Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2006

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

Image:Hibiscus petal.jpg featured[edit]

Self Nominate and no vote --Nvineeth 13:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Fernando S. Aldado 20:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support exceptional macro image of the water droplets on the flower. Gnangarra 01:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Beautiful. — Erin (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -good; hi-resDannycas 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -super Oonagh 14:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - interesting.. Minto 23:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- nice picture, but I don't know what its purpose is / Fred Chess 09:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i am interested in macro pics and wanted to capture the the water drops from a very close range..--Nvineeth 10:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Friday 13:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral -->  Roger McLassus 08:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wespe.jpg not featured[edit]

Taken by user:Jörg Groß, Nominate

by pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great colours. — Erin (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 16:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- low resolution, confusing background -- Lycaon 17:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to get information about the wasp's environment. What are the grey, white and red objects? Roger McLassus 17:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The red substance is strawberry jam / jelly according to the homepage of the photographer. I suppose the white area is no object but over-exposed sky. 62.47.150.232 18:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Since strawberry jam is not the natural food of wasps, there is a good reason to believe that the grey environment is something artificial too, which diminishes the value of the picture considerably. That no description of this environment is given with the picture is another point to its disadvantage. In connection with the low resolution, the apparently overexposed sky and the hidden rear part of the wasp's abdomen I can't help opposing the picture. Roger McLassus 10:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Roger McLassus - MPF 14:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack with Roger. Darkone 15:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support FML ^hi 02:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Urban 05:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 12:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support striking colour scheme. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 19:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 11:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 7 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 08:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rissa_tridactyla_2.jpg not featured[edit]

(Black-legged) Kittiwakes - Rissa tridactyla in flight, taken on the Belgian continental shelf while hovering behind a fishing boat.

Self nomination Lycaon 19:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 19:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - BTW, only one Rissa tridactyla, the three in the background are all Larus canus - MPF 22:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I missed the white wing tip. Thanks for pointing it out. Lycaon 09:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose -- Urban 04:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 13:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 16:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 19:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not enough space around the bird this makes the image feel cramped Gnangarra 13:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nvineeth 08:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fred Chess 09:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 4 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 08:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brachypelma.smithi.7055.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

I found this Mexican redknee tarantula among the shots of Olei. According to its description it was photographed at the Butterfly House at Jonsdorf (near Zittau, Saxony, Germany). —AFBorchert 17:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —AFBorchert 17:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm voting for this now, and then never looking so closely at this image again. pfctdayelise (translate?) 20:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, nice. -- Fernando S. Aldado 02:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support There aint no camera big enough that would let me stand far enough away to take a picture of this guy close up. Now wheres the bug spray. Gnangarra 05:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a bad picture, but I've seen much better of this quite common (and easy to photograph) tarantula. -- Lycaon 06:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - why does the spider have yellow eyes? --Buchling 11:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

probably a combination of a flash and a tapetum lucidum -- Lycaon 23:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No color contrast between spider and background --SehLax 18:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't think the contrast is a big deal as the spider is very clear, and the blending with the background illustrates that the creature blends in with it's environment. — Erin (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although in a zoo, it isn't visible that it is - MPF 00:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Luigi Chiesa 17:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 11:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not that hard to take pictures of that species and there are better pictures possible than this, I especially don't like the point of view. this for example would be a better one (needs higher res and a better background though) -- Gorgo 00:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 13:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pavo cristatus head001xx.jpg featured without discussion - delisted[edit]

Nominated for delisting (after a hint from Pfctdayelise) by Roger McLassus 12:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist extremely low resolution and nothing outstanding to counterbalance it. Furthermore I apply stricter criteria for pictures once listed without discussion. Roger McLassus 12:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist ack. Darkone 13:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist res -- Gorgo 18:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist anything that was added without discussion pfctdayelise (translate?) 21:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist FML ^hi 02:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist LoopZilla 10:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This is a no-brainer. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral extremly low resolution, but very nice Ss181292 20:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Dannycas 03:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist ack pfctdayelise Kessa Ligerro 09:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist if it wasn't properly featured in the first place it shouldn't have to go through a formal delisting either... --Dschwen 06:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This image was the first featured picture ever on this project. It received its featured status before a formal nomination process was put in place, at a time when the Commons was relatively new. Now that we have many excellent pictures, the bar has been raised and a review is appropriate. However, if the main concern is that it was "featured without discussion", perhaps someone should ask Aurevilly how FP nominations worked in the first two months of this project. He is the administrator who put it on Commons:Featured pictures in the first place. Has anyone bothered to find out where the FPC discussions took place at that time? This is not entirely obvious for anything featured before March 2005; see this discussion for further background. And why should there be a double standard? ("Furthermore I apply stricter criteria for pictures once listed without discussion.") Either something meets our explicit and implicit criteria for FP status, or it doesn't. --MarkSweep 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this picture obviously does not. But as for the other pictures that were once featured without a formal (and archived) voting, I think we should start a discussion on the appropriate page. Roger McLassus 06:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Low resolution - yes - but what was the technology when it was listed. In 2-3 years pictures we feature now will have low resolution, do we use this as part of our consideration now? Historically to commons this image is more significant then any we vote on now, there will only ever be one 1st featured picture, no matter where technology takes pictures this is where we started. Gnangarra 10:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delisted pictures don't just disappear. They simply change their status from "featured picture" to "formerly featured picture" and will hold the latter forever. They are only removed from the actual FP-list but stay in the chronological list with the comment "delisted". As soon as this one gets delistet (which is very likely to happen) I'll create a template {{Formerly featured picture}} and insert it instead of the template {{Featured picture}} in the image-page. Roger McLassus 16:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- that's the whole point of delisting. Quote from above: "Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case." -- Gorgo 17:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 delist, 1 keep, 1 neutral --> delisted Roger McLassus 13:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vitrification1.jpg featured[edit]

Nominate

Vitrification Experiment — Minto 23:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Minto 23:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support strangely beautiful Lycaon 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 00:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what is the point of making commercial photo FPC Gnangarra 01:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of featuring pictures is not only to encourage wikipedians to create (and upload) good pictures, but also to find them (and upload them, if they are public domain). But since most wikipedians cannot privately afford a professional photographic equipment, I suggest we should have two categories of featured pictures: A (for private ones) and B (for public ones). Roger McLassus 09:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought the point of featuring pictures was to mark and show the greatest pictures on commons, and not directly approve or encourage photographers, am I wrong?... Minto 20:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess so. Without any featuring the "greatest pictures on commons" would be just as great. But featuring is a method of increasing their number by encouraging people to create and find new excellent pictures. Roger McLassus 10:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support really cool, it looks like an egg! pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 07:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks good, but agree with Gnangarra -- Godewind 08:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good picture, but given its professional origin the depht of focus could be better. Roger McLassus 09:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good -- Fabien1309 10:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not bad but ... - YolanC 14:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very illustrative, perfect for, say... an encyclopedia! -Quasipalm 15:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Francisco M. Marzoa 11:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- professional equipment yes or no; probably not the right place to discuss this issue! the picture is well above average!-- Boereck 16:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Luigi Chiesa 17:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Glass is poured into a carbon form. Never seen but nothing special either. The glass has about 1200 °C with nearly white radiation, so the rest is dark. No lightning is needed. Nothing special from a technical point of view.127.0.0.l 18:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ygrek 19:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 17:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greycard 08:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral -->  Roger McLassus 06:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AngelicaArchangelica.jpg not featured[edit]

