one of that event? --Komencanto 8 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)
Well considering this one was making the front pages, apparently not. ed g2s • talk 19:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Quasipalm 8 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)
Neutral --Avatar 8 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
Oppose - A man, a hand and blurry darkness? Thuresson 8 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)
Oppose --Atomo64 8 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)
Oppose Ack Thuresson norro 9 July 2005 15:23 (UTC)
Support - for what it represents, an attempt to capture a possibly life-threatening situation by a regular citizen, enabled by unbiquitous technology. Knowing the full story of the London events gives this photo life, and I believe that this makes it in some ways more valuable than professional photography because it allows the viewer to feel that "It could have been me taking that photo". Historically valuable.--Eloquence 23:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elgaard 02:26:57, 2005-07-14 (UTC)
Support --SylwiaS 21:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose definitely no featured picture -- Gorgo 17:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.:Ajvol:. 08:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I doesn't need to be featured just because its got historical value. very low quality. Foolip 13:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --TarmoK 12:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 support, 10 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 17:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:World_C_4Jul2005at1945UTC.jpg, not featured[edit]

Weather map: temperatures of cities across the world, 4th July, 2005

Nominate

LoopZilla 2005-07-07 07:33:28 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 2005-07-07 07:33:28 (UTC)
Oppose - ? -- Fabien1309 7 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)
Oppose spam? --Gorgo 7 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)
Oppose Loopzilla, you a'ight? ;-) --Quasipalm 7 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)
Oppose booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo yo Loopzila. You must be kidding... -PedroPVZ 8 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
Oppose ? --Atamari 8 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)
Oppose -- Get_It • 8 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)
Oppose -- Nuno Sequeira André 8 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)
Oppose well... --Avatar 8 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)
Oppose --Atomo64 8 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)
Oppose. Loopzilla, cut it out. --Hautala 16:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Duh. Foolip 13:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 11 oppose => not featured -- Joolz 17:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Metronomes_101.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 2005-07-08 08:58:29 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 2005-07-08 08:58:29 (UTC)
Oppose I wonder how a metronom comes onto a lawn? Andreas Tille 8 July 2005 11:13 (UTC)
Oppose What a bizzaire photo. You can't vote to support your own photos LoopZilla. --Komencanto 8 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)
It's allowed to vote for your pictures --FoeNyx 16:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 8 July 2005 13:47 (UTC)
Oppose -- Nuno Sequeira André 8 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)
Oppose Haha, I love this photo... so random, thanks loopz. :-) (just not for FP) --Quasipalm 8 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)
Oppose --Avatar 8 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)
Oppose strange .. --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)
Oppose --Atomo64 8 July 2005 23:16 (UTC)
Oppose --Hautala 17:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Malene Thyssen 18:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 22:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose o.O -PedroPVZ 05:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grass? Foolip 13:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 12 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 17:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sunset in South African national park.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

A personal photo of a sunset in Kruger National Park in South Africa. --Komencanto 8 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 2005-07-08 12:24:04 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 8 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not voting for any more sunsets unless they are just completely amazing or illustrative of something special. Category:Sunset is going to be massive in a year or two. --Quasipalm 8 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)
Neutral --Avatar 8 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)
Support --Atomo64 8 July 2005 23:16 (UTC)
Oppose -- Same as Quasipalm; perhaps some kind of review of featured pictures with a period of one year might make sense. Andreas Tille 07:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Malene Thyssen 18:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Me too: yet another sunset. --Hautala 16:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral could be a little better. --PedroPVZ 05:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Martinroell 11:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 17:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aerogel nasa.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

--Avatar 8 July 2005 16:22 (UTC)

Support --Avatar 8 July 2005 16:22 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
Oppose --Atomo64 8 July 2005 23:16 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 9 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)
Support -- LoopZilla 16:23:28, 2005-07-11 (UTC)
Support perfect set, interresting material. -PedroPVZ 05:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elgaard 02:36:58, 2005-07-14 (UTC)
Oppose --FML ^hi 08:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mlm42 18:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured -- Joolz 17:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aerogelbrick.jpg, featured[edit]

