Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2007

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

Image:BiodegradablePlasticUtensils1.jpg, featured[edit]

Info created by the USDA - uploaded by ShadowHalo - nominated by ShadowHalo --ShadowHalo 18:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ShadowHalo 18:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image was probably created using polarizers, so that the stress in the plastic material translates into colours. See Photoelasticity for more details on this technique, and Photoélasticimétrie for a couple of images. --Atoma 08:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Trounce 11:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ lacking info on the object/technique. — Lycaon 12:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC) dropping my opposition , car Atoma était si gentille d'ajouter cette info aux image — Lycaon 15:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info These are not compulsory informations, not a reason to oppose. --Atoma 16:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment For me, lack of info makes a picture less valuable, which is an important criterium. Lycaon 18:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info If that's so important, I've added the information to the photo. Here it is below. --Atoma 21:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you 100% sure that the photographer did it this way? I am very well familiar with the physics of stress, elasticity and polarization, but you can't distill that info from the website of the original photo. Unless you talked to Scott Bauer, of course ;-) Lycaon 15:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, you never know, I never say 100% ;) But having done this experiment several times myself (at that époque I wasn't into photography yet) I would say he must certainly have done it in a similar way. --Atoma 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did put an email into the USDA to see about any additional information. Ideally I'll get a reply by the 22nd, but I'm not holding my breath. ShadowHalo 20:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great!! I might still support then ;-) Lycaon 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Lerdsuwa 16:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info Ok, in reply to Lycaon I'll try to explain briefly the technique used to make the photo. The same text has been added in the photo description. Some (solid) knowledge in physics is required to understand this phenomenon. For those who already tried this experiment it will be easier to understand.

Explanation on the photo setup and physical phenomenon

The photo has been made using the photoelasticity method, an experimental method which gets a fairly accurate picture of stress distribution even around abrupt discontinuities in a material.

When a ray of plane polarised light is passed through a photoelastic material, it gets resolved along the two principal stress directions and each of these components experiences different refractive indices. The difference in the refractive indices leads to a relative phase retardation between the two component waves.

The setup used to photograph this photo was probably composed of: * A regular light source, with a quarter-wave plate installed to polarize the emerging light * A regular photo camera, with a quarter-wave plate installed in front of the lens

Light and camera being installed and oriented in the same direction, the two quarter-wave plates were turned with the polarizing axis in the same direction. --Atoma 21:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I can't still understand what is the purpose of the picture. If it is to show a depiction of the stress distribution, than a single and larger piece would be better; if it is to show examples of biodegradable cutlery, why this strange form of lighting? Aesthetically, the picture is not IMO very pleasant to the eye. - Alvesgaspar 18:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support funcky and bizarre but hey! good. --Diligent 18:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support i do like it-LadyofHats 20:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. Yann 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tone 20:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and good looking a the same time, I support. /Daniel78 21:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent and most informative image. --MichaelMaggs 11:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was a black line on the left side of the picture and only a sliver of a knife on the right, so I've cropped the left and right sides. ShadowHalo 20:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nice. I propose merging the cropped version to the original one after voting ends. --Atoma 09:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Karelj 22:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Waxwing DTAB.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by DemonTraitor - uploaded by DemonTraitor - nominated by DemonTraitor --DemonTraitor 11:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DemonTraitor 11:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unaesthetic vignetting and out of focus --Simonizer 12:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice picture if it wasn't for the very visible colour reduction artefacts Tbc 01:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - also the angle seems to be from a bit too low, I feel like I only see the belly of the bird. /Daniel78 20:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Simonizer --AngMoKio 23:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The angle is from too low. That the corners are darker than the rest of the image is also somewhat distracting. ShadowHalo 23:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Snowflake 300um LTSEM.jpg, not featured[edit]

Original version (left), not featured[edit]

Info created by Animal and Natural Resources Institute (U.S. Dep't of Agriculture) - uploaded by Brian0918 - nominated by medic007 --70.68.177.10 07:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --70.68.177.10 07:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC) please log in to vote Lycaon 07:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info We have already the coloured Image:Snow crystals.png as FP. Lycaon 07:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture. The fact that there is also a featured picture of crystal snow doesn't mean this shouldn't be featured. There are featured pictures of the same subject in the same position, at different moments of the day (see below) --Atoma 08:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FP

Comment that was only a remark, not a judgement. Lycaon 18:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp Lycaon 16:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Trounce 11:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version (right), not featured[edit]

Info Post processing: downsampling, unsharpning mask, sharpening. --Atoma 21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atoma 21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it looks like the ice is already melting. for such a zoom i would have expected more sharp edges on the ice (as seen on the already FP on the subject)-LadyofHats 19:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The FP picture has a width of 2400px, the left version of this one is 5400px and the right one 2400px. Comparison should be done only with the right version of this photo, and they do seem to have approximately the same sharpness. The snow flag is definitely not melting, these photos are taken with a Low Temperature Scanning Electron Microscope at around -170°C (-270°F)... --Atoma 00:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sydney harbour bridge night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Antilived - uploaded by Antilived - self-nominated by Antilived 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Antilived 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - for the same reasons as last time (Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sydney night 4.jpg). Is it never daytime in Sydney? - MPF 10:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MPF (maybe that's because of the different time zone ;-)). — Lycaon 12:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the starry lights and the halos around the buildings disturbing. Nothing subjective... Lycaon 19:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Absar 14:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sorry guys, but two of you dont like nightshots and one is opposing without any reason. Not very objective.

If you like it or not is not the point, beside the landscape, architecture, macro, portrait or nude photography, night photography is one of the big genre in photography.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_photography) So give it a chance. In any case this one is a very good example of a night shot, so i will support it.--Simonizer 14:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Lerdsuwa 16:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ack Simonizer. --Arad 17:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not impressive. -- Ayacop 17:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with Simonizer --AngMoKio 20:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is a nice picture, but I think it needs to be cropped a bit on the left --Digon3 23:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image quality, but central subject (the bridge) is too dark. Alvesgaspar 18:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that there is no light pointed at the road bed itself and thus no matter what I do it will be very dark. All the lights are pointed at the arch or the two "towers". --Antilived 03:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, too dark. --Tone 21:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree about the dark part. /Daniel78 21:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Urban 05:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality night photo and also valuable for history --Wouterhagens 17:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yep, too dark. the bridge doesn't stand out that much. --Wj32 09:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment or maybe i'm just pissed off for some reason... --Wj32 10:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality Karelj 22:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 6 support, 10 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cebus capucinus.png, not featured[edit]

Info created by Frans de Waal - uploaded by Ayacop - nominated by Ayacop --Ayacop 17:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ayacop 17:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very noisy and rather small. -- Lycaon 18:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but resolution is too low--Simonizer 09:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ... and not sufficiently categorized! --Ibn Battuta 03:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - un-natural background - MPF 12:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice catch but very poor photographic quality - Alvesgaspar 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality picture Karelj 22:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Culex sp larvae.png, featured[edit]

Info created by James Gathany, CDC - uploaded by Ayacop - nominated by Ayacop 17:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ayacop 17:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Great photo!! Shame it is so small! -- Lycaon 18:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Changed my mind, it's too nice to oppose, guess that's what the mitigating circumstances are for ;-) Lycaon 07:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support pretty cool norro 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann 23:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neat shot! NoahElhardt 06:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but resolution is too low--Simonizer 09:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big enough for me--Torbenhenke 12:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big enough for me too. Olegivvit 13:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From the FP Guidelines for Nominators: Resolution - graphics located on Commons may be used in ways other than viewing on a conventional computer screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that pictures being nominated have as high a resolution as possible. At least 2 million pixels (e.g. 2000 x 1000) seems reasonable right now. Images of lower resolution are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons --Simonizer 13:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, i know about that, but the picture itself is good enough and the subject matter is good too, so i know about that and say its small, but not too small.--Torbenhenke 18:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's 1½ megabytes! That's plenty large enough. Lots of featured pics are less than half that size. - MPF 18:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It shows the picture well despite its size. --Digon3 19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 22:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I don't get it. Why the mosquitos are like this? What is the exact subject of this image? bunch of mosquitos truned around? It just looks wierd. Would be glad if someone can clear that for me. --Arad 05:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Excerpt from image text: ...mosquitoes (their larvae amass in standing water, as seen above) ... That's IN the water, just under the surface, and it's the larvae, not the flies. --Ayacop 15:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support i do like it -LadyofHats 20:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support striking pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support but why .png?? --Lestat 17:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info There was a time when uploading of photos as PNG was favoured over JPG, due to the lossy/lossless compression issue. Why this has changed, I cannot say. --Ayacop 18:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice one. --Tone 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing. /Daniel78 21:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Amrum 07:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 11:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tbc 01:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good idea --The Photographer 02:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Heliconius numata.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Mathieu Joron - uploaded and nominated by Ayacop 18:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ayacop 18:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose extremely noisy -- Lycaon 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not to mention reflections and some serious color problems on the edges. --Digon3 23:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jlorenz1 14:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very poor image quality. Alvesgaspar 18:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Alvesgaspar --Simonizer 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Karelj 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noise --Lestat 16:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bytom - Detal architektoniczny kamienicy - Twarz.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat --Lestat 16:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 16:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 22:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 18:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--WarX 19:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC) It has something[reply]
Support Herr Kriss 22:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Szczepan dyskusja Mail 22:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Karelj 22:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Olegivvit 12:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please give a reason. Opposing without a reason is not very polite. Thanks! --Simonizer 14:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support MesserWoland Dyskusja 14:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unattractive with bird droppings (?). Lycaon 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment probably it's air pollution degradating sandstone. It's very large problem in Silesia :(--WarX 21:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's minimally tilted (-.5?), and maybe two or three more pixel at the bottom would have benefitted it... but I don't see bird droppings or polution as major reasons for rejecting pictures of open-air architecture. --Ibn Battuta 22:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's alright, but doesn't have the 'Wow!' necessary for featuring - MPF 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Disagree - it has large amount of this Wow ;)--WarX 11:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And today's gull photo has Wow! factor? ;) --Leafnode 11:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yeah! The gull photo has billion times more WOW factor. --Arad 01:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupportHarald23 11:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Krzysiu Jarzyna ☎ 11:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Leafnode 11:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow. Where all the polish voters are surprisingly come from? ;-) ;-) ;-) --Simonizer 12:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From the Offical Polish Cabal Project --WarX 13:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nolanus 18:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Nice original picture[reply]
Oppose I don't like the B&W --Digon3 19:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not so special. --Tone 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality picture, not relevant subject. - Alvesgaspar 21:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not FP for sure. There is no WOW factor and the quality is mediocore. --Arad 01:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Emotionally stirring; enhanced by "blemishes" of environment and time. Jeremy Tobacman 09:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack MPF. --MichaelMaggs 09:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Urban 05:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. /Daniel78 12:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good lighting, nice patina, well captured architectural detail. Using b/w for this makes perfect sense. ~ trialsanderrors 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 14 support, 11 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 00:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Northwest Crown Fire Experiment.png, featured[edit]

Info created by USDA Forest Service - uploaded and nominated by --Ayacop 16:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Artificial forest fire, note the measuring equipment. --Ayacop 16:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unclear copyright status. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is unclear to you? It's cc-by-sa, as all pictures from PLoS are, except when something different is stated. Please be specific with your comment. --Ayacop 15:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment if it is a US Forest Service photo, produced by a USFS employee as part of their official duties, it would be in the public domain. - MPF 18:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Yann 00:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dan-Philipp 11:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I would like more info. What was the experiment about, how did they perform it... Photo is great, still. --Tone 21:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (could some of the info from the source be added to the image description?) /Daniel78 10:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 16:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 09:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great! --Zoli 14:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality, staged, random equipment in the foreground, nothing special – when I do an Google image search for forest fire at least half of the images are better than this one. I just don't see what the excitement is about. Also, why is this a png? ~ trialsanderrors 02:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support impresive Karelj 22:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because it is staged and because of the measuring tools. --Atoma 10:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 00:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Criquet2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Boucoli - uploaded by Boucoli - nominated by Boucoli --Boucoli 03:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Boucoli 03:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no ID info Lycaon 08:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 00:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PLAYA GUAYACAN.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer --The Photographer
Support--The Photographer 15:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose image quality --norro 16:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient resolution, poor image quality - Alvesgaspar 19:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution --Simonizer 08:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the same as Norro --Karelj 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 00:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Turismo en Pampatar 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer --The Photographer
Support--The Photographer 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colours, but not enough to make a FP. Please read the guidelines regarding size - Alvesgaspar 00:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution, overexposed bodyboard --Simonizer 08:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality --Karelj 23:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 00:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Turismo en Pampatar 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer --The Photographer
Support--The Photographer 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colours, composition spoiled by extra elements - Alvesgaspar 19:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Alvesgaspar and low resolution --Simonizer 08:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality --Karelj 23:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing interesting --Lestat 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Turismo en Pampatar 7.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer --The Photographer
Support--The Photographer 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice idea but the picture is tilted--AngMoKio 15:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and too small --Simonizer 11:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 00:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Atardecer el Yaque.jpg

Image:Atardecer Juan Griego 5.JPG, not featured[edit]