Angelica Archangelica in Þórsmörk in Winter, Iceland; Andreas Tille 21:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Amazing... -- Fernando S. Aldado 21:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 07:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- sharpness -- Godewind 08:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's kind of poetic, but sth holds me back from supporting.. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - YolanC 14:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose *shrug* -Quasipalm 15:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice mood --SehLax 18:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Love it. — Erin (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Godewind and Lumijaguaari - MPF 00:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 09:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp enough, given it is an easy object to photograph MGo 12:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is no excuse and does not matter for FPC, but once you mention it I have to disagree: It is not easy to make a good shot in the middle of a storm with hailstones bigger than peas - it was definitely not! ;-) Andreas Tille 19:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- great shot, perfect quality -- Boereck 16:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- At full size it has many problems though: lack of DoD, too much noise/grain, and a yellow frame around. Francisco M. Marzoa 15:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least the issue with the yellow frame is fixed now. Andreas Tille 21:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Not very sharp. Miskatonic 15:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bit blurry Oonagh 19:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 06:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stanislaw Lem 2.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate a great picture of one of the greatest science fiction writers. Ausir 09:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ygrek 18:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 21:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a nice portrait. But the email permission request was not great. It's best to link to the text of the GFDL and explicitly state that commercial use and derivative works will both be allowed. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low quality -- Lycaon 12:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Lycaon - MPF 00:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 11:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 3 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 06:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:View of loch lomond.JPG featured[edit]

Nominate

— The thumbnail may seem plain, but the full-size image is quite striking. It almost looks fake. TwilightRealm 02:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Lycaon 08:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with nominator! Quite a sight. Hey TwilightRealm, remember to vote support if (as I think you do) you want it featured - the nomination itself is not counted as a support vote. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aka 08:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnangarra 08:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godewind 09:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support No, it doesn't look like a fake. It simply looks good. Roger McLassus 10:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 11:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--User:Joelmclendon 14:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Support--Kumaapr9 15:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--YolanC 20:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fernando S. Aldado 21:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slight tilt? Anyroad, gets my vote! Gordo 23:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 23:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- skINMATE 09:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support By the way, there's a similar picture at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Amazing_loch_lomond.JPG. I think I prefer the current one, because of the sky and sun, but the foreground and mountain are a bit better in the other. Opinions? —the preceding unsigned comment is by TwilightRealm (talk • contribs)
Support --Dannycas 02:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Keeleysam 02:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 17:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Freedom to share 20:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! Kessa Ligerro 10:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Lorenzarius 11:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friday 13:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 17:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greycard 08:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

26 support, 0 oppose -> featured / Fred Chess 08:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jonathan's Run Falls.jpg featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 10:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 10:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - YolanC 14:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Killeroy 03:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support brought to mind a recently feat. pic - both please my eyes but in a different way, this is less savage - more like from a garden or sth. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 11:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too slow an exposure, the water looks all wrong (compare the one Lumijaguaari linked to, for a much better example) - MPF 23:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it for the reason MPF opposes. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The water looks nice, with motion. Lumijaguaari's picture shows it frozen. That's not better or worse, is simply different. Francisco M. Marzoa 15:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dannycas 03:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 13:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 09:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friday 13:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 17:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greycard 08:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13 support, 1 oppose -> featured / Fred Chess 08:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eagle beak sideview A.jpg featured[edit]

Nomination -- This should be useable with various articles. Thermos 06:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Thermos 07:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fernando S. Aldado 09:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Good picture, bad naming. This is not an eagle but a Griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus). -- Lycaon 13:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much Lycaon. To be honest, I was unsure about species and was bit affraid about naming. I will certainly make appropriate changes in naming later on. However, to avoid confusion during the voting period, I will do the changes after the voting (i.e. provide Wiki with an appropriately named version of this picture.). Thank you for the information. --Thermos 14:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in that case:

Support Lycaon 21:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 15:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 16:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MGo 17:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice. Miskatonic 18:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very Nice Dannycas 02:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Keeleysam 02:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its really strong. Francisco M. Marzoa 13:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- skINMATE 16:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 20:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 17:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friday 13:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a truly great image. Thryduulf 17:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greycard 08:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral -> featured. / Fred Chess 09:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crow_on_the_sign_of_no_parking.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

— small, but nice pict. Hołek ҉ 16:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Hołek ҉ 16:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not bigger than this thumb and even so the crow is not sharp, its head seems to touch the electric line, background both boring and confusing, bad composition, not outstanding MGo 17:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Miskatonic 18:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's crap. Dunc|☺ 21:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it had potential Dannycas 02:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose res -- Gorgo 00:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Francisco M. Marzoa 13:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 16:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oonagh 16:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose must be a snap shot or some error? Kessa Ligerro 10:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ? -- Pjotr 11:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 9 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 07:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Océano Atlántico en Cádiz.JPG not featured[edit]

Nominate

— Emijrp 16:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Emijrp 16:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Try to find a better motive, there are lots of them in Cadiz.. Minto 16:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly do you mean by motive? pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - there are lots of other great places in Cadiz where you can photograph the city and the saa, this was too boring for me.. Minto 16:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Motif maybe? -Quasipalm 20:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Miskatonic 18:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- doesnt sufficiently display the subject Gnangarra 02:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeFernando S. Aldado 09:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 15:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing special - MPF 16:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 17:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition Francisco M. Marzoa 13:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 16:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 8 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 07:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:East Mitten Butte in Monument Valley.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 10:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 10:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - YolanC 15:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral maybe our best highres photo of Monument Valley here, but the composition is quite straight without any highlights, just a good illustration --SehLax 18:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The horizon is quite leaning. I suggest you level it and nominate it again afterwards. Roger McLassus 19:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Minto 20:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urban 05:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 11:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 12:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 09:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's too... straightforward. I prefer Image:Monument Valley.jpg but I'm not certain I would support its nomination either. So, this monument waits... pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like the "straighforwardness" of the picture - no, really! -- Boereck 15:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a nice tourist shot - but not more MGo 20:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice shot. Taken from a little too far away though. Miskatonic 22:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- pretty coolDannycas 02:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this photo is not high-res at all. Maybe it hat a lot of pixels, but it is pretty unsharp and noisy! --Dschwen 10:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. I love these types of shots. NPPyzixBlan 17:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 14:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fietspad naar campus Diepenbeek.JPG featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 10:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 10:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice ! - YolanC 15:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - bad quality.. Minto 21:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support i don't see anything bad there, although i'd be happier without oversharpened trunks of the trees --che 01:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light siphoning through tree leaves always gets me... --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 11:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pictures of Dutch scenes are pretty rare around here... MartinD 14:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a good picture but hard to justify as a featured picture, surely? --Rodge500 17:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this picture User:pasondag 22 March 2006 Please sign in before voting. (Check the history, it's 83.99.17.89) pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, tho' marginal - MPF 23:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice: the track is part of scene, but also foreign Gordo 10:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ACK User:Lumijaguaari. Ahhhh... pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing Remarkable. Miskatonic 22:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 14:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like a lot the atmosphere created by thouse sun rays passing through the trees. Francisco M. Marzoa 15:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dannycas 03:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 13:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really outstanding or interesting. Kessa Ligerro 09:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, beautiful. Thryduulf 17:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply beautiful. NPPyzixBlan 17:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 support, 6 oppose -->  Roger McLassus 14:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crassula tetragona - blossom top (aka).jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