A 2.5 kg brick is supported on top of a piece of aerogel weighing only 2 grams

Nominate

--Avatar 8 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)

Support if this isn't cool, nothing else is :-) --Avatar 8 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)
Support LoopZilla 2005-07-08 20:52:48 (UTC)
Support --Komencanto 8 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 9 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 9 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx FoeNyx 23:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 18:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rex 18:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Taichi 09:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interresting. but I can barelly see any detail. My desktop didn't like it. -PedroPVZ 05:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting (nearly pure white in the upper right part), the object of interest is in an unfavourable position in front of the horizon norro 19:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
imho the position front of horizon line stresses the fact the gel is translucent. --FoeNyx 11:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - El Comandante 20:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose => featured -- Joolz 17:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Empis tesselata male (aka).jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

Support Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 9 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)
Support -- Great Andreas Tille 07:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 18:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chun-hian 18:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rex 21:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
strong Support --PedroPVZ 05:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beny Shlevich 06:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Foolip 13:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atamari 21:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ♮ 08:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 18:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 12 support => featured -- Joolz 18:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Metellina mengei (aka).jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

Support Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)
Neutral -- Get_It • 9 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)
Support --Malene Thyssen 18:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chun-hian 18:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rex 21:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support so real. -PedroPVZ 05:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cyr 16:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atamari 21:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pabix &; 08:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 18:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9 support, 1 neutral => featured -- Joolz 17:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Roman aqueduct in Segovia (side view).jpg, featured[edit]

A photo from the side of the Roman aqueduct and the main plaza in Segovia, Spain.

Nominate

Originally I had one of my photos like this but I changed it to this guy's one because it is better. A photo from the side of the Roman aqueduct and the main plaza in Segovia, Spain. I like the framing of this photo, I hope you do to! --Komencanto 7 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

Support James F. (talk) 8 July 2005 11:29 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 8 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)
Support --Quasipalm 8 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)
Support --Avatar 8 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)
Support --Pjotr 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
Support --Pixeltoo 8 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)
Support --Atomo64 8 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx FoeNyx 23:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support much better. --PedroPVZ 05:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wicked. QuartierLatin1968 21:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pabix &; 08:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gaf.arq 14:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Atamari 23:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was about to feature this, but there's a big discrepency, the image in the title is not the image in the thumbnail. Which one is supposed to be featured and which was voted on? -- Joolz 17:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that a different photo was originally nominated (that of the title), I think all these votes apply to the new image, rather than the old. -- Joolz 17:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 12 support, 1 neutral => featured -- Joolz 17:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hurricane_Dennis_on_July_7_2005_1550_UTC.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

--Avatar 9 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)

Support What about a weather picture? --Avatar 9 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 9 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 9 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx FoeNyx 23:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 18:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, amazing resolution norro 21:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atomo64 01:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 07:41:49, 2005-07-12 (UTC)
Support --Taichi 09:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pjotr 15:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cyr 16:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral love the pic, but the borderlines (or what's that?) are disturbing me. Could sb. deactivate or erase them?

--SehLax 19:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Luc Viatour 08:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Minh Nguyễn (talk, blog) 08:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 13 support, 1 neutral => featured -- Joolz 18:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tamul(mexico)_waterfall.jpg, not featured[edit]

Tamul Waterfall

Nominate

Atomo64 9 July 2005 02:31 (UTC)