Info created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer --The Photographer
Support--The Photographer 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pixelation in the palm tree, image blurry - Alvesgaspar 23:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 00:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Placebo - Zenith Nantes 20061204 008.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by StéfanLD - uploaded by StéfanLD - nominated by StéfanLD 20:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StéfanLD 20:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient resolution, poor image quality --The Photographer 21:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The resolution is sufficient, image quality is indeed poor. --Atoma 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 00:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:USA Sierra Nevada Hume Lake CA.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info Sierra Nevada and Hume Lake (Kings Canyon and Sequoia NPs), created by User:Dschwen, self-nom --Dschwen 09:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dschwen 09:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution is great and this is a clear QI in my opinion, but I don't see the kick to make it special resp. featured. Furthermore some parts of the foreground are overexposed and the light is very hard.norro 11:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it. Trees are a mix of Pinus lambertiana and Abies concolor subsp. lowiana. - MPF 17:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice picture, but I don't like the composition on the right side (solitary tree, than nothing, than half a tree...) --Ibn Battuta 22:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mountains too foggy. Yann 16:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- atmospheric perspective + that's the way it looks, after all it's for an encyclopedia. --Dschwen 18:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Tone 20:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can perfectly believe that this is the way it looks. But with photography we can do much better than depicting what our eyes perceive (it would be quite boring otherwise). I would try to enhance the contrast and saturation a bit. - Alvesgaspar 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Karelj 22:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hardscarf 21:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yellowstone - Lower Falls.JPG, not featured[edit]

Original (left)[edit]

Info created by Adam Olson - uploaded by Adam Olson - nominated by Adam Olson --Adam Olson 10:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Adam Olson 10:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. Unsharp, noisy, overexposed sky. Composition is nice, though. norro 11:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose colour artefact across middle of pic - MPF 17:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack norro and MPF Lycaon 18:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca [re] 13:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful -- Läo 01:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the "colour artefact" is a rainbow...
- Comment - it's a prismatic artefact caused by the camera lens, not a rainbow (rainbows are regularly curved, not parallel like this one) - MPF 18:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ac norro --Lestat 20:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited (Middle)[edit]

Support Yann 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Separate the two versions. Please move your votes as appropriate. Alvesgaspar 18:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, like some Tolkien Middle-earth scene(ry) +rays of light. Vote for no. 3 (if it's so necessary to be downsampled). Otherwise, 2=3 --Ziga 15:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The cropped version is a step up. --Adam Olson 08:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is something about the colours which hits me. Was this photo post-processed using auto-level or manual level adjustement? There seems to be too much contrast. --Atoma 10:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downsampled (Right)[edit]

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Keqs young european hedgehog1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created and uploaded by Lars Karlsson (Keqs), nominated by norro 11:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photograph is beautiful and very well composed. norro 11:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice pic, though I would have preferred a better depth of focus - MPF 17:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose flat colours, shallow DOF -- Lycaon 18:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes! --Diligent 18:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atoma 00:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Lycaon --Simonizer 10:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice! --Dan-Philipp 11:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supportthis is one that can stand between the other animal pics of the last year's competition. No less! --Ayacop 18:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a weak support as i think f/1.7 makes the DOF really too small. Still a nice capture. --AngMoKio 19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice picture, but the depth of field is really too small (esp. in high resolution, the blurry front is too much, besides the hedgehog itself isn't even entirely focused); I'm still not sure whether I like the absence of other colors or not (I'd give it a neutral if it weren't for the DOF) --Ibn Battuta 22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ibn Battuta. --Tone 20:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree about the dof. /Daniel78 20:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Urban 05:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose need better depth of focus, flat Karelj 23:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Monica 00:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose DOF, focus --Bigbobc293 18:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 8 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Juan_Griego_Muelle_2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Info created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer --The Photographer
Support text in picture :( --The Photographer 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)<--This date isn´t correct. It was 01:05, 26. Feb. 2007 --Simonizer 01:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, copy and paste --The Photographer 13:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~This is the first picture I see where the creator (and nominator!) opposes to his own picture !~~ If you don't like it you have the right to retire your nomination. --Atoma 23:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Tilt, text in picture ;-), left side overexposed --Simonizer 09:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- photo destroyed by text // tsca [re] 18:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Watermarks are not acceptable in FPs. --MichaelMaggs 15:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 07:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Datiles en San Juan.JPG, not featured[edit]

Info created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer --The Photographer
Support--The Photographer 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)<--This date isn´t correct. It was 01:10, 26. Feb. 2007 --Simonizer 01:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image pixelated, size too small. Please read the guidelines and chose your images carefully before nominating. These are supposed to be the best pictures in Commons. - Alvesgaspar 00:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 16:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special. Smaller than required. --Javier ME 15:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose color is not great --Bigbobc293 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 07:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Naturaleza Macanao.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer --The Photographer
Support--The Photographer 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)<--This date isn´t correct. It was 01:14, 26. Feb. 2007 --Simonizer 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small and unfortunate cropping. Image has potential though. Lycaon 08:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and did I mention lack of species identification ;-)? Lycaon 08:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info Opuntia species --The Photographer 13:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Bigbobc293 18:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC) The positioning is not great, but it would get my vote if it was changed.[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 08:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:La Galera 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer --The Photographer
Support--The Photographer 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)<--This date isn´t correct. It was 01:18, 26. Feb. 2007 --Simonizer 01:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice atmosphere, but it's overexposed. --startaq 04:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed -- Lycaon 08:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great composition, but I have to agree with opposers --Simonizer 13:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 16:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 08:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Girasoles.JPG, not featured[edit]

#1 #2 #3

#1[edit]

Info created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer --The Photographer
Support--The Photographer 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)<--This date isn´t correct. It was 15:09, 26. Feb. 2007 --Simonizer 01:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This time resolution is ok and compositon is quite nice. But the colours are dull and there is vignetting. --Simonizer 13:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull colors and not enough lighting --Digon3 15:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Digon3 -- Lycaon 05:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 16:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 08:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#2[edit]

Info Maybe the #2(edited) is best --The Photographer 14:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 16:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 08:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#3[edit]

Comment I just edited it to fix the colours. --Wj32 07:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx I love the #3 --The Photographer 20:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lestat 16:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 08:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Michael Stolle.jpg

Image:Male and female superb fairy wren.jpg, delisted[edit]

Nominated for delisting by Lycaon 20:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Original nomination by Benjamint444 04:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Fake, (see here and judge for yourselves) composite image. Lycaon 20:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fake because of the way the image pretended to be natural. There is nothing wrong with manipulating images, but pretending a composite image to be natural is deceitful, and fake. Lycaon 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I was just about to list this here myself. Although it must be very unusual to remove a FP so soon after its promotion, I think the evidence presented in the en:W discussion establishes that this picture is not what it appears. There is of course no objection to the use of Photoshop, as such, but here it has been used to create an image which is not genuine. With a genuine image, there would be no reason at all for a fault-line to appear between the two birds. Serious concerns have also been expressed, both here and on en:W, about the genuineness of another picture by this uploader, namely Image:Silvereyepairofjuveniles.jpg (see old FP candidates, here). --MichaelMaggs 23:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist ack MichaelMaggs --Simonizer 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per en.wiki discussion and evidence from the current FPC by the same uploader. ~ trialsanderrors 01:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This is like cheating. It should be clearly stated in the picture file that this was a manipulation. Alvesgaspar 21:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Image is not a 'fake', and none of my other images are 'fakes'; just because it is a composite does that mean it is fake or not genuine? I think not. Then all paintings and illustrations would be fake! True, people know a scene depicted by a painter is not nesseceraly truthfull, but it often is. although a scene depicted in a painting was not happening at the time of it's creation it may be a perfectly mundane and ordinary thing such as two birds perching together. And in the same way the birds were not perching together when I took the photo but it's not uncommon for them to do so - can anyone honestly say they have never seen two birds perching together?! Benjamint
It doesn't say anywhere that an image canot be a composite so it shouldn't have been an issue when people were voting and therfore unimportant, it's the final image that counts.benjamint

Not so. Its composite nature was and is highly relevant to the image's merit, and should have been disclosed. Doesn't the overwhelmingly negative reaction you have received both here and on the English Wikipedia tell you that undisclosed composite images which result in a highly misleading view of the main subject are not much valued by the community? --MichaelMaggs 07:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When this image was initially proposed for FP status, you said in a comment that "I only get a few weeks each year to get a got shot and they rarely stay put for more than a few seconds in direct sunlight, thus the flash. It's also not very common for them both to be on the same perch for long enough to get a photo" (See here). It's difficult to see how that statement can be anything other than a deliberate attempt to mislead. --MichaelMaggs 08:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forthrightness by the nominator is extremely important for the FP process or we risk people claiming images they found somewhere as theirs, since it's almost impossible to contradict false ownership claims. So it's really pretty simple: Give an honest account on where the image comes from and what you did to it to get it in its current shape, or you have no right to expect that other editors give it serious consideration. Your hamfisted excuses are getting tedious. ~ trialsanderrors 19:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist agree with all above arguments. --Diligent 09:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agree with above arguments. Didn't pretty much like it from the very begining (unnatural flash-look as I stated in the FP-candidate). --Atoma 17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist agree with Alvesgaspar. It should be at least tagged with the "Retouched picture"-tag with a description of what has been altered or retouched ..otherwise it is a kind of cheating. But i want to emphasize that i am not in general against retouching. --AngMoKio 19:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- So the author will never lie like this again. I would keep my support if the creator would have told us that this is made up of two images and he could fix the stitch errors. --Arad 22:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- agree with all above arguments --Amrum 08:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Disgraceful dishonesty and clearly not in the spirit of FP. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I've seen superb fairy wrens dancing and hopping about, and I was quite surprised when I first saw this pictures, because it would be very rare to see two together like this, and if you did, it would be only for a fleeting moment. The image is not honest to the nature of the animal. Pengo 16:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 12 delist, 1 keep, => delisted. Simonizer 07:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MtRushmore Abe close.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Zaui - uploaded by Zaui - nominated by Zaui --Zaui 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zaui 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose flat light, unsharp, low quality in general Lycaon 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Lycaon --Simonizer 07:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it is sharp; it is a good picture User:Juhu-hade 16:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Lycaon --Digon3 16:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Lycaon --AngMoKio 19:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Karelj 23:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Map of Angelino Dulcert.jpg, not featured[edit]

1. 2.

Info created by Angelino Dulcert - uploaded by Nikola Smolenski - nominated by Nikola Smolenski --Nikola Smolenski 10:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nikola Smolenski 10:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose uncropped !?! and upside down. Lycaon 13:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unsure if I should crop it, however that is trivial. It is not upside down - south was up on old maps, such as this one. Pay attention to inscriptions. Nikola Smolenski 18:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if it is not upside down, it should be rotated 180° or nobody will recognize it... And, BTW, cropping is nothing trivial. Lycaon 23:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree the chart is upside down, look at the illustrations over the northern Africa (it is correct in the given link though). However, portolan charts like this one didn't have necessarily a "correct" orientation, when used for navigational purposes (contrarily to the "mappa-mundi", or world maps, some of which were oriented to East or South). Note that the coastal toponymy run always perpendicular to the coastlines, in order to save space and not to affect its legibility, resulting in a more or less random orientation of the names. This is a quite beatiful and important example of medieval nautical cartography and the quality of the copy doesn't really make justice to it, since the resolution is too small to read the legends and appreciate the details. - Alvesgaspar 19:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, of course. I think that "correct" orientation with this map is with south up because the text in what we today would call legend (in bottom right, err, northwestern corner) is written that way, and it appears to me that most inscriptions are written that way. And, that's the way it was oriented on Gallica, so I uploaded it that way. Nikola Smolenski 11:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you mean that is the way it is oriented on Gallica? In the Paris library page it is with North up. It's really fascinating to know how the orientation of the maps changed with time. In the Middle Ages it was not yet clear which orientation was going to prevail: South, East or North. At that time, "orienting" a map meant to put it with the Orient (East) up, in the direction of the Paradise on Earth. I think it was the dissemination of Ptolemy's Geography in Europe (from 1450 on), with the idea of using geographic coordinates, that finally made the difference. From the 16th century on, I think that almost all cartography - world maps, nautical charts and terrestrial maps - was oriented to North. Alvesgaspar 12:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, it is north up on Gallica, I don't know what was I thinking. Nikola Smolenski 13:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You were thinking it was south up :-)) Lycaon 15:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution is not enough for the small text in the map. /Daniel78 19:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good Material, Can you to get a best size?. the text is very small. Thanx --The Photographer 01:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, unfortunately, this is the largest size available at Gallica :( Nikola Smolenski 11:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The text is oriented to whichever the closest border of the map is. Text on top is upside down, text on the bottom is correct, text on the sides is rotated 90 degrees. ~~I tried to do a crop but the image has horrible jpg artifacts. We would need a better version to consider this.~~ ~ trialsanderrors 04:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cropped and cleaned version added. I can't change the size though. I went with the standard orientation. ~ trialsanderrors 04:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This is much better, pity about the size though... :-(. And what concerns orientation, my problem was not with the upside down text , but with the geography. Because of the faint outlines and the coastal toponomy, It takes a while to recognize familiar features when it is not north oriented. Lycaon 07:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Daniel78, can't read the smaller text. Aren't maps supposed to be .svg anyway?? - MPF 00:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think they had SVG back in 14th century. Nikola Smolenski 08:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006 Hawaii earthquake.JPG, not featured[edit]