and no vote. —- aka 10:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's not awful but the position and posture of the fly is IMHO wrong. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. Francisco M. Marzoa 11:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MGo 12:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though I am not in to insect pictures, I like it. I love the shallow depth of field and good bokeh. The subject is well separated from the background and when viewed in full size, the picture is razor sharp. You can even see nice details like spider's web on the plants. Perhaps a tighter crop could make it better, when viewed at computer monitor, however. Yes. The composition could be better, but it is a good picture nonetheless. --Thermos 16:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author has submitted a lot of other excellent pictures, but this even is not good. The main subject needs a lot more of space for its motion, the space that's below should be on top, and the one that's on the left should be on the right, or in other words: the subject should be lower and more to the left. Composition is really bad. Francisco M. Marzoa 13:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made this image to illustrate a flower article for this species, so the main subject is the blossom and not the fly. If you mainly see this image as an insect image, then its bad indeed. But believe me, I never would have uploaded it then. The fly is just there to decorate the flower. But of course, your mileage may vary. I'm just a little bit disappointed if you say "the composition is really bad" only because it's not the composition you'd like to see. -- aka 14:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the main subject is the flower, quality and DoF is excellent, BUT I still think that composition is bad with that fly there, because the fly seems to be the main subject for those who look at without further explanation. Do not be dissappointed. Your photo gallery is one of the bests that I've seen here (and may be that I'm wrong with this also, indeed). Francisco M. Marzoa 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose agree that insect should not decorate image of flower. / Fred Chess 01:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 4 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 14:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Casing.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

— Minto 23:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in the English Wikipedia Roger McLassus 14:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Very illustrative..Minto 23:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot. ;-) Miskatonic 23:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 07:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 09:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry, distracting grunt on the left. Rama 10:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 12:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I do not like myrmidons, the picture is very good, and that's the point. Francisco M. Marzoa 14:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- in some way I ask myself: was it photoshop or was that you making the image? Boereck 22:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How many photos nowaday haven't been touched by photoshop ;) personally I think this is a great illustrative shot, filling the needs of use in Wiki to the limit.. so thank you Staff Sgt. Suzanne M. Day in the U.S. Air Force, great shot.. Minto 21:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 04:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - MPF 16:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dannycas 02:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mkill 23:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- skINMATE 16:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Quasipalm 18:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Already featured on en:wikipedia - Night Gyr 21:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Roger McLassus 14:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Rodge500 20:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- YolanC 22:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 11:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A scary killer machine, glad I am not Iraqi! Bertilvidet 16:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice feydey 01:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 17:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like it too much, it's great quality and technically very well done, but I don't think that's all to make it a fp -- Gorgo 00:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportRomary 06:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -A.J. 11:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 support, 9 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 07:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Watering_can_P1080280.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 18:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 18:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cleaning the table before taking the picture would have been a good idea, because the dirt is reflected by the can and thus visible. By the way - the photographer is visible too Roger McLassus 19:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the table is clean; what looks like dirt is natural patterning in the marble. And what's wrong with a pic of a wikipedian?? Thought of nominating one or two from the facebook myself! - MPF 21:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reflections. Miskatonic 00:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unbalanced composition, uninteresting subject. --P199 00:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 04:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - composition to cluttered detracts from subject Gnangarra 11:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 17:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- reflections -Dannycas 02:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the street in the background. It would look much nicer if the can were placed in front of the flowers. Kessa Ligerro 10:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too busy Pjotr 11:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 9 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 07:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Haus der Kulturen der Welt Nachtaufnahme.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution, slightly tilted, locally overexposed, colours partly implausible MGo 20:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - doesn't do anything for me - MPF 21:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution, slightly tilted, locally overexposed, Colors are nice though. Miskatonic 23:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 04:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Dirtslayer
Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Support if tilt corrected. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Support if tilt corrected.-Dannycas 02:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Support if tilt corrected.-Bertilvidet 19:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res -- Gorgo 00:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 18:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 8 oppose, 3 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 07:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mykonos Poulpes à sécher.JPG not featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 18:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 18:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture is leaning several degrees clockwise. Roger McLassus 20:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Leaning just under 4° clockwise, IF the lamp-post is straight - which I'm not convinced it is. Hard to judge, but the walls look as though they may be straight, with the lamp leaning a little. - MPF 21:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exposure is not very good. This was taken on a bright day using f/4 You should have used a higher f/# like 13. This picture is not very sharp. Miskatonic 23:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - but almost right. Good colours but the rigging of the boat is not contrasted properly against the rocks. --P199 01:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 04:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 17:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- skINMATE 19:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 07:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grasshopper_Devon_2004.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

Ambrose Buchanan 15:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- great quality, lame motive -- Boereck 15:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely perceived motive shouldn't be a factor in assigning merit to an image. Ambrose Buchanan 16:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 16:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good pic of a difficult subject in its natural habitat. I'm not too good on grasshopper i.d., but will hazard a guess at Chorthippus parallelus or C. brunneus. - MPF 21:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many things in the forground. Miskatonic 21:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - good pic, but not FP due to grass across subject and slight over exposure along subject. You got focus spot on colours are good and composition is acceptable. Gnangarra 11:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lycaon 11:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 13:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We need a greater close-up showing *all* the details Freedom to share 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose should be cropped, not sharp Pjotr 11:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 07:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Toda_Hut.JPG featured[edit]

Nominate

--Pratheepps(self nominate) A hut of the Toda tribe of the Nilgiris, India. May not be a photographically gleaming shot. But thought it would have some encyclopedic importance.(Pl. see the large image )

Support - its encyclopedic contributions arent necessarliy consider for FP, I like this Gnangarra 14:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- good but a bit cut -- and I would like to know : where is the door ? -- YolanC 14:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The door is located right in front of the hut. Yes! that tiny square opening at the bottom with a door!!!
Thank you, yes that's tiny :è) YolanC 23:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nvineeth 16:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good and interesting but unfortunately the cutting is from the ass in this case. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 19:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very interesting pic. Is it someones' home, or a storage barn? - MPF 21:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a Home!! Home of the Toda Tribe. See the article at [1]

Thanks; it was the other more 'modern' buildings in the distance made me wonder if this was not a home - MPF 16:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Miskatonic 21:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC) The framing is not very good.[reply]
Support - Minto 22:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 04:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight. Francisco M. Marzoa 15:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 13:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dannycas 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I also find it is "too tight". The background looks very interesting! pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for exactly the reasons pfctdayelise gives. Thryduulf 17:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral -->  Roger McLassus 07:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Greatwhiteegret03192006.JPG not featured[edit]