Support Atomo64 9 July 2005 02:31 (UTC)
Support -- Get_It • 9 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 9 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)
Support —FoeNyx FoeNyx 23:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — --Ygrek 16:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not sharp, a little bit to bright for my taste, shutter speed should be either shorter or much longer Andreas Tille 07:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Andreas Tille, but the composition is just great so I vote pro anyway. --Malene Thyssen 18:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I also agree with Andres. Rex 21:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Andreas Tille + don't like the composition norro 21:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - bland composition. CSamulili 13:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Taichi 09:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Norro, overexposed --Pjotr 15:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull colours —Juhanson 21:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SylwiaS 21:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp, colours... --PedroPVZ 04:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose => not featured -- Joolz 18:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eastern_Water_Dragon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

unknown

Support LoopZilla 11:08:54, 2005-07-10 (UTC)
Oppose shadows norro 21:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Rex 21:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 22:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atomo64 01:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the shadows are distracting --Pjotr 15:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shaddow --Atamari 21:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose skINMATE 11:48, 25. July 2005 (UTC)
Neutral almost support. --PedroPVZ 15:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Malene Thyssen 06:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Clippertonisland.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

--Taichi 10:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Taichi 10:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC): This is all the vegetation in Clipperton Island.[reply]
Oppose It's leaning norro 21:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Rex 21:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 22:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice ... but somehow not enough -- Gorgo 01:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --nice, but I don't like it very much Atomo64 01:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 23:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC) rare pic.[reply]
Neutral LOL. Poor islands, lets make a donation to the island offering more vegetation? I like the picture, but I want the see the entier island. -PedroPVZ 03:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Mlm42 18:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 21:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured Malene Thyssen 07:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rzeczpospolita voivodships.png, featured[edit]

Nominate

. One of the best maps done for Wiki, and a high time User:Halibutt got some recognition at Featured Pictures domain. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose can't see something special norro 21:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rex 21:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 22:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technically remarkable, nice resolution, but I don't think that's enough for a featured picture -- Gorgo 01:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --I don't like it very much, is good, but I don't like it Atomo64 01:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I would appreciate it if the nay-sayers gave some more explanation or feedback. What's wrong with the map and what do they expect of a map to be. Halibutt 10:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- it IS good, it even is a good map. But a featured picture should have a good theme, good composition and should be technically perfect. This is just a technically perfect map, it lacks an interesting theme (at least I think this one is not interesting) and great composition, maybe thats a problem maps just have because they are .. maps ;) but that doesn't mean we should lower the standards. -- Gorgo 18:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Nice colors Blueroan3 12:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO Halibutt's maps of PLC are one of best --SylwiaS 12:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good map. -PedroPVZ 03:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.:Ajvol:. 08:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good map, interesting theme. --Wojsyl 16:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i think, the map have an error. Search 1651-1661/ James Island/Gambia. Without the error: nothing special - neutral --Atamari 21:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been looking for a map like this for years! Besides, maps are way underappreciated in the great Wikimedia echo chamber. QuartierLatin1968 21:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ttyre 05:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Taichi 09:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC): Interesting map. The colors are pretty good.[reply]

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => featured Malene Thyssen 07:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Green_red_white.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

— --Ygrek 16:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC) White, red, green. Winter in Germany.[reply]

Oppose --Malene Thyssen 18:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dark, blurred, can't identify the red thing norro 21:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Rex 21:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 22:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose badly needs color correction -- Gorgo 01:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral way better now, but it still lacks something .. can't really tell, probably a nicer plant or something like this ;) -- Gorgo 14:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I accept criticism. Thanks for all.--Ygrek 23:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --It took me 3 minutes to whatch what it was Atomo64 01:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Pjotr 15:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose maybe a bit of sunshine would have made a good picture of it. But by now it's just very trist and I get depressed ;) I like your images of Sagrada Familia and of San Pietro better --SehLax 19:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for an estimation. A few sunlight it would be quite good. But, if there is a snow and the sky is covered by a thick layer of clouds?--Ygrek 18:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 21:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 0 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Malene Thyssen 07:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Satellite image of France in August 2002.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