Info created by MonicaSP54 - uploaded by MonicaSP54 - nominated by MonicaSP54 --MonicaSP54 20:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MonicaSP54 20:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Top irelevant for the topic --The Photographer 01:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really grainy and poor image quality. Try downsampling --Digon3 14:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - amazing pic capture, but have to agree with Digon3 on poor image quality - MPF 00:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite fuzzy. Very interesting, but the shutter speed of 1/125th is too slow for a hand-held image presumably taken from a boat. The camera hasn't been held steady enough, anyway. --MichaelMaggs 13:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, taken from a boat up at the top of the beach?? ;-)) MPF 13:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for all the comments! They've been very helpful. As for holding the camera steady, it was a 6.7 magnitude earthquake, so the camera was definitely shaking! So yes, I should've used a faster shutter speed. Thanks :-) --Monica 17:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 17:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Elephants in water.jpg, not featured[edit]

Original version (left), not featured[edit]

Info created by Wouter Hagens - uploaded by Wouter Hagens - nominated by Wouter Hagens --Wouterhagens 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wouterhagens 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More tourists than elephants... Lycaon 19:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, it would be more interesting with only elephants. /Daniel78 20:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great photo. Its a good documentation of the commercialisation of tourist attractions. And this photo definitely captured the atmosphere of mass tourism. But the stains in the upper right distract me from supporting it. --Simonizer 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the stains in the upper right. New file is on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Elephants_in_water2.jpg (The upload new version as explained in FAQ did not work with me).--Wouterhagens 11:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edited version without stains (right), not featured[edit]

Support Great photo. Its a good documentation of the commercialisation of tourist attractions. And this photo definitely captured the atmosphere of mass tourism. --Simonizer 12:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I completely agree with Simonizer - Tbc 01:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose distortions, particularly toward the left and right edges. Clearly a lot of the tourists are grossly fat, but not even obese tourists should look that gross. Yukk! - MPF 00:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These distortions are normal with panorama's. See for example the site http://www.panoramas.dk/ --Wouterhagens 09:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with MPF. The distortion is too visible and disturbing --norro 09:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 16:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Monica 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Francesca schiavone medibank international 2006.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by User:Windsok - uploaded by User:Windsok - nominated by me --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have no sports photography FPs, and portraits of sports stars are highly valuable as free media. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think Francesca Schiavone would appreciate seeing this photograph featured :) neither would I. --norro 14:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why not? Being an elite athlete is not about looking pretty. It shows her physicality and concentration 'in the moment', her devotion to her game. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Norro - MPF 00:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Run-of-the-mill tennis shot. Also, the face is obscured. ~ trialsanderrors 16:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Karelj 23:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mursi woman.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by monkeyji - uploaded by User:Béka - nominated by pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although the colours are somewhat washed out, I am hoping someone might try brightening it up a bit. Apart from that it is a pretty arresting portrait. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWould it not be better to propose a cleaned up version, instead of nominating a mediocre image and hoping someone is going to do the job? On en: (and on de:, fr: and es:) we have Graphic Lab for that. Lycaon 10:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, good point; my bad. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not only the colours are washed out, the quality is poor and the size too small - Alvesgaspar 12:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar. --MichaelMaggs 13:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Karelj 23:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Asian elephant eating02 - melbourne zoo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Fir0002 - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking composition and an excellent scale guide! --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ugly back nail and ugly straw in the front leg. I like natural atmospheres --The Photographer 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a good composition – the view should probably by closer (detail of a leg) --Packa 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - spoilt by black thing in top right corner - MPF 00:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but the composition isn't I think good enough for FP standards. --MichaelMaggs 13:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Elephant leg is nice, but for featured picture it should be something more interesting --Karelj 23:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chaffinch dtab.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by DemonTraitor - uploaded by DemonTraitor - nominated by DemonTraitor --DemonTraitor 18:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DemonTraitor 18:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful bird, but Nonnatural atmosphere, ugly back Object, blurred image and size low --The Photographer 18:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - have to agree with The Photographer on un-natural background; also rather tightly cropped - MPF 00:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above, and the eye is almost completely black adding to the unnatural feel --Benjamint444 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharply in focus. --MichaelMaggs 13:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The body is out of focus, look near its feet, focus is too close --Alipho 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality is poor, as above --Karelj 23:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IMG 1023.JPG, featured[edit]

Info created by Zac Wolf - uploaded by Zac Wolf - nominated by Raphael17 -- Raphael17 10:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 10:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Is it possible that you could reload this under a more descriptive name? --Digon3 15:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture showing the atmosphere of the aquarium, the size of the shark compared to the human visitors --Wouterhagens 19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 20:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support there is a touch of magic too. --Diligent 14:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ditto to Diligent --Jacopo86 17:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support though a rename of the file should be done --AngMoKio 18:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atoma 10:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great. --Tone 10:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 01:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Possum brushtail 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Benjamint444 11:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Benjamint444 11:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose animal with that crossed branch does, incomplete animal --The Photographer 16:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 09:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 01:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Saturn from Cassini Orbiter (2004-07-17).jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Cassini–Huygens - uploaded by Cool Cat - nominated by Cool Cat -- Cat ^chi? 23:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. -- Cat ^chi? 22:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cat ^chi? 23:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small Lycaon 10:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 16:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not bad, but when I see the Saturn from Cassini Orbiter (2007-01-19).jpg, then the second one is better --Packa 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - See Packa. Husky ^{talk to me} 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I prefer this pic of the two saturn pics aesthetically, but the resolution is very low. Would support if a hi-res version can be obtained - MPF 12:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe a higher-res version is available (I do think the current resolution is all that bad). Such an image can only be taken during the spacecrafts entry to the planets orbit and are very expensive and difficult to create. -- Cat ^chi? 05:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compare . ~ trialsanderrors 03:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd suggest Image:Saturn Hi-Res from Cassini 6.10.2004.jpg is a much more appropriate candidate (8000x4000 as oppoosed to 1000x600).--Nilfanion 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not clasic photography, it is something near computer simulation. Karelj 21:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a real photo. -- Cat ^chi? 22:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 01:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Opossum 1.jpg,not featured[edit]

Info created by (self nom) Cody.Pope
Support --Cody.pope 04:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice & sharp. --Atoma 08:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - yes, nice and sharp, but the tail is cut off, and in this species the tail is one of the most interesting aspects (being prehensile) - MPF 22:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added two alternates. --Cody.Pope 22:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support all --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per tail issue, see image 2. Cat-five 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Opossum 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Support - now with at least most of the tail - MPF 00:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer 09:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support all --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)<- copied from above --Simonizer 09:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cat-five 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sure if I need to put a support here too, but just in case ... --Cody.Pope 06:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yep, you need to! --Simonizer 09:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Atoma 09:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vmenkov 06:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Opossum 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Oppose - not so sharp as #1/#2 - MPF 00:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 00:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Uniformity.jpg, featured[edit]

Info created uploaded & nominated by Atoma --Atoma 11:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info The setup: the background is a 22" LCD screen, with a tiled pattern I've made in Photoshop (here it is: Uniformity-bg). The two glasses are standing on a black surface, the whole room was plunged in a dark atmosphere. Camera mounted on a tripod, F20 at 55mm, 2sec exposition time. --Atoma 13:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atoma 11:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beatiful pattern ad nicely done picture (my vote has aesthetical reasons only...) - Alvesgaspar 15:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! :) --Jacopo86 17:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support but should be placed in a proper gallery and/or category --AngMoKio 19:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Support Great job, but the glasses seem to be a little bit tilt. Or is that that a optical illusion??? ;-) --Simonizer 19:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)compared to the the many low quality images on this side, I must support this! ;-) --Simonizer 07:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you're right about the tilt. Notice how at the bottom left, only a third of the circle is visible on the left side, but this increases as you more to the top left. ShadowHalo 20:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Humm... tough one! The background is a bit titled indeed, but if you actually look at the glasses you'll see that they are perfectly vertical. This is due to the fact that the background plan was not perfectly perpendicular to the camera's point of view. --Atoma 21:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I took two different heights and drew a line between the midpoints to see if it was slanted or not (see Image:UniformitySlantTest.jpg). I had to scale down the image by 50% to fit it in the window; I can't tell whether or not the difference is from missing the edge by a couple pixels or if it's actually slanted, but I'll let people make they're own judgments. ShadowHalo 23:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this image. It's hard to tell if the perceived slant is from the composition, the background, or something else; regardless, it's a very informative image. ShadowHalo 23:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful image. --MichaelMaggs 22:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, don't like it... maybe as QI. Lycaon 17:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support hugely original. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little kitschy, but with a great impression --Packa 22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wow. Very original and surreal shot. Husky ^{talk to me} 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I hate to oppose this nice image but it's really not pleasing to my eyes. It makes them burn. Anyway. I wish instead of yellow it was a nice calming red or blue. --Arad 21:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grifo mágico.JPG, not featured[edit]

Info created and uploaded by Emijrp - nominated by Kprateek88 --Kprateek88 18:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kprateek88 18:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tap does not seems real at all, the reflexion does not square with the image --Alipho 10:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Optical Illusion says: "Magic tap, which appears to float in the sky with an endless supply of water. In actuality, there is a pipe hidden in the stream of water." Kprateek88 12:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like a typical tourist shot. No composition. norro 16:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support At full size, the reflexion does square with the image. Composition is no spectacular, but the object is. Pity the back side is too straight. --Javier ME 09:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition (btw, this is quite a common trick-tap) Lycaon 17:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impresive nice pic --Karelj 23:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Lyacon pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe a typical tourist shot, but interesting --Packa 22:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Common trick made into a large version. If you look closely, the left side of the down spout and the water has been edited (their is a distinct vertical band of uniform height withing the nearly monocromatic sky, that runs along the left side of the downspout, and part of the water stream. Water does not fall that straight(the definite line of termination of water on the left). As I do not do much in the way of photograph editing, I asked the opinions of three very experienced editors at my school, and they viewed the image at high resolution, and deemed in their opinion that the image was MOST LIKELY EDITED. Therefore, this image SHOULD NOT BE FEATURED.--Vox Rationis 20:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Man sitting on a dead horse (1876 - 1884).jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by unknown - uploaded by Cool Cat - nominated by Cool Cat -- Cat ^chi? 01:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cat ^chi? 01:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far too small. Does this have any historical significance? ~ trialsanderrors 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack trialsanderrors. Lycaon 10:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 17:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but not suitable for this competition --Packa 19:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Husky ^{talk to me} 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't get it. What is the significance of this picture? --Digon3 21:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image has been subject to an internet phenomenon. (cached CNN article) (Google search). It is something like "All your base". It is an old image so quality can't get any better for any image from that era. -- Cat ^chi? 05:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Terrible picture Karelj 21:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 7 oppose, x neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 10:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mushroomy Log.JPG, not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Bigbobc293 18:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bigbobc293 18:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice picture showing the subject, but it's not very spectacular... Husky ^{talk to me} 23:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - needs species identification - MPF 12:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 10:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Turismo en la Guardia 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer --The Photographer
Support--The Photographer 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject cropped, distracting background - Alvesgaspar 19:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution --Simonizer 08:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support great --Wj32 05:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop -- Lycaon 09:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar. No shell is portrayed clear and complete. --Javier ME 15:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Try a faster aperture for a more blurry background -- as is, the background distracts. --71.235.92.41 15:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)no anonymous votes, please --Simonizer 15:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:View over adirondack park.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by Simonizer 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Once again I'm driven by aesthetical feelings rather than by any encyclopedic relevance of the image. Maybe the white is a bit unbalanced towards the bluish but that helps bringing a special atmosphere, like a painting from Magritte. Alvesgaspar 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I would like the top and sides cropped a little more --Digon3
Neutral I would 've liked a bit less cropping ;-), at the bottom. Lycaon 13:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The landscape is badly washed out, and the framing doesn't really rescue the image either. ~ trialsanderrors 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe washed out colours of the landscape are caused by haze, and that is a important part of the atmosphere of this picture, in my opinion. --Simonizer 14:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The arch takes up to much of the picture, the view is not particularly stunning besides, just another overlook...--Vox Rationis 14:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special and could be technically better (washed-out landscape colours, colour cast, composition) --Siebengang 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IMG 2566 Confetti.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Ben Aveling --Ben Aveling 20:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of focus (except for the sleeve on the left), and composition. --MichaelMaggs 22:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, but lack of focus, easy subject.--Vox Rationis 16:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose have to agree...out of focus --AngMoKio 20:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. You're all right about the focus on the boy not being perfect. (I assume there wouldn't be objections if it was just the background and the confetti.) I almost disagreed with the comment about it being an easy shot, but on reflection, I guess it would have been, had it been posed, which it wasn't. Any other comments still welcome. Cheers, Ben Aveling 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 10:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Horseracing Churchill Downs edit.jpg[edit]

Left version (cropped) , not featured[edit]

Info created by Pharaoh Hound - uploaded by Pharaoh Hound - nominated by Pharaoh Hound --Pharaoh Hound 13:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pharaoh Hound 13:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support a great capture...--AngMoKio 14:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I vote for the uncropped version. --Atoma 18:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer the uncropped version. This one is top-heavy. ~ trialsanderrors 19:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info image was changed during nomination (from uncropped to cropped) Lycaon 20:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are you sure about that? I think it was the uncropped version from the beginning. --AngMoKio 20:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry...i was somehow a little confused, i meant cropped ;-)--AngMoKio 09:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, and now it shows the cropped version :-) Lycaon 08:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Simonizer 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no reason to crop this one.--Vox Rationis 14:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right version (uncropped), featured[edit]