Nomination Miskatonic 05:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Miskatonic 05:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 09:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the colour of the water. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ack Pfctdayelise -- YolanC 14:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the water colour intensity did you adjust the colour?, the issue is the exposure across the body of the subject it needs more contrast to show the features. Also I would like to see more of the reflection it looks like the legs have been cut off.
The color is slightly enhanced. Contrast on that day was a bit of a problem. If you zoom in all the way you can see the feathers. This bird is very white. The legs are in the frame. They are just under water. Miskatonic 17:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnangarra 14:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- no bad picture at all, but a bit bland Boereck 15:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 16:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose implausible colours MGo 20:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice pic, except the blueness needs to be toned down a bit - MPF 21:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 04:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 07:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pacific black duck bibra wa gnangarra.jpg Not Featured(withdrawn)[edit]

Self nomination --Gnangarra 12:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring background, the most interesting part (the head) is dark, the eyes hardly stand out against the black stripes of the head, the shadow of the duck is cut, disturbing shadow on the right side. norro 13:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack norro MGo 13:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Dschwen 13:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 13:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 18:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Martinroell 09:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greycard 13:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gnangarra 05:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results: 1 Support, 8 Oppose - Not featured(withdrawn) Gnangarra 05:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Birds perry lakes wa.jpg Not Featured(withdrawn)[edit]

Nominate

—Gnangarra 05:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Gnangarra 05:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rainbow lorikeets are in the shade and not close enough. It should not be too hard to take a stunning photo of these birds; they are not shy and are brilliantly coloured. We don't have any particularly good pictures of them yet, so I would say keep trying. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Dschwen 12:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- MGo 06:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 18:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Martinroell 09:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results: 1 Support, 7 oppose - not featured(withdrawn) Gnangarra 05:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Castillo de San Marcos en El Puerto de Santa María 2.JPG - not featured[edit]

Self nomination --Emijrp 14:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Its quite a good image, but I'm not certain that it is FP quality. The birds are slightly out of focus, which is slightly distracting but not too much. The thumbnails have horrible JPEG artifacts around the birds, but these don't appear to be present in the full size images. I'm not certian if there is anything that can be done about this or not? Thryduulf 15:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Dschwen 12:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 06:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose User:rahul Please log in to vote. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 18:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 4 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 08:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amazing loch lomond.JPG - not featured[edit]

Nomination --68.216.187.39 19:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (nomination fixed by Thryduulf)[reply]
Oppose. This was taken at the same time as Image:View of loch lomond.JPG, which is also currently a featured picture candidate (the metadata shows they were taken within the same minute), but the composition is significantly poorer. The tree dominates the foreground and distracts from the loch - in the other picture it is off to the side and is nowehere near as prominent; the water on the lake is also washed out on this image which is not on the other. This feels like exactly the sort of photograph I take as part of a panorama - the centre of the composition is on the right edge. I would have a go at stitching them myself but the overlap is too great and the colours too different for my software to cope with. If this is your photograph then a tip for the future when making panoramas like this is to take the photos in manual mode so they have the same aperture and exposure time etc. Also the ideal overlap is no more than about 1/3rd of width of the frame. Other than that keep trying - some work some don't, and even when they don't sometimes one of the individual frames is a great picture in its own right. Thryduulf 20:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Dschwen 12:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 06:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jeez didn't we just vote on this one? Enought of Loch Lomond already. Miskatonic 17:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 18:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 5 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 08:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IC circuit chip board.JPG - not featured[edit]

from OpenPhoto, Nominate

by pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose most of the picture is quite blurry, and even if it were sharp it would still be boring MGo 13:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MGo Oonagh 17:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greycard 08:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Dschwen 12:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 18:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 5 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 08:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1929BugattiT37Aengine.jpg - not featured[edit]

The engine bay of a 1929 Bugatti T 37 A.

Self nomination, was nominated earlier, then people thought it would be better scropped so here it is. // Liftarn 17:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For someone who (like myself) has no particular knowledge about old cars this picture looks somewhat boring. Since the majority of the commons-community is likely to consist of such people, I suggest you tell us why - in your opinion - this picture is remarkable. Roger McLassus 18:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just look at the engine bay. The polished metal and the contrast with the dirty car. That it's dirty showns that it's a car that is being used, not a museum piece and yet the engine bay is spotless. // Liftarn 11:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp enough, dirty car. -- Lycaon 22:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greycard 08:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Lycaon Hein 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 3 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 08:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SantaCruz-LosGlaciares-P2150204b.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

Santa Cruz- Los Glaciares, Argentina. (800x600) — Minto 23:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Amazing shot, nice compo.. a litttle low rez, but still a lovely photo! Minto 23:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low rez -- Lycaon 23:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res ok, the subject is dark too much foreground Gnangarra 01:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 04:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution too low Gordo 08:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose res way too low ( < 0.5 mp) -- Gorgo 23:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 08:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would have been nice if I had received a message in my talkpage regarding this nomination a year and a half ago; namely, I could have uploaded the full resolution image, and even have fixed the brightness. I'll try to upload it again when I find the original. Mariano 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yvoire02.JPG - not featured[edit]

Self nomination --historicair 20:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 05:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - composition - see image talk page for explanation Gnangarra 14:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - composition Miskatonic 15:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Miskatonic; the birds (Anas platyrhynchos, Mergus merganser, Aythya fuligula) are OK but the mooring buoys spoil the pic, like so much plastic litter - MPF 16:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greycard 08:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 18:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 7 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 08:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wellensittich.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

— Cronus 16:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ugly foreground and annoying background --Huebi 16:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality. The picture is not any larger then this thumbnail.—the preceding unsigned comment is by Miskatonic (talk • contribs)
Oppose--Shizhao 03:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Urban 05:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above MGo 13:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution way too low -- Gorgo 13:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose LR also. Francisco M. Marzoa 13:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 16:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oonagh 20:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greycard 08:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 18:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 11 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 08:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Persian-tilework-mismatched.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

— Elnaz 16:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeMiskatonic 03:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 03:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Gordo 09:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose funny mismatch, but the picture misses FP-quality MGo 12:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 16:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose curious.Oonagh 16:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greycard 08:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 18:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 9 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 08:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Orb weaver spider web.jpg - not featured[edit]

Self Nom --Fir0002 www 00:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--boring--Dannycas 03:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Gordo 11:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 03:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad quality and boring MGo 12:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Francisco M. Marzoa 13:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greycard 08:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 18:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 7 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 08:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KinkakuSnow1Awp.jpg, not featured[edit]