--Hautala 17:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hautala 17:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 18:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 21:01:10, 2005-07-10 (UTC)
Oppose Why not showing the frontiers in a proper way? norro 21:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look closer Norro, the state lines are in fact there, but they are only about a pixle wide on the full version --Quasipalm 22:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Quasipalm 22:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 22:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 23:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I would support if either the borders became usable or were removed -- Joolz 17:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atomo64 01:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Taichi 09:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 00:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but nothing special, if this one gets featured, all sattelite images can get featured --Pjotr 15:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What Pjotr said. --Martinroell 11:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -PedroPVZ 03:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and there are better examples of sattelite images, like a view of a glacier or a desert etc. --SehLax 19:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atamari 21:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there are better satellite images than this one — Serinde 06:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support But there are no better subjects. Vive la France! QuartierLatin1968 21:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Malene Thyssen 07:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Freak Out, Oblivion, night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Selfnomination. An alternative example of motion blur. The Freak Out is a type of funfair ride.. -- Solipsist 17:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Solipsist 17:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fabien1309 20:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rex 21:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hmmm, i could imagine better examples for motion blur (perhaps an object contrasted to the itself, once motion blurred, once not). The picture is leaning and the funfair ride is cut. norro 21:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It • 22:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, Good except that it's leaning but that should be easy to fix. CSamulili 13:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC) Support CSamulili 15:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well actually I don't think it is leaning. It is more to do with perspective distortion and composition. I've now partially corrected the perspective and extended the left edge to help balance it. -- Solipsist 23:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support LoopZilla 13:52:35, 2005-07-11 (UTC)
Neutral --Atomo64 01:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Malene Thyssen 08:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yukk. - MPF 00:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer the one above --Pjotr 15:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --PedroPVZ 03:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mlm42 18:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 21:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Malene Thyssen 07:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Burning Viet Cong base camp.jpg, not featured[edit]

300px|Burning Viet Cong base camp - 1968

Nominate

--W.wolny 18:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose image quality, resolution norro 21:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Quasipalm 22:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It • 22:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution -- Gorgo 01:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atomo64 01:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution --Pjotr 15:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 0 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured Malene Thyssen 07:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amstel_Drecht_Canal.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 18:29:53, 2005-07-10 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 18:29:53, 2005-07-10 (UTC)
Oppose - nothing special (perhaps because I live near the Amstel) - Rex 21:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose usual norro 21:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Quasipalm 22:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 22:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --nothing special Atomo64 01:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support unusual for me. --PedroPVZ 05:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too boring --Pjotr 15:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outside NL it is unusual to build houses below the water --Elgaard 00:59:04, 2005-07-15 (UTC)
Oppose -- Mlm42 18:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured Malene Thyssen 07:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Extreme - Orbiter, spinning night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 14:00:04, 2005-07-11 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 14:00:04, 2005-07-11 (UTC)
Oppose - I prefer Image:Freak Out, Oblivion, night.jpg (below), where the effect is more impressive. Rex
Support --FML ^hi 19:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Atomo64 01:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 01:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pjotr 15:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel sick just looking at it --195.157.204.68 16:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- please log in to vote -- Gorgo 17:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light is to smeared out -- wasn't it moving fast enough? Foolip 13:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 21:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Serinde 06:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured Malene Thyssen 07:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1247-Amsterdam.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 14:09:52, 2005-07-11 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 14:09:52, 2005-07-11 (UTC)
Neutral - slightly blurred, but otherwise nice. Rex 18:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Atomo64 01:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 01:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very nice, but bad technical quality --Pjotr 15:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 07:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --TarmoK 12:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 4 neutral => not featured Malene Thyssen 07:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pongo pygmaeus (orangutang).jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

(Self-nomination) Malene Thyssen 20:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Malene Thyssen 19:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Suddenly I saw a friend :P Atomo64 01:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It • 01:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hahaha... -- Chun-hian 02:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 06:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little bit too comical for me, unpicturesque background norro 07:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to background and I don't like the pose -- Gorgo 14:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strange facial expression --Pjotr 15:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll ask him politely to smile next time ;-) --Malene Thyssen 20:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 11:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great picture Nuno Sequeira André 10:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral a bit low-res, would support a higher resolution photo. Foolip 12:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support The facial expression makes the photo -- Mlm42 18:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - El Comandante 20:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Mlm42! QuartierLatin1968 21:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 10:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => featured Malene Thyssen 07:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marinated_olives.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 21:39:38, 2005-07-11 (UTC)