Support --Atoma 11:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 17:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ trialsanderrors 19:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tone 10:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful clarity for a fast-moving subject.--Vox Rationis 14:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Adapted seagull.JPG, not featured[edit]

Info created by Henrik Reinholdson Kdhenrik - uploaded by Kdhenrik - nominated by Javierme --Javier ME 10:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Without the gull, it would be too boring; without the background, it would be a good larus argentatus image, but not excellent; it's the fitting of the bird in its context which makes me love this photo --Javier ME 10:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good concept, nostalgic? --The Photographer 13:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry. I prefer wildlife animal pictures... in a wild scenery. --Atoma 17:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The concrete jungle may not be a good scenery for a picture of a tiger or a echidna, but it's a usual habitat for wild seagulls. --Javier ME 15:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good concept indeed, but i would have choosen another angle to make the crosswalk more visible. --Simonizer 09:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's a silly picture but i love it :) --Diligent 22:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This could be downsampled a bit to deal with the blurry background, but it works mostly based on the color combination. ~ trialsanderrors 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 16:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ACK Javier, nice context pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (like The Photographer) --Packa 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Haha. Husky ^{talk to me} 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not FP Lycaon 10:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good for Sun, but for wiki...--Karelj 22:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which Sun? The British paper? --Javier ME 15:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tone 10:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tarmac and seagull's legs out of focus.--Vox Rationis 14:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition: Too little space in the walking direction of the seagull, but distracting features behind it. --Siebengang 17:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cape Farewell Arch.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Mfield - uploaded by Mfield - nominated by Mfield --Mfield 18:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mfield 18:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---donald- 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good sharp pic - MPF 17:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose kinda boring --Wj32 06:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Upper left part of the rock is cropped. --Leyo 08:33, 1 March 2007

Info New version without cropping top left --Mfield 21:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please do not change an image halfway through the procedure. Add the altered version as an alternative, otherwise all the original votes become invalid!!. Lycaon 10:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry - it was such a minor change - a little bit wider crop so that the cliff top exited the left rather than the top - that's all. I don't feel that would affect any votes of support. Mfield 03:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Hazy, burnt-out highlights, too centered composition. --Siebengang 18:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bald Eagle.JPG, not featured[edit]

Info created by Amphibol - uploaded by Amphibole - nominated by Amphibol --Amphibol 16:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Amphibol 16:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far too much noise, too much compressed. Don't like composition/background. --norro 22:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vey noisy, and the lighting is not so good. --MichaelMaggs 22:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disturbing BG Lycaon 23:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy, bad BG, Bird looking away slightly --Benjamint444 11:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Karelj 21:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Echidna short beaked.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info uploaded and photographed by --Benjamint444 11:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and self nom --Benjamint444 11:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good sharp pic - MPF 17:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lycaon 19:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI for me. Clearly tilted and composition not that interesting --norro 23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with the QI. --Atoma 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad angle. should be from the animal's eye level. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I much prefer this one: Image:Echinda burningwell.jpg pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
InfoIt was crawling up the slope diagonaly toward me, ~~the ground is on a tilt but the subject is correct, I just looked at it for the first time in a few days and it does look ametuerish now.~~ I have fixed the tilt - it's not quite as noticable as before --Benjamint444 11:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wag tail composite downsampled.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info I feel this image is good enough for fpc. photographed and uploaded by --Benjamint444 11:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC) - (I am certain, (very certain) that there are no stitching errors)[reply]

Support self nom --Benjamint444 11:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. This time the nom is honest. And I don't see any stitching erros. --Arad 21:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Pretty cute, the flash reflection in the eyes of the bird spoils it a bit. That and the shadows which are in three different directions. --Atoma 00:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That, and both tails are cut off. ~ trialsanderrors 00:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Trialsanderrors -- Lycaon 05:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good quality, but it looks unnatural --Simonizer 08:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks like a diorama Tbc 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The birds are missing their tails, and the shadows are in three different directions --Digon3 16:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 16:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have a hard time supporting a composite image of multiple animals. Part of the information conveyed is how they interact, and it just looks unnatural when they aren't recognizing the others' existence. ShadowHalo 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks artificial, and indeed it is. While I wouldn't totally exclude composites as potential FPs, I would expect to see higher quality than this. --MichaelMaggs 15:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is an ugly greyish stain coming from the top and passing between the two birds at right, going almost to the bottom, which I suspect it is a stitching "scar". A similar but smaller one is between the birds at left. Alvesgaspar 19:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I got constructive comments this time, It's given me hope that oneday a composite will be promoted. The shadows are all correct as all the shots were taken on the same ledge within an hour or so of each other and I didn't flip any of the images (but I see what you mean - esp. with the one on the right). The grey stain is just a building that is out of focus, I got rid of most of it but it still detracts I suppose. --Benjamint444 03:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:No signs Hawaii.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Wouter Hagens - uploaded by Wouter Hagens - nominated by Wouter Hagens --Wouterhagens 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wouterhagens 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A collage of picture is not particularly appealing for a featured picture, does not serve a purpose but say that they have several "no" signs. Welcome to America...--Vox Rationis 20:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Vox on this, if this were a collage contest it would be great but not really for FPC. Cat-five 05:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:F-15 vertical deploy.jpg, featured[edit]

Info created by Christopher Batt, uploaded by Prolog, nominated by norro
Support I'm not a big fan of military stuff, but this photograph is really cool --norro 00:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 05:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Please try to include a few words about why you liked/didn't like the picture, especially when you vote oppose." --Wj32 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Totally cool. --Atoma 09:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer 11:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 14:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Great photo[reply]
Support --Lestat 16:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Oppose war stimulates --The Photographer 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is not relevant to the image quality. Airplanes exist and they serve both for war and keeping peace. Other images in this genre are already featured: look at this, this and this. If you say that this image is a stimulate to war, you might as well say that this is a stimulate to fire or this to obesity. --Atoma 08:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, my English is low, but I undestand you --The Photographer 14:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jacopo86 09:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --startaq 12:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ trialsanderrors 20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 20:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Packa 22:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Javier ME 15:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is it a two-seater ? Is there anyone at the rear ? --Alipho 23:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uncommon flight-position and I don't support advertising pics of the US-Air-Force. -- AM 16:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be the better side of valor to stick to featured criteria. -- Cat ^chi? 04:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - low resolution (only 228 kb), and odd refractions of missile tailjet light from window of photographer's plane. Also ditto to AM, don't like military ad photos (from any military, not just the US!). - MPF 12:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't think it's an advertisement. It just shows that the F-15 has such campabilities. And even though it's small (228 kb) but the resolution is enough with a good quality. We can't deny that US has such planes. --Arad 16:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Karelj 22:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tone 10:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Atoma and Arad -- and I think this is a great photo. --Mkimberl 05:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets resolution requirements(2,174,130 pixels, 174,130 more than needed), great image, VERY HARD to replicate (as it requires 2 fighter jets). I have to wonder why they are firing at such a high angle though...seems like it would be awfully hard to aim that way...--Vox Rationis 19:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are flares, fired in order to detract heat-seeking missiles. ~ trialsanderrors 09:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 17 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moselle Pont-a-Mousson-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Rotkraut, uploaded by Smial, nominated by norro
Support Perfect composition --norro 00:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. --Lestat 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca [re] 18:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support poetique ! --Diligent 21:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good picture, it could even be still better if the horizon wouldnt be in the middle of the picture. --Simonizer 10:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen worse ;-) Lycaon 13:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 01:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Decent shot, but neither color, scenery or composition stand out. ~ trialsanderrors 17:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe a quality picture but lacks excitement (the wow factor) for FP. Some pixelation/grain visible in the church's roof and swan's head - Alvesgaspar 20:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack trialsanderrors and Alvesgaspar above. --Atoma 08:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too sweet --Karelj 22:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tone 10:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No part of picture has a good clarity, tree on right is particularly blurry, ys its pretty, but the subject matter is rather mundane, so it would have to be an excellent shot, not just an average quality 6 MP shot.--Vox Rationis 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Olegivvit 14:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Peugeot 206 WRC.jpg, featured[edit]

Info created by Christopher Batt, uploaded by Prolog, nominated by norro
- Question The description says this is a Flickr image. Is it confirmed that this is the same as User:Rotkraut? ~ trialsanderrors 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I mixed up the information of this nomination template with the information of the one below. Thanks for your hint. --norro 23:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --norro 00:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per discussion at en.wiki. ~ trialsanderrors 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --Digon3 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I would call strong mitigating reasons for resolution. --Digon3 14:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose resolution too low, otherwise nice pic --Simonizer 07:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I would have liked a higher resolution. --Atoma 09:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --WarX 14:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Great, but on this resolution I can use it only as wallpaper, but I don't use wallpapers on my computer[reply]
Oppose Great picture, but I have to agree with Simonizer here, thats just too small. --startaq 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ac WarX --Lestat 16:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small for commons Lycaon 17:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (if the resolution was right, some would oppose since it's not svg. ;P No, just trolling.) // tsca [re] 17:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1024x768 ought to be enough for everyone. Nikola Smolenski 10:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please read Guidelines for Nominators which state: At least 2 million pixels (e.g. 2000 x 1000) seems reasonable right now. Images of lower resolution are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons.. This picture is less than 40% of the required size!!! Lycaon 13:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I read them umpteen times. Don't you see the strong mitigating reasons? This is a shot you get once in a lifetime, even if you watched thousands of rallies. But against great odds it's sharp and very well composed. For me the embodiment of FP. --norro 14:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, but the smaller the pic, the stronger the mitigation should be. Here it balances negatively for me (no pun intended). Lycaon 23:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

- Comment You are right, but the last sentence of Guidelines says: … and remember.... all rules can be broken :-) --Packa 22:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Support Big enough and real woow effect. Yann 16:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too bad I really like this image, but the resolution is just too low :( /Daniel78 19:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with Norro. --AngMoKio 20:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support strong O_o effect Chabacano 21:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It could be a better resolution, but it is balanced with the excellent impression of movement --Packa 22:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacopo86 19:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --This size problem is the most annoying part of FPC and is discussed zillion times without sucess. --Arad 20:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Too bad about the resolution, but the quality of the picture itself is good enough for a support from me. Husky ^{talk to me} 23:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the 'resolution' demanded by the guidelines is not resolution, but dimensions. Please see Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Recommended resolution guidelines - MPF 12:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support great picture!--Karelj 22:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great. --Tone 10:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear in spite speed's car. Stephane8888 22:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome photo, notwithstanding the low resolution. --Mkimberl 05:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per norro. Amazing shot! - gobeirne 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as exception to the rule - looks good. I'd be proud to have taken it. Ben Aveling 10:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose VERY low resolution (not even 1 MP). The burst of snow under the car is blurry, all of the background is extremly blurry. Nice shot besides, but not enough high quality in the shot itself.--Vox Rationis 20:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support this one is worth to make an exception on size. --Jeses 20:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 13:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The resolution is too low, unfortunately. Otherwise, I'd gladly support. --MichaelMaggs 23:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 20 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NGC7293 (2004).jpg, featured[edit]