Kinkakuji in Kyoto, Japan, during winter

Nominate --Mkill 23:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A great picture for articles like w:en:Kigo Support --Mkill 23:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad quality, sky and background extremely overexposed. -- Gorgo 00:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thats the point of the image, showing a winter landscape with the temple as a nice addition. --Mkill 00:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - i would like to see more temple, also the article you refer to this image isnt included Gnangarra 01:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have a dozen pictures where you can see more of the temple (Category:Kinkaku-ji). And I'll redo the pictures in the Kigo article when I have the time. --Mkill 01:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Over exposed sky and rooftop. Miskatonic 03:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great snow shot! Gordo 09:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely scene, lovely framing. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree, Pfctdayelise - YolanC 11:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like it, but is very overexposed. Francisco M. Marzoa 13:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This was not an easy decision. I like the picture, it has a nice composition and transmits atmosphere. It could be a bit sharper and the over-exposed sky diminishes its quality. But the crucial point that makes me oppose the picture is the nearly invisible rooftop. MGo 13:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 16:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good enough to make up for it's medium quality -Quasipalm 18:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition. Rama 11:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good! Oonagh 13:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful! --663highland 14:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 16:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Why didn't take the temple neatly? I feel this is a strange photograph because this temple is not a usual temple but Kinkaku-ji. --Morio 01:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. I love winter shots. NPPyzixBlan 17:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Rex 20:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zimbres 00:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 08:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Morteratsch glacier 1.jpg - featured[edit]

Morteratsch glacier in the swiss alps (near St. Moritz) as seen from on the glacier itself.

Self nomination --Dschwen 22:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- I love panoramas. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Miskatonic (talk • contribs)
Support--Shizhao 03:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - must admit i did go looking for joins made while creating this image Gnangarra 10:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral very good picture, but the tracks at the lower left corner are disturbing. I'll change my vote to "support" if you can get rid of them. MGo 13:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They could easily be cropped, but I felt they add a sense of scale and contribute to the foreground of the image, thus increasing its depth. And they show that people skied on the glacier. Removing them would change the picture quite a bit, generating a false impression of completely untouched/unvisited nature, which basically does not exist in the swiss alps. --Dschwen 13:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- skINMATE 16:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think the tracks should be removed -- we should only doctor photos when something really needs IMHO. -Quasipalm 18:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gordo 11:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rama 11:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Francisco M. Marzoa 08:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 11:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 17:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Freedom to share 20:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friday 13:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pumbaa 15:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13 support, 1 neutral --> Featured Roger McLassus 08:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dahlie_violett.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

— 83.243.112.51 12:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Support — 83.243.112.51 12:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC) please log in to vote -- Lycaon 20:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Andreas Volkmer 08:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but not good enough. The outer petals are over-exposed and the composition is boring. MGo 13:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good photo. --Joernsen 14:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Oonagh 16:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It does not look over exposed to me. Those are white tips not over exposeure. But it is kind of boring. Miskatonic 15:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 20:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't usually get excited by flowers, but this has GREAT symmetry. How does it look cropped into a square, I wonder? pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 08:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cape Cove, Oregon.jpg - featured[edit]

(variant A)

(variant B)

Nominate

— This is my first submission to Featured Pictures, so I would like to request comments on how to improve it, if needed. No, waiting for a sunny day is not an option :)
I am aware that the cliff on the left might be a bit dark, but I have not edited the picture, in order to keep it as authentic as possible. I did spend more than I probably should've on assembling the panorama itself :) —UED77 00:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice picture, I like the mood. The stitching is great, horizon absolutely straight, no visible glitches. ~~The only flaw is the crop of the house in the upper right corner.~~ --Dschwen 09:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral cropped house and generally I'd like to see more of the heaven - maybe a pano of upside pictures would look better. --SehLax 10:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I managed to create a new version by leaving more of the sky. However, I do believe there is simply no more photographic data at my disposal. I replaced the old version with the new one completely, and am asking you to evaluate the new version instead. Notice the house is not cropped anymore :) —UED77 13:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like composition and motive, but its too dark. Francisco M. Marzoa 13:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- skINMATE 19:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good panorama. Thryduulf 17:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As variants now exist I'll clarfiy my vote to say I support either variant A or B. Thryduulf 21:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support variant B — another alternate version variant B is available, which increases brighness and saturation. —UED77 21:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - either but if one i'd say A Gnangarra 02:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 2 neutral --> Featured Roger McLassus 08:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Reef0208.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

—Shizhao 12:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Shizhao 12:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it looks like a pentagonal piece of flannel on a blue carpet. From reading the image description the file would be much better named "cushion starfish" or "Culcita novaeguineae". Thryduulf 12:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Joonasl 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agreed with Thryduulf; it really should be detoured and recentred. The texture of the background indeed misleads the reader into thinking that this is not an animal but a piece of tissue of some sort. Rama 08:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 10:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think this is a good shot and it really DOES look misleading to me, sorry :-) - Boereck 17:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 18:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Martinroell 09:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greycard 13:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 9 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 09:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006-01-28 Drop-impact.jpg - featured[edit]

Self nomination and Support Roger McLassus 21:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work! Minto 23:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! :-) Oonagh 07:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC) heart added Oonagh 20:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Support ack Oonagh :-) --che 11:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 12:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 17:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- skINMATE 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Kessa Ligerro 10:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Quasipalm 20:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice. --Thermos 05:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friday 13:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent. Thryduulf 16:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great shot. Amazing reflections --Pumbaa 15:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Wikimol
Support Greycard 08:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lmbuga 21:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow is the only word that comes to mind. NPPyzixBlan 17:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack Pumbaa Hein 18:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -A.J. 11:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19 support --> Featured Roger McLassus 04:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006-01-15 coin on water.jpg - featured[edit]