Support LoopZilla 21:39:38, 2005-07-11 (UTC)
Oppose --Atomo64 01:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 01:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 07:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Fabien1309 16:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support i love olives and olive oil. hmmm... -PedroPVZ 06:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Pjotr 15:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I sure don't like olives, and this is just an OK picture. Foolip 12:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mlm42 18:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Malene Thyssen 07:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jan Matejko-Astronomer Copernicus-Conversation with God.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Astronomer Copernicus: Conversation with God" painted by Jan Matejko (1872). One of the better works of Matejko, a classic of Polish painting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It • 20:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LoopZilla 22:40:36, 2005-07-12 (UTC)
Support -- (although weak) Halibutt 10:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SylwiaS 12:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -Sorry, I just don't like this kidn of pics -Atomo64 24:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - bad jpg-artefacts norro 19:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate on what are those 'jpg artefacts' and if it is possible to fix them somehow? The picture 'looks' good to me - otherwise I wouldn't have nominated it in the first place. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - they are very clearly visible if you look at the sky in the background of the picture and the face (which is actually quite central). Please have a look at [4] to see the difference between a high compressed (bad quality, low filesize) and a low compressed picture. -- Gorgo 16:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Norro, awful jpg artefacts - MPF 00:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ttyre 14:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Norro, awful jpg artefacts --Pjotr 14:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - img quality - Rex 01:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It • 02:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with rex. But I like this kind of pics. -PedroPVZ 03:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wojsyl 16:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mlm42 18:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad quality -- Gorgo 13:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice but too much compressed --TarmoK 12:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 17:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Breithorn_Enzian_2005-06-11.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

. This picture shows gentian (cf. Gentiana brachyphylla) in front of the Breithorn, a 4.164 m mountain in the Swiss alps. --Dirk Beyer 09:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Taichi 09:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC):Absolutely beauty...[reply]
Support - Beautiful ... -- Fabien1309 16:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It • 20:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LoopZilla 22:41:17, 2005-07-12 (UTC)
Support --Atomo64 24:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice -- Gorgo 14:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice in any case but I would crop the image a certain amount to stress the main topic of the image a bit more. Andreas Tille 21:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent habitat pic - MPF 00:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pjotr 14:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 11:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PedroPVZ 03:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.:Ajvol:. 08:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Niceness. Foolip 12:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent ! ♦ Pabix ♮ 08:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 18:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blured gras in the foregrund could be cut - agree with Andreas Tille. The colours are a bit to blue. --Malene Thyssen 19:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well done! --Thomas G. Graf 17:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose don't like the colors, look fake -- Janek 21:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 3 neutral => featured -- Joolz 17:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rhinoceros in South Africa.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

--Komencanto 01:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Komencanto 01:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, from where does that shadow comes from ? -- Get_It • 01:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the shadows --Chun-hian 02:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but the shadow is disturbing and you can't see the heads in a proper way (shadow, front view) norro 07:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The shadows disturb me too ... -- Fabien1309 16:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atomo64 24:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - They're real (not in a zoo) - MPF 00:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elgaard 02:22:03, 2005-07-14 (UTC)
Oppose --Pjotr 15:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 11:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both versions, I'm against retouching animals :) Foolip 12:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- This is Komencanto's brother, I'm the one who took the photo. Yes, they are out in the wild and the shadow comes from a tree...not that disturbing

I removed the "disturbing" shadow. Hopefully those that were previously "disturbed" can now support... =) - Didactohedron 06:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the new version of the photo -- Serinde 06:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SupportEl Comandante 20:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow, excellent work, Didactohedron (anyway: you can't see the heads in a proper way - shadow, front view) norro 10:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --CSamulili 09:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 19:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support could be a bit darker -- Janek 21:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Results: 4 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured -- Joolz 17:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Results: (adj): 5 support, 2 oppose => featured -- Joolz 17:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]