Info created by NASA, ESA, and C.R. O'Dell (Vanderbilt University) - uploaded by trialsanderrors - nominated by trialsanderrors 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info This is the visible light version of this nomination. Another version is here. ~ trialsanderrors 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ trialsanderrors 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this version better than the infrared image --Digon3 02:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support me too --Simonizer 09:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Atoma 09:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Raphael17 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and that. What is that? other version? --The Photographer 20:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- Huh? The other version is a ground-based, infrared image. This one is a visible light version created as a composite of a set of Hubble and ground-based photographs. ~ trialsanderrors 22:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a ireal picture then? --The Photographer 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course. Read the description. Why did you just nominate an astrological image if you don't know anything about them? ~ trialsanderrors 01:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - ~~Support~~ Oppose My English is low, your commentary of my Nebula is unjust, simply because I am against a seemed image, you comment out that negative to me?. I prefer the original image --The Photographer 02:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No because you can't even put a minimum amount of effort into informing yourself about criteria and policies or read up on the pictures you comment on. ~ trialsanderrors 04:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Please, it is not the way to treat. I demand respect --The Photographer 12:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Trialsanderrors, please don't be that harsh, The Photographer seems to be new here on commons. Furthermore everyone has the right to nominate pictures he likes, regardless if he understands the image description or not. It's a wiki. The voters will decide if it's FP or not. --norro 17:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Yeah seriously. Norro is right. Everyone can nominate any image they like. And don't be so harsh with newcommers. --Arad
Support --norro 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support there is very little noise in this picture compared to, the converted tiff above. Lycaon 23:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tone 10:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GreatGalleryedit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Zaui - uploaded by Zaui - nominated by Zaui --Zaui 22:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zaui 22:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - fascinating pic! - MPF 00:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing interesting --Karelj 22:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Licensing tag is incorrect. The uploader evidently did not create this work of art. --MichaelMaggs 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC). As to the content, although interesting it is a straightforward record image and I think more suited to QI than FP status.--MichaelMaggs 08:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why would the licensing tag be wrong? I took the picture, I didn't create the rock art - it's a pictograph made sometime before 1300 A.D. -- Zaui 17:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Are you asking for a copyright expired tag??? ~ trialsanderrors 16:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, PD-Old would be better. What's really needed here is something like PD-old|GFDL, (ie copyright in the subject has expired and the photographer licenses any copyright in the photo itself under GFDL. But so far as I'm aware this option doesn't at the moment exist. Perhaps we should set it up :) --MichaelMaggs 17:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't have my prehistoric law textbook handy, but I'm pretty sure the pictographs here predate copyright legislation. I think GFDL is perfectly fine. For those cases were copyright expired adding both tags with an explanation should be ok. ~ trialsanderrors 21:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added PD-Art|GFDL tag. --MichaelMaggs 08:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's unnecessary because the photographer has already released the rights (a worldwide measure, while PD-Art only applies for certain constituencies). ~ trialsanderrors 20:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image:graffiti 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Mkimberl - uploaded by Mkimberl - nominated by Mkimberl --Mkimberl 04:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mkimberl 04:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info This photo was taken from a moving Amtrak regional train east of New York City. --Mkimberl 04:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Without the title of the file I would not have known what was the subject of the picture. Romary 07:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a snapshot of an ugly place --Simonizer 13:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many other, non-graffiti related things in the picture. The pile of tires directly below the graffiti is quite distracting Killeroy 10:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with previous comments --Javier ME 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor picture --Karelj 21:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Redheaded child mesmerized 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Steevven1 - uploaded by Steevven1 - nominated by Steevven1 --Steevven1 16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steevven1 16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tight crop, good QI but no FP for me. --Dschwen 17:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Dschwen on cropping - MPF 17:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor lighting (or maybe overexposed), distracting background - Alvesgaspar 20:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Bad crop --Lestat 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop Digon3 01:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if you want to nominate a self-portrait, this one is much better . . . as far as I know, there isn't a FP of a Wikipedian yet, so why not? - MPF 23:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if you seriously think that photo is of featured picture quality, feel free to upload and nominate it. thanks if you were serious. --Steevven1 02:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Image of wikipedian getting FP? lol. That's special. It should be special. --Arad 04:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Karelj 09:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is useful to remind ourselves that no people's picture should be published without their consent (or their parents' consent in this case) --Diligent 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pigeon in flight dtab.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by DemonTraitor - uploaded by DemonTraitor - nominated by DemonTraitor --DemonTraitor 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DemonTraitor 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --User:DJM 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC) No anonymous votes please. Log in to vote! --Simonizer 09:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too soft focus Lycaon 17:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice picture, but a little out of focus --Siebengang 17:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Accipiter cooperii.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by User:HG Miller - uploaded by User:HG Miller - nominated by User:HG Miller --HGMiller 01:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --HGMiller 01:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --User:DJM 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC) No anonymous votes please. Log in to vote! --Simonizer 09:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dull colours --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 07:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very poor quality --Simonizer 09:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ac Wj32 an wrong name of file. --Lestat 09:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Simonizer Lycaon 17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - somewhat out of focus, and some dead pixels - MPF 23:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very poor quality --Karelj 09:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Malachite kingfisher 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Birdman1 - uploaded by Birdman1 - nominated by Birdman1 --Birdman1 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Birdman1 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hope IPs can vote. This is a rare picture, indeed. Excellent quality and composition. --68.165.137.74 04:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)No, they can not --Simonizer 07:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very low res --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 07:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose picture is too small and bird is out of focus --Simonizer 09:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Please keep these two things in mind:
- This bird is thirteen centimeters long. It is tiny.
- If you click on the image, the Wiki offers a link to a bigger, higher-resolution version.
- This photograph was taken from a moving canoe.

Please revise your comments accordingly.

Oppose small pic, low quality. Lycaon 16:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons as Simonizer. --MichaelMaggs 17:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a bit out of focus, sadly - MPF 23:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeEven if you click at the image it's still 918 × 824 pixel. Taking it froma a moving canoe explains why there is not enough sharp detail. --Javier ME 22:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Malachite Kingfisher.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Birdman1 - uploaded by Birdman1 - nominated by Birdman1 --Birdman1 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Birdman1 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tiny Lycaon 00:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small and out of focus. Read the guidelines for nominators! --Simonizer 00:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose size and focus --Javier ME 22:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res out of focus--Benjamint444 02:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Prolećno cveće 3.JPG, not featured[edit]

Edited:

Unedited (left), not featured[edit]

Info created by Poki - uploaded by Poki - nominated by Poki --Pokrajac 17:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pokrajac 17:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose green colour cast --Wj32 05:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ac Wj32 --Lestat 11:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited (left) , not featured[edit]

Info Edited by Wj32 to fix up the colours. --Wj32 06:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not so sure about this colour correction: Primula vulgaris can be anything from white to light yellow in the wild form. On top of that no proper species ID was provided for this picture. Lycaon 07:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes but the general "colour atmosphere" of the unedited version is too green/yellow --Wj32 00:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Filip (§) 21:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured.  Simonizer 13:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:USA Fort Davis pano TX.jpg, not featured[edit]

created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen 09:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dschwen 09:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why not a 360' image? --The Photographer 14:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This shot spans a little over 180° and is taken at one edge of the parading grounds. 360° would have made the aspect ratio more extreme and would have put the sun into view. IMHO such a shot would be less illustrative, as it would have to be taken from the center of the parading ground, yielding a different (worse) perception of the spatial arrangement. --Dschwen 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx Dschwen --The Photographer 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Well done technically and I like the sky, but the compostion doesn't really convey what it is. Looks like a badly kept soccer field. ~ trialsanderrors 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm, yeah. That's actually pretty much how it looks in real life. Not like they are still doing any drills there :-). --Dschwen 17:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like it and would like to support it, however can it be down-sampled a bit? Seems a little bit fuzzy at max (just a height adjustment of say 100-200px). Also, the far right doesn't have a square edge, it looks like the stitching program left it a little jagged. Once that is fixed, I'll support. --Cody.Pope 03:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for spotting the edge, that's fixed. However the downsampling is already done by the mediawiki software, and for special applications the user can do it himself. I tried to scale it down to 1300px height, bit while some parts may be a tad soft other parts loose important detail from downsampling, such as the roof tiles to the left. --Dschwen 06:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very nice. Remembers me of good times. But is it possible to fix the tilted houses and columns? If they are fixed with sucess, I would gladly support. --66.36.153.175 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is a personnal argument but I cannot see the interest of the bottom of the image, and I would see more humans in it, looks like a desert place. --Alipho 22:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The bottom is the drill ground. It is a matter of taste, but I guess I could have cropped it slightly more. As for the people just let me say this. Unlike some other contributors I do not believe in photoshopping out people from my pictures. With my pics I intend to represent the reality as I witnessed it as closely as possible. In some nominations the voters demand the removal of people in the frame. Here there just barely weren't any. The site is pretty huge, has indor facilities, and is located in a rural texan town, far away from any big city. So, what should I do about this? --Dschwen 08:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good idea, but Inpersonal, This very desolate, to see humans close but, does not exist an excellent main object --The Photographer 12:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, could you please rephrase that, I don't get what you are saying here. --Dschwen 12:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what he means its impersonal and desolate without some humans in the picture --Digon3 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Lestat 17:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - camera wasn't fully level, so the horizon is slightly sinuous (highest at left, lowest about a third of the way in from the right edge). Not a lot off, but enough to make the pic look slightly odd - MPF 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MPF. The fact that there are no humans doesn't bother me, but the picture needs a good crop. --Digon3 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Karelj 23:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NGC602.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by NASA - uploaded by KFP - nominated by Flex --Flex 14:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - just promoted to FP on the English Wikipedia, so I thought I'd nominate it here, too. --Flex 14:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rather grainy Lycaon 19:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit, yes, but it is 1,854,263,570,000,000,000 kilometers away. It's remarkably clear considering the circumstances. --Flex 13:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that that no better image could even be made with current technology. We just can't do better than Hubble for this sort of thing (yet). --Flex 14:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then Commons will have to wait... ;-) Lycaon 14:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support /Daniel78 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose badname --The Photographer 02:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info NGC602 is a small, bright star forming region, so the name is appropriate... Lycaon 09:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That is the official designation for the cluster (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_602). Or did The Photographer mean that it should be "NGC_602_and_N90.jpg", or something of the sort? --Flex 16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Monica 00:18m 2 March 2007

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1 Noise removed (Right), not featured[edit]

Support -- But the hubble photos are becoming booring. --Arad 20:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jtico 12:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm conservative about retouching NASA images. ~ trialsanderrors 16:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cone Nebula (NGC 2264) Star-Forming Pillar of Gas and Dust.jpg, not featured[edit]

#1	#2 200px\|Cone Nebula
#3 200px	#4

#1 , not featured[edit]

Info ~~created by NASA, ESA, and C.R. O'Dell (Vanderbilt University)~~ NASA, H. Ford (JHU), G. Illingworth (UCSC/LO), M.Clampin (STScI), G. Hartig (STScI), the ACS Science Team, and ESA - originally uploaded by ~~en:Lars_Lindberg_Christensen Lars Lindberg Christensen~~ The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Info corrected; discussion moved to talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 18:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ The Photographer 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jtico 01:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The image is nice, but hubblesite jpgs tend to of low quality, so this should be converted from the tiff file. ~ trialsanderrors 04:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- an tiff image exists but it is of 250 MB --The Photographer 12:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know. It's a pain to download them but sadly it's often necessary to get the best quality pictures. ~ trialsanderrors 18:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 250 MB ? The tiff I downloaded was only 28.67 MB. And in that you can clearly see the better quality. /Daniel78 19:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rather grainy Lycaon 13:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiff is about just as grainy :-( Lycaon 22:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Jpeg artifacts compared to the tiff, this is supposed to be the best images on wikipedia so when we have a better source we should use it. /Daniel78 19:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just uploaded a jpeg which I converted from the 28MB tiff. --Bricktop 20:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You don't need to convert astrological tiffs at full quality. Usually 8/10 or 9/12 is enough to avoid jpg artifacts even at enlarged viewing. In this case since the image has very little detail and a lot of grain downsampling might be a better option. ~ trialsanderrors 23:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Packa 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#2 , not featured[edit]

Support I uploaded a best from the tiff image --The Photographer 20:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#3 , not featured[edit]

I have done some noise reduction.--Simonizer 10:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the colours --Simonizer 10:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is blurry --The Photographer 14:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#4 , not featured[edit]

Support Noise removed without doing it too much. I also tried to downsample it, but it doesn't make a difference. So I prefer keeping it big for printing reasons. --Arad 18:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seem to be the best one. /Daniel78 20:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goana lace monitor.jpg, featured[edit]

Info created and uploaded by --Benjamint444 09:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support and self nom --Benjamint444 09:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nonclear animal and blurred zones, this incomplete one --The Photographer 16:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, only the description could be better --Packa 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tone 10:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Wildlife images normally need proper species identification to be accepted as a FP. ~~Will support if binomial name is given~~. --MichaelMaggs 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)--MichaelMaggs 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The species is Varanus varius. Lycaon 23:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. --MichaelMaggs 22:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vmenkov 06:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wing-Chi 19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. Simonizer 07:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tawny wiki edit1.jpg, featured[edit]

Info created by K.-M. Hansche - Edited by: Arad - uploaded by Arad - nominated by Arad --Arad 20:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arad 20:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent picture quality --Chmehl 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Packa 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 12:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support That thing is totally cute. --Atoma 18:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is. But we are not judging owls on their cuteness here. Tbc 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Commons you don't need to specify your support. And you can just add a comment to your support (it can be a random comment). So maybe he's not judging it on the cuteness, but still wants to say it's cute. --Arad 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice --Digon3 21:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer 23:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tone 10:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - angle and unnatural background Tbc 11:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pleple2000 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Karelj 20:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Tbc, would support a Quality Picture nomination though. --startaq 07:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too centered composition and unnatural, distracting background. --Siebengang 18:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean unnatural? Grass is not natural? I think is rather a matter of taste. --Arad 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course grass is natural. It's about the human made board. Now it looks like this image was taken at a bird of prey show and it probably was. That makes it a zoo shot and some people do not like that, something I can understand. Tbc 00:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. Well, we're not sure about that but still, it's true that the wood is man made. But it doesn't mean it's not token in nature.--Arad 22:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support So cute ! Benh 22:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CtenosauraSimilis.jpg, featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl --Chmehl 21:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chmehl 21:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's quite funny with those three. But the only minor problem is the tail which is out of the image. Nothing big. --Arad 21:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bigbobc293 18:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC) That's a great picture. The only downside is it is a little hidden by the environment, which could be an upside if its color's purpose is camoflauge.[reply]
Support - MPF 12:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work --The Photographer 14:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 07:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice composition. --Tone 10:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Illustrative, at first look, didn't actually notice that there were three of them --Thermos 15:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeFull body not fully visible, left and right specimens out of focus...--Vox Rationis 20:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality of photograpgy is a little bit poor Karelj 21:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very odd DOF. Looks composite-y. ~ trialsanderrors 08:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know it is difficult with such animals, but the contrast between the Iguana and its background is not sufficient --Packa 13:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to find a balance for the depth of field in order to show at least a blurry image of the two female Iguanas and to have a little separation to the background --Chmehl 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support what makes this photography poor quality ?... I think sharpness and details are great and composition is good although I miss the very left part of the main subject's tail :( Benh 22:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Saturn from Cassini Orbiter (2007-01-19).jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Cassini–Huygens - uploaded by Cool Cat - nominated by Cool Cat -- Cat ^chi? 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cat ^chi? 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good picture for emphasizing Saturn's rings --Bigbobc293 19:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support like Bigbobc293 --Packa 20:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Husky ^{talk to me} 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed Ziga 08:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is supposed to be overexposed or else you can't see the rings. (This single image is actualy a mosaic of 36 images)-- Cat ^chi? 05:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Ziga - MPF 12:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I hope you are aware that this overexposure is intended, you wouldn't see the rings otherwise. here is a picture from the same series where the planet has been removed to just show the rings. --startaq 18:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty amazing if you think how the picture was taken. Support as long as its the 4088 × 2908 version. --Digon3 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Despite circumstances, this is not FP material. Try on english FP, where encyclopedic value is important. Lycaon 07:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commons images are intended for Encyclopedic use. We do not accept family albums for instance. -- Cat ^chi? 05:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tone 10:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compare . ~ trialsanderrors 03:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a picture of Saturn's rings. Saturn is merely in the way. This image is considered a breakthrough. -- Cat ^chi? 05:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not clasic photography, it is something near computer simulation. Karelj 21:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, this was taken by the Cassini probe. See the images description page and linked NASA article page. It was taken with state of the art digital camera specially developed for the spacecraft -- Cat ^chi? 22:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 11:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Purity.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Alvesgaspar - uploaded by Alvesgaspar - nominated by Maire --Maire 15:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire 15:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info This same picture, with another name (Image:Nerium_oleander_bud.jpg), was already a FP candidate , with negative result. - Alvesgaspar 20:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, perspective on the bud, distracting background --Siebengang 17:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question What has changed between this and this? --Digon3 15:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Nothing at all... Alvesgaspar 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 13:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rainbows, Iguazú ARG.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Benlet26 - uploaded by Benlet26 - nominated by Benlet26 --Benlet26 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Benlet26[reply]
Support --Benlet26 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of color (too grey). bad view, very little subject matter.--Vox Rationis 16:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Karelj 09:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of color, hard to distinguish water from sky --Digon3 19:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 13:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Las Vegas Strip panorama edit1.jpg[edit]