Description: A Hungarian coin was carefully put on the surface of the water in a glass and photographed while it floated because of the water's surface tension. The colour is due to the wooden environment.
Nomination and Support by the photographer Roger McLassus 12:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral its a good picture, imho i think a lower angle showing more of the edge of the coin Gnangarra 14:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On the same occasion I made (and later deleted) dozens of pictures from all possible angles. None of them showed the edge of the coin, because it was always hidden behind the curve of the meniscus. The coin does not lie flatly on the water, it dips in, so that the coin's upper side is deeper than the surface of the water outside. Roger McLassus 14:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is kind of low resolution. Do you have a larger image? Miskatonic 15:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately I have no larger image. This is the reason why I've hesitated for more than two months before I decided to nominate the picture. Due to my camera's limited depth of focus at macro range I had to take the picture from quite a distance to get everything sharp. After cropping away the superfluous surrounding the remaining picture has now a rather limited resolution. Roger McLassus 16:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. How did you do it? - MPF 15:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not easy. I held the coin in a horizontal position between the nails of thumb and forefinger and carefully put in on the surface of the water. I have some training in doing so (having done it occasionally since decades) but nevertheless it took me quite a lot of unseccessful trials before it worked. Roger McLassus 16:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ygrek 19:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the main subject, the coin, is way too small. Most of the picture just shows a glass of water. --Dschwen 21:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The coin itself is not the subject of the picture, but the effect that surface tension prevents it from sinking. So the coin's details are irrelevant. The glass, however, is important, since it makes clear what is underneath the coin. Furthermore it provides an optical environment that makes the meniscus better visible. Roger McLassus 05:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is just nitpicking, I agree the details of the coin are not relevant, but the size of the meniscus around it is of the same order of magnitute, and that is just too small. Also The lighting could be way better. The shadows in the glass clutter the image and distract more from the floating coin rather than helping. --Dschwen 09:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Dschwen -- Lycaon 23:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Dschwen, I cannot see what kind of articles etc this can illustrate.. - Minto 01:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is now illustrating the articles about surface tension in the English and German Wikipedia. Roger McLassus 05:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Pictures on commons should be judged independently from any potential articles on their own pohtographic merit. This is not en:FPC. --Dschwen 07:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But keep in mind: Usability for other wikimedia projects is the key point of the commons. norro 12:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 07:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Francisco M. Marzoa 08:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Subject is good, but resoluton is low. Gordo 08:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's a great picture. And it does illustrate the problem of floating currencies in an excellent way;) MartinD 11:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 12:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 17:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- skINMATE 19:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral image subject is good, but quality can be improved / Fred Chess 09:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this display of the phenomenon and the colouring. It is rather difficult to be done. Kessa Ligerro 10:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Dschwen. I think the tones of the picture should better be blue than yellow. norro 12:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Blue is not the natural colour of water, which in fact has no colour. Water is only blue if reflecting a blue sky. But there was no blue sky above this glass of water. All its surrounding consisted of light-coloured wood. So there is no reason for any other colour to show up. Roger McLassus 18:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not exactly true. Water being colorless is a common misconception which may hold for the tiny amounts we usually handle. A closer look at the absorption spectrum of water shows a comparatively high absorption in the near-infrared to red range, yielding to a faint blue appearance. Well, but in any case this would not matter for the conditions the photo was taken in :-) --Dschwen 20:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - loved the pic! Bertilvidet 16:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support rad -Quasipalm 20:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friday 13:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 16:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pumbaa 15:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - visually unappealing, harsh refelctions. --Wikimol 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greycard 08:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a student of physics, I really appreciate this. Beautiful shot, but do wish it were higher res. NPPyzixBlan 17:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 18:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zimbres 00:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 19:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I really like the idea and the picture for my taste there are two flaws for a real FP: The background should be in a neutral (white or gray) color and the shout should be more close to the interesting object. So I would love if you would be able to borrow a camara with macro features and put the glass onto a white sheet of paper or something like that. Andreas Tille 15:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18 support, 7 oppose, 5 neutral --> Featured Roger McLassus 04:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Skogsvrak.jpg - not featured[edit]

An old two-stroke SAAB 96 sleeping in the forest.

Self nomination --Liftarn 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nordic Beauty! - Minto 23:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 03:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 04:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is no license tag! -- skINMATE 06:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Now there is. // Liftarn 12:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral A nordic beauty indeed, but in this condition a bit past her prime. Could you explain for what sort of article this picture would used? (If it's your car, good luck with the job!) MartinD 11:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- en:Scrap perhaps... Not my car, but I know the owner. The doors and bonnet actually looks quite good. Some people was also interested in the gearbox since it's a rare four speed. // Liftarn 18:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lots of people in Scandinavia collects photos of wrecked cars in the woods, like this, there are also some books of this weird phenomonen, this is a great shot which describes this "thing" very well... Minto
Oppose Miskatonic 00:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support an interesting composition Gnangarra 15:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - litter lout! - MPF 15:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 18:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like it. Neutrality 22:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 19:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FerdinandodeMedici.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

—Richardfabi 23:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A pretty good tourist shot, but I cannot see anything outstanding in the subject, the composition, or the quality. MGo 10:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good shot, but nothing special Pjotr 10:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a good shot perspective lines are consistant, there just nothing to make it stand out Gnangarra 15:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 13:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 08:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC) -- bad composition[reply]
Oppose--Dschwen 12:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rex 20:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 13:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CatedralMexico.JPG - not featured[edit]

La catedral en la Ciudad de Mexico, con unos danzantes representando una antigua danza Azteca (Catedral in Mexico City, in the front performes represents an anciet Aztec dance)

Self nomination --Lordmx 02:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)// Jose Rafael Hernandez Tadeo[reply]
Oppose, cut, unsharp, motion blur, blown-out sky, ugly bus. Sorry, but this is way below the standard. --Dschwen 13:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Dschwen MGo 13:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose subject doesnt dominate the image Gnangarra 13:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dito dschwen -- Gorgo 13:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oonagh 17:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -Quasipalm 20:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack w/Dschwen. Francisco M. Marzoa 00:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Miskatonic 00:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 10:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very messy picture. // Liftarn 11:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 13:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template found vandalized
11 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 13:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Three IC circuit chips.JPG - not featured[edit]

from OpenPhoto, Nominate

by pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice composition Gnangarra 13:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Of the three objects shown by this picture one is completely blurry, another one not sharp, and the remaining one only partly sharp - and there is nothing outstanding to counterbalance this lack of quality. MGo 13:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great composition. I like the effect of an increasing degree of sharpness. Bertilvidet 16:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support thought I think it could be cropped a bit tighter -Quasipalm 20:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MGo Pjotr 10:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ditto cropping and sharpness. Quite nice otherwise. // Liftarn 11:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too blurry - YolanC 22:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Urban 03:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Greycard 08:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Ss181292 08:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC) -- perfect illustration[reply]
Support Romary 10:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. NPPyzixBlan 17:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pmsyyz 17:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 18:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support FML ^hi 14:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Friday 08:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 13:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Closeup of snail in fishtank.jpg - not featured[edit]

Compare to this featured snail, I think they have the same standard. From OpenPhoto, Nominate

by pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing detail on the front, although I wish more of the photo was in focus. -Quasipalm 20:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Francisco M. Marzoa 00:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed, depth of field is too narrow, which is not necessary for such a slow object Pjotr 10:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Pjotr, f/2.8 is not recommendable in this case. MGo 12:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I agree with Quasipalm. Thryduulf 16:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think this one is better. YolanC 22:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Urban 03:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not a lot of use without the species identification. And agree with YolanC. - MPF 14:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 10:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice detail Miskatonic 17:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAnna reg 10:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support unusual perspective! A.J. 09:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ID is missing, therefor unusable for encyclopedic articles. Taka 05:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 6 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 13:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:St Bernard with barrel.JPG - not featured[edit]

from OpenPhoto, Nominate

by pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please put your votes into the appropriate sub-chapter Roger McLassus 19:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

original version (left) only[edit]

All votes made prior to the editing are also included here Roger McLassus 09:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This fellow looks suitably loyal. —pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice St. Bernard, not nice background. Bigbluefish 17:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pet photos, like flowers and sunsets, must be extra good for me because they are so common. -Quasipalm 20:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (How did this vote get counted as left only? I was clearly objecting to the photo, not the sharpness or color. -Quasipalm 16:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The DoF is fine, its sharp enough, the subject is nice, I like the composition... but the bkg kills it, specially those huge overexposed areas. Francisco M. Marzoa 00:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'd like to see how this would look if the dog were cropped from the background. Thryduulf 16:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've never actually seen one with the barrell around the neck. I thought that was only in the cartoons! :) -- Moof 18:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Urban 03:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edited version (right) only[edit]