Edit of original , not featured[edit]

Info created by Matthew Field - uploaded, nominated, edited by Arad --Arad 22:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arad 22:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support But the picture seems fuzzy near the blue balloon "Paris" and the trees under.--Alipho 22:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good admosphere, maybe so overwhelming --The Photographer 23:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know it might seem odd for me to be opposing a picture I took, but I've just looked at it properly and realized how embarassingly badly the verticals are aligned and what a mess I made of something in the PP process which made it hazy. I am rebuilding it from scratch, I will replace my original so I am opposing this edit in the mean time. Mfield 03:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose akward composition (bottom crop) and ack creator. Lycaon 10:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It could have a better composition etc., but the impression is great. --Packa 20:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Lycaon Karelj 21:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely new version of original, featured[edit]

Support This new restitch and PP of the original has real verticals, no reflections and is overall cleaner. Better contrast too. (hope I added this alternative correctly) --Mfield 21:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Stunning colours. Husky ^{talk to me} 23:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --The Photographer 02:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ziga 08:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose akward composition (cropping) Lycaon 09:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Lycaon, and glare from lights - MPF 12:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the same as above Karelj 21:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arad 14:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urban 06:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wikipedro 17:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pauliyas Hongkong.jpg,second nomination[edit]

Info created by Pauliyas - uploaded by Pauliyas - nominated by User:mrmariokartguy -- Mrmariokartguy (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info Try zooming in. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mrmariokartguy (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: picture doesn't fulfil requirements (size, stitching errors). Please read our Image Guidelines before nominating.

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

Lycaon (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Praha kostel SvVaclava.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Packa - uploaded by Packa - nominated by Packa --Packa 14:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Packa 14:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, poor photographic quality - Alvesgaspar 14:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Bigbobc293 18:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not that interesting, low quality - Husky ^{talk to me} 23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low color quality, especially in clock tower.--Vox Rationis 20:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support good picture --Karelj 21:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, unexciting composition. --Mkimberl 04:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed. --Lestat 09:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panthera tigris.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Bernard Landgraf - uploaded by User:Baerni - nominated by User:Indianhilbilly
Support --User:Indianhilbilly
Oppose - no anonymous votes, please Lycaon 08:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very very low res --Wj32 07:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Wj32 and obvious zoo pic Lycaon 08:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Lycaon - MPF 12:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per low resolution.--Vox Rationis 20:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice moment picture, I think that the resolution is not so critical parameter for Wiki picts. --Karelj 21:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose But it is, according to the agreed guidelines - Alvesgaspar 21:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 09:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality. ---donald- 16:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small, sorry! --Gionnico 17:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CygnusOlorNaturalHabitatMorning.jpg, featured[edit]

Info created by Thermos - uploaded by Thermos - nominated by Simonizer 13:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I saw this at the QI Nominations and i love it --Simonizer 13:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 15:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice composition --AngMoKio 19:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice composition and colouring. Alvesgaspar 19:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --Digon3 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colours Lycaon 07:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 07:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lovely. --Tone 10:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 12:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support good --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 09:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful --Jeses 20:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gionnico 17:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wing-Chi 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, only the description could be better --Packa 19:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Melanoplus ponderosus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created,uploaded and nominated by --Halved sandwich 03:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halved sandwich 03:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture, but the big dark blurred leaves in the foreground spoil the image in my opinion. --Simonizer 09:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice pic, but needs location data adding to pic info, and indexing on the relevant species page - MPF 16:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pecans1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Scott Bauer (USDA) - uploaded by ShadowHalo - nominated by ShadowHalo --ShadowHalo 01:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ShadowHalo 01:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice one but what does it signify? --Tone 10:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Tone - MPF 12:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Packa 23:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- very nice composition. Jkelly 18:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not enough for featured pic Karelj 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 17:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --desnt signify anything Vote is over and anonymous votes dont count either --Simonizer 11:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Superb blue Wren1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info photographed by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint444 06:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Benjamint444 06:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - doesn't look well with the background. --Tone 10:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --WarX 12:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Bird was probably colored! strong oppose is not a valid template, sorry. Lycaon 12:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The colour is genuine - MPF 12:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since MPF (the bird guy) says the colours are real --Digon3 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks oversharpened compared to the one above (flash?). ~ trialsanderrors 17:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of the flash which gives an unnatural look. --Atoma 13:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 23:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Leafnode 11:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Karelj 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Superb wren.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info photographed by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint444 06:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info please have a look at this image and the similar one below before voting
Support --Benjamint444 06:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - doesn't look well with the background. --Tone 10:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --WarX 11:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Bird was probably colored! strong oppose is not a valid template, sorry. Lycaon 12:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The colour is genuine - MPF 12:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is too bright, does't go well with the bird --Digon3 16:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although some cropping on the right would balance the picture. ~ trialsanderrors 17:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 09:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background rather intrusive. No species name provided. --MichaelMaggs 08:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info scientific name is Malurus cyaneus Ellis, 1782. Lycaon 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Karelj 21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drosera capensis, featured[edit]

Info created by --Luc Viatour - uploaded by --Luc Viatour - nominated by --Luc Viatour 15:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Luc Viatour 15:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have the name of what it is, but could you explain in more detail? I have no idea what I'm looking at. --Digon3 16:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the leaf of a long-leaved sundew (like this one). Lycaon 23:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose good colours and in general a really good quality. But the DOF is too small...i know this is not the easiest thing to do in macro-shooting. I would promote it to QI as i think it shows very welly how those sticky parts of those kind of plants look like. Btw...why is the left side completly out of focus while a certain layer on the right is in focus? --AngMoKio 20:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info The f-stop is 5.6, which is perhaps too large for the DoF that the subject needs. --MichaelMaggs 22:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Packa 23:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ziga 13:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture, but try if possible with a greater DoF. ---donald- 16:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 21:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 17:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hugo.arg 20:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Old book bindings.jpg, featured[edit]

- Info created by Brighterorange - uploaded by Brighterorange - nominated by Vox Rationis --Vox Rationis 01:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info created by Brighterorange - cropped and uploaded by Ben Aveling 10:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original, featured[edit]

Support --Vox Rationis 01:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this - different from many other and rather evocative --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--WarX 13:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting picture in aesthetical terms. However, could be more informative if taken from a different angle. For example, none of the titles is clearly visible. Alvesgaspar 17:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, most of these books didn't have titles on their spines (I think only the one that's visible in the pic), so there's not really anything to see there. Brighterorange 13:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice. The information content in this picture doesn't depend on the books' titles. --MichaelMaggs 22:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support see Herby and MichaelMaggs --Packa 23:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice shot. Cat-five 05:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unadequat DOF, only the upper top of the middle books is in focus. And there is noise, probable caused by high iso. And for such old books I would like to see a more dim light --Simonizer 09:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Alvesgaspar. A good pic, but could easily have been a lot better - MPF 17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice. Jkelly 18:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportRomary 20:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Simonizer --Digon3 00:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 09:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality Lycaon 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would say that something with titles would be preferrable but I think this picture will suffice- it is especially touching with the water-soaked book in the middle—the preceding unsigned comment is by ValerieTheBlonde (talk • contribs)
Support --Tone 20:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, like MichaelMaggs (1st version is better than the 2nd one) --Packa 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Um although the quality is not perfect (pretty noisy), I like it. --Atoma 18:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped Version, not featured[edit]

Neutral There's a lot to like here, but the eye gets drawn in the wrong direction somehow. I've uploaded what I hope is a nicer crop of the same image. Would also love to see Brighterorange take another attempt at this photo. Ben Aveling 10:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for #2, the cropped version...The cropping has no purpose what so ever as I see, it, and doesno have the depth of the first pic--Vox Rationis 14:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Javier ME 22:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 10:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Saturn from Cassini Orbiter (2004-10-06).jpg, featured[edit]

Info created by Cassini–Huygens - uploaded by Cool Cat - nominated by Cool Cat -- Cat ^chi? 22:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cat ^chi? 22:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 22:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very "Wow!" - MPF 17:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 01:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now we're talking :-) Lycaon 08:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Menasim 16:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:XN_Kreuzbach_Kasewinkel_531.jpg, not featured[edit]

Original, not featured[edit]

Info created by XN - uploaded by XN - nominated by XN 00:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Support --XN 00:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but image is not that special and it is blurred. --Simonizer 10:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per lack of focus.--Vox Rationis 11:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Like Simonizer --Packa 13:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 09:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, not featured[edit]

Info created by XN - uploaded by XN - nominated by XN 16:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Comment this is another version of the nomination below with (experimental) sharpening - due to some camera lacks
Support --XN 16:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a common picture of river. Hugo.arg 17:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 10:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Prision del Condado de Mantras.JPG, not featured[edit]

Info created,uploaded and nominated by The Photographer
Support --The Photographer 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, it's rather blurred - MPF 14:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing interesting... Hugo.arg 15:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Out of focus! And by the way, do you have his agreement to publish this photo? --Simonizer 15:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info Yes, I comment that there is no problem

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 10:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eye-diagram.svg[edit]

Info created by Chabacano - uploaded by Chabacano - nominated by Chabacano --Chabacano 12:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chabacano 12:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 13:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC) wow[reply]
Support --MesserWoland Dyskusja 13:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eye-catching ;) --norro 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome and high quiality svg work. -- Drini 17:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... wow! ...♥♥♥ Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good --Thermos 19:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Changed support for new version[reply]
Info I find the multiple circles round the numbers a bit overpowering, and I feel they detract from the image. Suggest simply getting rid of them, and leaving the numbers unadorned (that's standard practice in patent drawings which have to be technically clear). --MichaelMaggs 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. Especially since the numbers are not centered in the circles. ~ trialsanderrors 02:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uhm. The numbers are centered in the svg. At least I see them centered here and in Inkscape. In the thumbnails they are not rendered accurately, I suppose :( Chabacano 11:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, they're not properly rendered in any size other than the original. Thanks for removing. ~ trialsanderrors 16:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The problem occurs because you use a different font and size when drawing this on your computer than the mediawiki software when rendering. This problem could be solved by converting the text to path (Inkscpae: “Path” -> “Object to Path”). --norro 12:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Updated: Yes, that solution worked. Nice :) Chabacano 13:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very precision work --Packa 23:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Atoma 09:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC) changed my support to the new edit --Atoma 13:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer 10:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC) changed my support to the new edit--Simonizer 11:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => Waiting for the result of the edit! Simonizer 10:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Border of the circles removed (right), featured[edit]

Info Borders of the circles removed. The circles, however, are still there. This voting page has white backrgound, but the numbers should be visible with any background (example)
Support --Chabacano 11:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC) The subject gets more attention without those borders.[reply]
Support --Simonizer 11:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ¡Awesome! --Paintman 13:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atoma 13:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Much better now - Alvesgaspar 13:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ziga 13:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arad 15:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support good point --Diligent 15:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original was good, this is even better --Thermos 16:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support pile-on ~ trialsanderrors 16:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreed. Thanks for making the change. --MichaelMaggs 17:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work. Jkelly 18:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 09:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --startaq 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ditto to everyone - MPF 23:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I still have a problem with the numbers in the white circles; however I don't see a solution at the moment. The image itself is very good of course. Lycaon 08:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire 15:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tone 20:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 11:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not that this has any chance of failing, but a really exemplary diagram. Brighterorange 20:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wing-Chi 20:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca [re] 15:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ritterstern Blüte.jpg, featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by ---donald- 13:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---donald- 13:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ziga 13:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The selective and wafer thin DOF on anthers (?) is nice --Thermos 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you provide the proper Latin name, please? --MichaelMaggs 17:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maire 15:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info It is called Hippeastrum. ---donald- 15:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 01:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Siebengang 17:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 21:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 17:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Packa 20:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry at top, though I realize you can't get two DOFs in one shot. The subject (judging by what's in focus) isn't that great.--HereToHelp (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LesArcs.JPG, not featured[edit]

Info created by Stevage - uploaded by Stevage - nominated by Stevage --Stevage 13:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stevage 13:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Slight lack of focus all over, noise. Not all big pictures are clear pictures.--Vox Rationis 16:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Washed-out highlights, slightly too low contrast --Siebengang 16:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---donald- 17:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alba sugli Appennini.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Mario1952 - uploaded by Mario1952 - nominated by Mario1952 --Mario1952 09:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mario1952 09:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Almost all sunsets are pretty but to be featured they must be special. This looks like an ordinary (but beautiful) sunset. --Digon3 18:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 18:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - very low resolution 216 KB - MPF 19:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Half a minute too late; and to much black in the foreground. Metoc 14:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 09:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Square Castan.JPG, not featured[edit]

Info created by wikipedro - uploaded by wikipedro - nominated by wikipedro --Wikipedro 16:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wikipedro 16:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - poor lighting, with dark, gloomy background. Would be better taken later in the spring when light is better, and a couple of hours later in the day when the sun is at a better angle. - MPF 19:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with MPF--Alipho 17:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cplease not. See what mpf said. Metoc 14:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Karelj 22:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 09:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image:vestibule1.jpg[edit]

#1 #2

Info created by Mkimberl - uploaded by Mkimberl - nominated by Mkimberl --Mkimberl 04:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mkimberl 04:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 20:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC) In a way I agree with HereToHelp but the composition/structure (English?) of the picture is interesting. Romary 10:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry in all places, specks of color on metal.--HereToHelp (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed head racks --Simonizer 13:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor image quality. --startaq 13:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per lack of focus. What is the significance of this?--Vox Rationis 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2 (edit by trialsanderrors), not featured[edit]

Support Compelling image, quality is acceptable given the light conditions. I added a version without the distortion. ~ trialsanderrors 10:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very interesting and quite poor quality - Alvesgaspar 14:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ditto to trialsanderrors - MPF 23:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed head racks --Simonizer 01:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 07:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per lack of focus. What is the significance of this?--Vox Rationis 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Karelj 21:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aitutaki sunset.JPG, not featured[edit]

#1 #2

Info created by Mr Bullitt - uploaded by Mr Bullitt - nominated by Mr Bullitt --Mr Bullitt 15:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mr Bullitt 15:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tilt Lycaon 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good contre-jour and beatiful composition. I will reconsider my vote when the tilt is fixed. Alvesgaspar 17:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Olegivvit 11:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2 (edit by trialsanderrors), featured[edit]

Neutral Added untilted and cropped version. I'm Switzerland. ~ trialsanderrors 08:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice Image, but for me the white chair interferes with the overall impression. But i dont want to oppose, so I am Switzerland, too. :-) --Simonizer 11:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Olegivvit 11:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support After some thought and despite existing flaws: size could be larger, quality also. But the composition and beauty of the image are quite good. After all we don't have many good sunset pictures. Alvesgaspar 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I would like a larger size and the chair removed. --Digon3 15:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atoma 15:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice picture, I like it. But i think sunsets look always nice on pictures. If we search all off Commons, we would find more than lots of pictures of that qualitiy. I'm not shure, if a picture should be FP, when the sunset itself is the subject. If the subject is something else, e.g. a specific location, and the sunset is just there to support athmosphere and composition etc. it's ok and I'll give pro, but I'm not sure what to do with sunsets als subjects. --Jeses 20:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is uncommon in this picture, and made me finally support the nomination, is the reflection in the water - Alvesgaspar 21:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same here --Digon3 21:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We have tons and tons of sunset pictures, but I agree this one stands out. Maybe I'll try to remove deckchair guy later... ~ trialsanderrors 02:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --norro 11:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes and yes. --Diligent 00:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Benh 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 3 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Malachite Kingfisher 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Birdman1 - uploaded by Birdman1 - nominated by Birdman1 --Birdman1 23:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Birdman1 23:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose image quality of this quite common southern african kingfisher is too low compared to other ornithological FP's. Lycaon 00:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose left part of bird is out of focus, image quality could be better --Simonizer 00:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blur and size --Javier ME 22:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurred --Benjamint444 02:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where is this image blurred? The "fuzziness" on the left is how the bird's feathers naturally are. --Birdman1 21:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The borders of the bird's silhouette is blurred, not just the feathers but also the beak and feet. --Javier ME 22:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very poor quality --Karelj 09:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are 7000 pictures of kingfishers on Flickr, but this one is up there with the best of them. ~ trialsanderrors 02:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca [re] 15:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is the non colorful side, there are many better pictures with colorfuller siedes. Metoc 14:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Little Egret Reflection.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Birdman1 - uploaded by Birdman1 - nominated by Birdman1 --Birdman1 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Birdman1 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfocused and no exif. Lycaon 00:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This image is perfectly focused. It may not have an extensive Depth of Field, but it portrays the subject well. What do you mean by exif?
Support --Vmenkov 06:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good pic, looks well-focussed to me, and (unusually for a pure white subject) shows feather detail well without being burnt out; very difficult to catch successfully. Comment: Exif data is the info (camera manufacturer, date & time, exposure, etc.) that is added by the camera to the raw image; it is deleted when a pic is edited (any type of editing, including cropping edges, etc) in a photo-editing programme, and can't be restored. If exif data was a FPC requirement (which it isn't), then no edited photo could ever be featured (which plenty are). - MPF 14:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strange! I beg to differ on (almost) all accounts. No part of this picture seems to me in focus (look at the eye for instance), and exifs are usually not destroyed when editing a picture, moreover, if you happen to lose the exif data, it can (e.g. in paintshop pro) perfectly be restored by pasting the edited vesion on top of the original version and then saving it. I'm puzzled here ??? . Lycaon 16:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not experienced enough to discuss the exif, but this picture seems in focus to me. Look at the rest of the picture, aside from the eye. The foreground may be blurry, as it should be, but the bird is crystal clear. --Birdman1 16:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting surroundings, compression artifacts (e.g. halo around the head) --Siebengang 17:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The EXIF info I found using Photoshop Elements. The camera is Canon EOS 10D, 1/350 sec F6.7 using lens 75-300 mm at 195 mm. Surprising is that that camera has a max resolution of 3072 x 2048. The image is 4200 x 3300 which means in my opinion that the picture has been blown up 1.6 times. (Why?) That explains why it is not really sharp. Just like scanning a transparant with a too high resolution.--Wouterhagens 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Lyacon, and their not particularly difficult subject matter anyway, I can't speak for africa but they're very common here (Australia)--Benjamint444 02:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 09:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Lyacon and i dont like the light conditions --Simonizer 09:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gull-in-flight-dtab.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by DemonTraitor - uploaded by DemonTraitor - nominated by Username --DemonTraitor 16:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DemonTraitor 16:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunate shadow on the head and no proper species id. Lycaon 17:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - identity added - MPF 18:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thank you - DemonTraitor 21:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for shadow on head, per Lycaon. What happened with the right wing is also a bit unfortunate. Ben Aveling 22:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadow as mentioned, colours of the background --Siebengang 17:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 09:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca [re] 15:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grib skov.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Malene Thyssen - nominated by --Ikiwaner 18:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect exposure, composition, nice colours under difficult conditions --Ikiwaner 18:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't agree. If you look at the histogram you can easily see that there are many blown highlights within the leaves, and that that the trunk has no detail either as part of it is pure black. --MichaelMaggs 22:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice. The brown-barked tree trunks in the foreground are Picea abies (Rødgran / Norway Spruce). - MPF 01:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Funny thing, where are the leaves of the spruce, they should start not very far from the ground? And what leaves are these, beech leaves? - Alvesgaspar 11:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is one of the biggest forests in Denmark - called "Grib Skov". The trees in the pic are all very old beech (Fagus sylvatica). --Malene Thyssen 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The Picea abies have probably been high-pruned to increase the timber value (= no knots); all their branches are above the top of the picture. The main foliage in the front of the pic is on branches of two Fagus sylvatica trees behind the photographer (note the way the branches come in from the left and right edges); the middle ground is four Picea abies trunks (brown, scaly), then in the background are several more Fagus sylvatica trunks (smooth, silvery grey). I've been to Gribskov many times and know the mix of trees there very well (as well as being able to recognise the species in the photo!) - MPF 17:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are right MPF - I had a closer look at one of my other pics from that day, the four tree trunks are indeed Picea abies :-) --Malene Thyssen 19:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportRomary 08:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Beatiful atmosphere, but looking at the details I don't think it is good enough for FP. A larger DOF is needed and the aspect ratio (almost a square) is not the best. I'm still puzzled with the leaves and trunks belongimg to different species... Alvesgaspar 12:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite all reasoning above, I am a huge lover of deciduous forests, and this image is a beautiful image of nature.--Vox Rationis 16:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Slightly overexposed to my eyes --Siebengang 17:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The leaves are severely overexposed and insufficient sharp (because of the wind or DOF? The trunks of the trees are sharp). I tried to make the shadows somewhat lighter and the highlights significantly darker. That makes it much better.--Wouterhagens 23:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed leaves. A pity, because I like the scene very much. Tbc 17:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don´t think, it is good enough for best pictures.--Karelj 09:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality not good enough to be featured. --Steevven1 01:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite nice but I strongly dislike the editing that has been done to it. I like a good vignette like the next person, but this is not a very good vignette job. If you look at the crop, there's no way that the light change from 1 to 2 is natural, and it personally I don't like it very much. --Fir0002 www 07:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice forest. Hugo.arg 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support très beau et original Gérard Janot 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cold panorama resized.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Yorian - uploaded by Yorian - nominated by Yorian --Yorian 08:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yorian 08:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose stitching error as pointed out on the crop on the right Benh 16:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice picture but there is really stiching error that should get fixed. --AngMoKio 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ah, I see it, didn't noticed it before. Unfortanely I don't have the original pictures anymore, any idea how this can be fixed? Yorian 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Then I'm afraid you won't be able to correct these errors... they are pretty big ones. Or there's some "king of photoshop/gimp" wandering over here who can help us ! Benh 07:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Re-visit the site and take the pics again? Hint . . . when editing a pic, save with a new name and keep the original separately ;-) MPF 11:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I lost all my photo's because of a harddisk error, so I didn't made that mistake :) And this summer I'm going to Norway again, so who knows ;) Yorian 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bubo bubo portrait.jpg, featured[edit]

Info created by indygnome - uploaded by Pharaoh Hound - nominated by Pharaoh Hound --Pharaoh Hound 12:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pharaoh Hound 12:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 22:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Benjamint444 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice portrait of an owl. The unfocused foreground is a price to pay. I like the reflection in the eye. Alvesgaspar 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 04:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail around the eyes --Simonizer 07:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Detail only around the eye. Cut "ears". Hiden beak. Empty on the right. Olegivvit 14:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 15:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 20:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This was a tough one. In the middle, there is a very impressive amount of detail. However, as the background can't be made out (would be nice to see it in a habitat), and part of the foreground (lower left corner) is out of focus, I am going to have to say no...Great photo besides!--Vox Rationis 21:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's strange that a blurred backgound can be used as a reason to oppose. Photographers often use that as a way of bringing attention to the main subject, and avoiding distracting background detail. Have a look at the portfolio of any top nature photographer. It's a shame when perfectly normal photographic technques are listed here as 'flaws'. The same applies to the use of limited depth of field: any image that use that technique is almost certain to be objected to on the grounds that 'it's not all in focus'. End of moan. --MichaelMaggs 22:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Olegivvit on the cut "ears"; also (well it's a good thing the background is out of focus!) zoo pic, not in its natural habitat - MPF 14:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MPF. Lycaon 15:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support like Alvesgaspar --Packa 20:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - dtto to Olegivvit on the cut "ears" --Karelj 21:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support because "opposing" is becoming serious. I hope my contribution helps to promote this pic I like pretty much. Benh 07:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jupiter taken by New Horizons probe (2007-01-08).jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by New Horizons - uploaded by Cool Cat - nominated by Cool Cat -- Cat ^chi? 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cat ^chi? 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is very low res, it is BW, it is definitely not FP. Lycaon 22:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3600x3600 shouldn't be low res. Whats wrong with BW? -- Cat ^chi? 15:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Number of pixels ≠ resolution. Every grey value is an 8×8 square in this image, so the actual resolution is 450×450 (3600/8 × 3600/8). Lycaon 19:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Lycaon. Worth checking NASA to see if there is a hi-res colour version available - MPF 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a colored version to my knowledge. Jupiter isn't a part of New Horizons mission. -- Cat ^chi? 15:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 07:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Silberner Grünrüssler (Phyllobius argentatus).jpg, featured[edit]