Comment : I tried to do some background editing and uploaded a "edited version" -- Fabien1309 12:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support On edited version. Francisco M. Marzoa 16:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edited version. Thryduulf 18:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A.J. 16:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still just a dog, sorry. -Quasipalm 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Quasipalm -- Lycaon 10:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

both original version and edited version[edit]

Votes after the editing without referring to one of the versions are also included here. Roger McLassus 09:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Quasipalm - MPF 14:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both, background + awfully cheesy ;) -- Gorgo 23:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Dschwen 12:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Friday 08:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

original: 1 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured
edited: 4 support, 6 oppose --> not featured
Roger McLassus 13:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maple leaves - not featured[edit]

1
2
3
4

Please state which (if any) you support, referring to them by number 1, 2, 3 or 4. I only intend for one of these to be featured but I am sure people will have different favourites (and least-favourites).

all are by jurveston, Nominate

by pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support all, favour 1 —pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All of these four pictures are equally nice, but none of them is sharp in every part. I'd prefer just one sharp leaf instead of a disturbing multitude of them. Due to the fact that leaves are neither rare objects nor difficult to photograph an excellent quality would be needed to justify FP-status. MGo 11:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaves are not rare, true, but I have never seen any like this. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all: These are really nice pictures. Second and third one are very artifically, but have not much encyclopedic value due to disturbing composition. I prefer first and fourth one. Due to the fact, that they are little bit blurry (unfavourable, because of the feathery structure) and the sticks in the background, i just vote Neutral. The first one is my favourite. norro 12:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remeber that "encyclopedic value" is not the best reason for inclusion or otherwise -- commons photos can be used in any number of projects other than wikipedia -- even something like fiction or a Wikibook cover. --Quasipalm 20:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no favourite -- Lycaon 17:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~1 &~~ 4 / Oppose 2 & 3 & 1 (I noticed 1 has a strange white line in the right corner.) -Quasipalm 20:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - images 1 and 4 Gnangarra 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Urban 03:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - tend to agree with MGo. In order of niceness, 1 is best, then 4, 2, 3 worst. It would also be nice to have more info on how the leaves were treated to make them like this. Of identification, they are probably Acer platanoides. - MPF 14:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 13:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spider vdg.jpg - not featured[edit]

Support Self nomination I don't know the exact name of this spider. If you know it, please do not hesitate to update the description here and in the description page of the image. Vdegroot 09:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special, not sharp, overexposed, noisy, CA Pjotr 11:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor composition, lighting, and sharpness MGo 11:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just another ordinary shot of an European garden spider. Darkone 17:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good work -- but it just looks a little too "digital" for me to support -Quasipalm 20:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Dschwen 12:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rex 20:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 18:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 6 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 13:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kennedy's hut.jpg - not featured[edit]

Self Nom I think the "color glow" (version 2) is the best --Fir0002 www 08:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
also a candidate for FP in the English Wikipedia Roger McLassus 18:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I decidedly prefer the first version. In the two other versions everything green has turned into a dead brown. Roger McLassus 09:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the first version (ack Roger McLassus) Kessa Ligerro 10:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring, nothing special Pjotr 11:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The first one is the best of the three, but neither the object nor the quality are outstanding MGo 11:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed sky, picture not that special -- Gorgo 13:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose great pic, but there's something strange going on with the tree in front of the sky -- overexposed maybe? Also, the rest of the photo seems to be a bit too dark. otherwise a very good photo. -Quasipalm 20:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support #1 - nice idyllic pic. Who was Kennedy? For Quasipalm - if you're referring to the bark on the right-hand tree by the stream, that's natural - Eucalyptus bark is commonly like that. - MPF 14:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added info to image description --Fir0002 www 22:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 4 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 13:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jojo-Maly Szyszak 2005.jpg - not featured[edit]

Beautiful picture of Mały Szyszak. Already a featured picture on Wikipedia.

Nominate --64.231.215.125 05:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Featured in the Polish Wikipedia A.J. 11:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the foreground detail. Very nice. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful picture Kessa Ligerro 10:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 14:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grainy, not that sharp. Could we get an english description? -Quasipalm 20:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMiskatonic 00:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice illustration of the severity of conditions at en:Tree-line . . this pic is going there right now - MPF 14:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - yellow-brown snow, black sky. --Wikimol 21:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Rex 20:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A.J. 11:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zimbres 00:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Teme 06:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As mentioned earlier, the majority of the snow has an ugly colour, in addition to the black areas in the sky (vignetting?). Very grainy snow. Unsharp. Except for that, a nice photo. :) --JonasRH 22:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 support, 5 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 13:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Monticello reflected.JPG - not featured[edit]

Self nomination I am really proud of this photo I took and would like some criticism from you good folks. Enjoy!--Moofpocket 04:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This picture is tilted 1.4° clockwise. Roger McLassus 09:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it help to put the clock back by 2 minutes and 20 seconds?;) MartinD 11:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to my own calculation 1.4° correspond to 2 minutes and 48 seconds. If it were my picture, I'd try it out and see if the correcting rotation can be performed without any visible loss of sharpness. If so, I'd rotate it, otherwise not. Roger McLassus 12:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It may be tilted but it is also pretty Kessa Ligerro 10:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, it is tilted, but not very much, and the beauty of the picture more than compensates this disadvantage. MGo 11:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice indeed. Tilting is hardly noticeable and does hinder the quality and sharpness of it all. Captain Scarlet 13:16, 30 March 2006 (GMT)
Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition just doesn't work for me -- the subject is behind shadows and trees and it's a bit distracting. -Quasipalm 20:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 22:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- IMHO composition is boring, but is saved by the extraordinary mirror effect of the watter. Anyway white zones of the house are overexposed, specially the roof. Francisco M. Marzoa 00:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Miskatonic 00:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - boring IMO - YolanC 22:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not bad, but doesn't quite make FP quality for me - MPF 15:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 10:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice shot, but there are better photos of Monticello. Neutrality 22:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 7 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 13:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arion lusitanicus eating.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nomination --Nose Nose Nose Nose Nose Nose Nose oh what a Nose, 31 March 2006 (UTC)//
- Fake-user (in reality IP 68.216.187.39) Roger McLassus 09:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, but the nomination stands --pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive detail --che 15:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - detail ok, but all... - YolanC 16:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there is too much of the image that is not in focus that it distracts from what is in focus. Thryduulf 17:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Urban 05:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Dschwen 12:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Great detail. NPPyzixBlan 17:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow what an amazing image Miskatonic 17:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pmsyyz 17:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 6 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 07:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gropa halet.JPG - not featured[edit]

Nominate (no own photo) --Tolanor 23:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tolanor 23:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kenwilliams 23:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC) - I like it.[reply]
Oppose - Urban 03:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Juhu 14:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice pic, but a bit spoilt by the green lensing artefact lower centre - MPF 14:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MPF, and the sky around the sun is burnt out MGo 14:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Amazing motive, but too much noise in the sky and in the water - looks awfully grainy at full size. --Pumbaa 14:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i don't like the center composition --che 15:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but I'm sick of sunsets -Quasipalm 03:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Flominator 14:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Dschwen 12:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- historicair 12:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 9 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 07:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lochan Stones, Rannoch Moor.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