Info created by Holger Gröschl - uploaded by Olei - nominated by Simonizer 10:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition and very good quality. Though there are some minor focus flaws, i like it --Simonizer 10:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luc Viatour 11:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Olegivvit 14:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 20:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, clear photo! Simultaneously encyclopedic and aesthetic. Brighterorange 20:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportRomary 20:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 22:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support although the focus could be a bit better --Benjamint444 23:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow!! For info, these things are only about 5mm long - MPF 14:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. --Atoma 16:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lovely.--Eloquence 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 20:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wing-Chi 20:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Packa 20:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Benh 21:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well done shot Cat-five 20:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yay! Chabacano 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a excellent photo of an animal! Metoc 14:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support small flaws (focus, grain) compensated by colour and composition Lycaon 19:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support so sweet feet ;-) but to be serious: ack @ Lycaon --Überraschungsbilder 17:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Back feet are blurry (probably moved) but body is excellent. --Javierme 21:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elcairo 21:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rastkogel ski slope.jpg, featured[edit]

Info created and uploaded by Che – nominated by Martin Kozák 21:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Grreeeeeat sky! --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 09:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excellent shot, but the skiers are oversharpened and fringe-y. If that's fixed I'll most likely support. ~ trialsanderrors 19:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca [re] 15:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ach! --Lestat 18:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 20:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support good exposure ! --Alipho 17:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, but the description could be better --Packa 17:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good picture, but not enough for featured... --Karelj 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ??? Gérard Janot 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support great.. look at the sky!! and the folks on the slope look like performing a choreography... --Jeses 21:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 01:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Women Handball-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info: created and uploaded by Armin Kuebelbeck – nominated by norro 22:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very dynamic, good quality --norro 22:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportRomary 07:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good sports shot. --Atoma 09:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, noise on main subject, confusing composition and distracting background (the white drums behind the woman). - Alvesgaspar 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Alvesgaspar - MPF 14:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info This kind of photo is not easy to obtain: the shutter speed has to be fast enough to allow the mouvement to be freezed, and the focus has to be very quick to follow the moving subject. But as the shutter speed goes faster, the amount of light hitting the camera's sensor becomes smaller, so bigger apertures an higher ISO values are required. The aperture value for this photo is 1.8, which is the biggest existing for a 85mm lens (except for the very expensive 85/1.2 luxury lens), and the ISO value (1600) is pretty much a 'must' after choosing the above parameters. As for the drums - I didn't even notice them, the bokeh in the background is pretty good so they don't seem that distracting to me. --Atoma 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, there is an 85 f/1.2 L --Fir0002 www 07:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, didn't new about that one (I'm not a Canonist). Well one thing is sure, that baby is expensive ! --Atoma 08:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is not easy to obtain yet still technically good, that doesn't necessarily make it a nice photo. This pic just isn't aesthetically pleasing or attractive. So I'm not going to change my vote. - MPF 11:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Professional grade sports photography. It might be possible to clip it on the right to center the image on the subject. ~ trialsanderrors 19:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 18:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 20:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dtto to Alvesgaspar --Karelj 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 14:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Do better one, then negate this one :P[reply]
Oppose ack Alvesgaspar --Digon3 15:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Alvesgaspar -- Lycaon 23:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 20:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kyotogarden.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Tackbert - uploaded by Tackbert - nominated by Tackbert --Tackbert 17:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tackbert 17:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed Lycaon 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Lycaon on overexposure, particularly the purple fringes on the tree trunks at the top left. Shame, as it is otherwise very nice. - MPF 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed, a little bit messy composition. Leafnode 06:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gion.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tackbert 23:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)fixed information --Jacopo86 11:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tackbert 23:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ????!!!! --Mario1952 01:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just a snapshot --Jacopo86 11:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing special, ditto to Jacopo86 - MPF 11:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral huh??? --Jeses 20:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BiyaRiver.JPG, not featured[edit]

Info created by Dmitri Melnikov, uploaded and nominated by Hugo.arg
Support Hugo.arg 15:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~too small~~ --Simonizer 15:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The size problem is fixed, but the light conditions of this picture are unfortunate. The light is too aggressive in my opinion. So I dont change my vote. --Simonizer 08:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It also seems oversaturated. --Digon3 17:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great photo, but much too small. I would support a high resolution version. --startaq 18:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I really like it, but the quality at full resolution is not very good. Maybe it should be downsampled to about 75% size. And there is also a weird object at the middle (maybe some bird?). --startaq 23:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support& Comment - Hi-res version existed at original en-wiki page, and now uploaded here on top of low-res thumbnail - MPF 22:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, a photo that provokes emotion --Mario1952 10:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arad 15:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the colouring. Alvesgaspar 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliotheque nationale de France by the Seine river in Paris, featured[edit]

Info created by Benh - uploaded by Benh - nominated by Diligent --Diligent 20:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Paying hommage to the wells of knowledge within Wikipedia, paying hommage to the beauty of architecture and nature within Commons. --Diligent 20:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good composition and excellent technical quality, for sure one the best night panos in Commons. I really enjoy reviewing a picture where attention was given to the details. Alvesgaspar 22:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC) true ;)[reply]
Support If Diligent hadn't already nominated this as FP, I would have done it. Saw it at QI nominations and it is really good. Ack Alvesgaspar. --Thermos 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ trialsanderrors 06:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 07:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice panoramic view! Hugo.arg 08:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca [re] 15:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 18:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - glare from lights - MPF 19:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it seems you can't stand a night shot (like another user Lycaon I think). You always have the same comments when reviewing a night shot "glare from lights". I wonder how you could have opposed that pic Image:Hemispheric Twilight - Valencia, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg for "glare reasons". I find it hard to do without them in a long exposure shot (but if one knows please tell me). Of course we are here to judge but one can't oppose a shot because of "ideology". What if I oppose any shot that has a bird int it because I don't like birds ? this just doesn't make sense to me. - Benh 22:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a sure thing for QI. But i miss a bit a special composition. --AngMoKio 20:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful picture... I hate you Benh, this panoramic is better than all mine...sanchezn 20:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Isn't the glare from lights unavoidable in a night shot? I think it is very good technically and artisticly for a night photo. --Digon3 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special, only some dark office buildings... Lycaon 12:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good picture, but I think it would be better in the winter when the library is still open --Alipho 17:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree. Too bad I'll have to wait a few months before making another attempt.Benh 07:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dtto Lycaon --Karelj 21:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The 4 'office' buildings are actually "La Bibliothèque François Mitterand" in Paris. And I have to agree with Benh's argument concerning the 'glare' reason. --Atoma 00:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good technical quality, very detailed image. --LucaG 10:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Manzanar calisthenics 0016u.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Ansel Adams, 1943 - uploaded and nominated by trialsanderrors 22:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ trialsanderrors 22:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - doesn't strike me as anything very special - MPF 23:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --The Photographer 04:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nothing especial. Hugo.arg 08:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - This image is also going strong as a FPC candidate on Wikipedia. 68.80.216.240 15:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC) please login to vote --Digon3 18:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose - ack MPF --Digon3 18:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 23:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jeses 00:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ansel Adams is without a doubt one of the greatest photographers ever and this picture is technical very good, even when it would be from today. Aesthetical i dont find it that special. I dont know much about the historical value of this picture. Maybe someone can say something more about that!? --Simonizer 11:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The context is discussed in more detail at w:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Calisthenics at Manzanar internment camp. ~ trialsanderrors 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the historical context and lovely composition and star power. Brighterorange 02:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not good enough for FP Lycaon 07:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Elephant and lions.jpg,not featured[edit]

Info created by Birdman1 - uploaded by Birdman1 - nominated by Birdman1 --Birdman1 22:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Birdman1 22:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good for natural scientists, but not for this competition – lions are too small, not sharp… --Packa 07:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition but poor quality. Looks like a scan of a old photo. Alvesgaspar 15:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why black and white??? There are so many fantastic colors in this world.... --Jeses 20:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice... but, not sharp enough. gren 05:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose promising thumbnail, but dissapointing quality when looked at real size :( Benh 07:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 10 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AlmondFlower.jpg[edit]

Left , not featured[edit]

Info created by mixpix - uploaded by mixpix - nominated by mixpix --mixpix 00:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mixpix 00:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks nice, but I am affraid that the size is far below guidelines (See guidelines for nominators above). Could you upload a bigger version? In addition, if you upload a new version, you should probaply name it with latin name as you appear to know it. --Thermos 06:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. Please read the guidelines for nominators! --Simonizer 08:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 09:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, not featured[edit]

Comment (new image on the right) Is this better ? I think the smaller version is better for normal Wiki use, ie sharpened & oltherwise optimised for >800px display size, but rules are rules... mixpix 10:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just realised I forgot to support this version :/ mixpix 02:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - only one flower is in focus - good enough pic, but not FP standard, I think - MPF 19:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the selective DOF, limiting focus to just one flower. In addition, I appreciate how the detail in highlights is still visible. --Thermos 00:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 16:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 17:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Young red necked wallaby.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint444 11:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Benjamint444 11:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - cute expression, but tail is cut off (would have supported otherwise) - MPF 19:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Expressive portrait,showing a mutual curiosity - User:Vassil 20 March 2007
Info an edit that user:Fcb981 made for wikipedia FPC

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/db/Young_red_necked_wallabyEdit1.jpg but I'm not on my home computer now so I'm restricted from re-uploading to commons --Benjamint444 22:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T 16:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 17:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Red necked wallaby2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint444 11:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Benjamint444 11:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good sharp pic, showing the animal in natural habitat - MPF 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral like MPF; unfortunately the background is not enough different from the kangaroo --Packa 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that's called camouflage ;-) MPF 21:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same as Packa, but I oppose. A bit too much brown/gray to my taste - Benh 22:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rather intrusive stone in background. And the subject would have blended with the background less if a lower vantage point had been chosen. --MichaelMaggs 22:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support relatively good picture of the kangaroo, but a very nice example of a camouflage--Packa 17:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This photo has a quite good quality but it not excellent! Metoc 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flat, no contrast --Karelj 21:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 17:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Common hawker.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by DemonTraitor - uploaded by DemonTraitor - nominated by DemonTraitor --DemonTraitor 17:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---donald- 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - narrow depth of field so the rear half of the tail, and most of both pairs of wings, are out of focus. Not easy, but there are several much better pics of dragonflies on commons - MPF 19:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MPF. --MichaelMaggs 22:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MPF. --Digon3 14:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice picture --Karelj 22:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Freestyle nl 11:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 17:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sunrise over Central Park.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Conor Campbell - uploaded by Conor Campbell - nominated by Conor Campbell
Support --Conor Campbell 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lens glare. Its really hard to see any buildings because the glare is so bright. --Digon3 18:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 18:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Digon3 - MPF 19:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Digon3 Tbc 23:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Digon3. Maybe the sun has risen too much for a good picture. Good idea although --Alipho 17:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- centralised sun may if was offset closer to a third position the brightness wouldnt such a problem Gnangarra 05:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the sun is the protagonist, not the buildings --Kekko89 12:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Digon3. This tiny Sun doesn't make it interesting enough. --Javier ME 21:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 17:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Corylus avellana 2006-4-16.JPG, not featured[edit]

Info created by Algirdas - uploaded by Algirdas - nominated by Username --Algirdas 20:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Algirdas 20:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Packa 20:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! Hugo.arg 13:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to go against the flood, but the quality is not great. Lighting is poor, resulting in a harsh contrast and some overexposed parts, and the focus in on the soft side, due to a poor exposure solution (high shutter speed and low f-number). - Alvesgaspar 19:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Mea 20:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I will go against this one as well... the thumbnail looked promising, but I expected much more details/sharpness from such a close up Benh 21:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough. --MichaelMaggs 09:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Glorious! --88.222.212.231 12:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC) No anonymous votes, please - Alvesgaspar 13:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photo! --Rtz 13:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atlantas 13:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This really seems a question of national pride! - Alvesgaspar 13:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not Lithuanian, and I think it's good - MPF 16:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good but not good enough (lacks sharpness) Lycaon 18:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photo is based on a good idea, but technical flaws keep me from supporting it --Simonizer 11:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lerdsuwa 15:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ---donald- 14:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jeses 20:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Orchi 23:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not enough good for FP --Karelj 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 15:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 17:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wag tail on nest closer.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint444 11:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Benjamint444 11:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too close of a crop near the tail --Digon3 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 18:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wag tail on nest.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint444 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This alternative shows the whole nest

Support --Benjamint444 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is one unhappy bird ! At f=33mm, that must have been at 1-2m to the nest. --Atoma 17:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, can't support nest photography . Lycaon 18:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Lycaon - MPF 23:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Question Excuse my ignorance, but what is the problem in supporting nest photographs? If we use adequate equipment (a good telephoto), so that the birds are not disturbed, what is the difference between taking a shot of a nest or of an adult bird? In this particular case, I don't aprove the use of the flash and the photographic quality is not good enough - Alvesgaspar 23:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the comment of user Atoma, then you will know it --Simonizer 09:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think that's why Alvesgaspar talked about Telephoto lense and that he dissaproved the use of a flash. I personnaly agree with him. Why couldn't one approve a nest photo in the case he described (without disturbing the subject) ??? Benh 11:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it's sharp, but a little noisy. Flash flattens the subject and I don't like the cold colours. I also have to agree with Atoma. Benh 07:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This photograph would be illegal if taken in the UK, due to the disturbance the photographer must be causing. I don't know if the laws in Australia are similar, but para 3.1 of these Australian guidelines say that nesting birds should not be disturbed. --MichaelMaggs 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Lycaon, also it's flat. --Leafnode 08:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 17:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]