—Thryduulf 16:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Thryduulf 16:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gordo 21:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution -- Lycaon 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but low res -- YolanC 22:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Urban 03:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose res way too low -- Gorgo 13:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice, perfect stillness MPF 14:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral beautiful picture but low resolution, I cannot decide which of the two prevails MGo 14:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a damn shame this is so low res -Quasipalm 04:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Dschwen 12:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Miskatonic 17:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Rex 20:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - even though it is very low resolution, I like the spectrum of colors and especially the radiance thereof, I would advise you to upload a high resolution version of this image :-) - boereck 19:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately this isn't my image, otherwise I'd have done that already. :/ Thryduulf 23:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ack boereck Hein 18:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! A.J. 10:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 7 oppose, 3 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 07:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:John-bell-II-B-6.jpg - featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support Greycard 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice composition and acceptable scan quality MGo 15:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per MGo. Thryduulf 16:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting -Quasipalm 04:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 06:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Miskatonic 17:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 18:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support yucky! A.J. 10:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friday 08:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support --> Featured Roger McLassus 07:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:John Deere Motorcycle.jpg - not featured[edit]

Self nomination I saw this while hunting for an image that was to help out a Wikibooks project and I thought this was enough to give a good chuckle on a day like today. This is an image of a real thing here. --RHorning 18:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, blurry and looks to have JPEG artifacts in a few places (e.g. the lefthand (as you look) metal pole from teh wheel to the handle bars). Thryduulf 18:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the bright yellow text in the bottom right (presumably a partially cropped date) doesn't look good. Thryduulf 18:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition + per above Bertilvidet 18:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Joonasl 19:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Love the idea, but the picture is not that impressive. // Liftarn 10:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greycard 08:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - OK, perhaps it's not technically perfect, but it does show us the Perfect Gift for the Man Who Already Has Everything! MartinD 11:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Dschwen 12:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 06:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 18:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greycard 13:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 10:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Friday 08:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 13 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 07:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cascata caracol2.jpg - featured[edit]

Nominate

— This is an edited version of previously nomination here, nomination was rejected primarily for birgthness and contrast.  The image was adjusted increase 20% contrast , reduction of brightness 15% Gnangarra 16:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Gnangarra 16:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a little washed-out looking in the centre but not enough to stop me supporting. Thryduulf 17:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Richardfabi 00:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -Quasipalm 03:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I prefer the top picture. // Liftarn 10:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral great scenery, but partly overexposed (especially the falling water, but also the rocks) as can be seen in full resolution MGo 06:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Has some flaws at full resolution, and composition was boring before and its still boring now. Francisco M. Marzoa 16:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 23:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like to top photo more. -- Lerdsuwa 15:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zimbres 00:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support historicair 12:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Please put your votes into the appropriate sub-chapter!~~ Roger McLassus 18:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment image on the left is the nominated image the one on the right had previoucly been nominated but failed due to birghtness levels. Gnangarra 02:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the information Roger McLassus 09:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. El Comandante 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral --> Featured Roger McLassus 07:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Seagull in capitol hill.jpg - not featured[edit]

Self nomination Support --Joonasl 08:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution, you barely can see the seagull, blurry. -- Gorgo 13:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - bird barely identifiable (probably Larus delawarensis, but not definite) - MPF 14:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry, too much surrounding water, low resolution, bad composition, bird difficult to recognize MGo 14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of low resolution, I don't see a reason why the exact species of the bird has to be recognizable. --che 15:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really like it, but it would be good if the bird's head was turned slightly more so you could just see its beak. Yeah, right ;) And higher res would be nice too. pfctdayelise (translate?) 22:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- skINMATE 13:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greycard 08:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Dschwen 12:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this photo actually. NPPyzixBlan 17:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support You can like it or dislike it: I like it. --TeVe 08:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 18:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 8 oppose, 2 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 07:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vaalankurkku railway bridge.jpg - featured[edit]

Self nomination Support --TeVe 08:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning and beautiful --Ningyou 08:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Ningyou. Thryduulf 10:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MartinD 11:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely --Joonasl 12:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ygrek 18:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- skINMATE 21:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing photo -- Killeroy 00:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great, great, great! --Pumbaa 00:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice picture, but overexposed sky behind the bridge MGo 06:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 12:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a kind of charming, but it burns my eyes. Francisco M. Marzoa 16:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. This is an incredible picture capturing the beauty of winter. I love this photo. NPPyzixBlan 17:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I bet it makes a nice print but it is over exposed for a computer monitor. Miskatonic 17:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 23:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Miskatonic Hein 18:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --historicair 11:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support.El Comandante 00:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done Pjotr 10:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --David tm 11:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Taka 14:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC). Beautiful photo, but no encyclopedic value. It should not be in the wikipedia at all, but in a publication with artistic work.[reply]

that's the reason why it's on commons and not on en.wikipedia -- Gorgo 21:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it doesn't look bad as an illustrative photo —UED77 22:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I love it :) —UED77 22:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wing-Chi 00:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's art --Ayacop 14:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oikein tunnelmallinen ja kaunis.. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 22:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral --> Featured Roger McLassus 18:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Arenberg[edit]

300px|

Presently both versions of this picture are featured. In my opinion one of the two should be delisted. Discussion and voting can be found here. -- Roger McLassus 19:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

original picture (left) - delisted[edit]

Delist Roger McLassus 19:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Minto 20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Pumbaa 10:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Ss181292 05:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC) I dont see anything in this picture... just a picture, and that's all.[reply]
Delist Hein 18:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Greycard 13:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Gnangarra 05:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Friday 08:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Gorgo 21:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 delist --> delisted Roger McLassus 18:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edited picture (right) - not delisted[edit]

Keep Roger McLassus 19:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minto 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Don't like either version, sorry. The overexposed parts were sadly not corrected satisfactorily. --Pumbaa 10:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Ss181292 05:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC) see above[reply]
Neutral Hein 18:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gnangarra 05:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gordo 22:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Greycard 13:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Gorgo 21:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 keep, 2 delist, 1 neutral --> kept Roger McLassus 18:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Celestial Tide.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

. Found this via Category:Texas; it just looks utterly cool. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 10:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose interesting background, but the foreground destroys the image Pjotr 10:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 15:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral an interesting picture, but not above snapshot-quality MGo 06:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Again I agree with MGo. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 2 oppose, 2 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 20:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kevin Barnes from of Montreal in Sweden 2005-11-03.jpeg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

my own photo. --JonasRH 18:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral --JonasRH 18:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- skINMATE 15:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose distracting background, dull colours, noisy, not remarkable MGo 06:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MGo.--Wing-Chi 00:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Gnangarra 15:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment why would you nominate an image and not support it Gnangarra
  - Some people have a personal policy of not voting on their own images. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 3 oppose, 2 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 20:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Audrey Hollander AVN Awards 2006.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominated by Haham hanuka repositioned and nominator added Roger McLassus 15:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose distracting background, white dust/pixels at high res, and not altogether sharp --Rodge500 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- what about this one [2] (same licence)--Haham hanuka 19:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just a portrait-shot, not outstanding MGo 06:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack MGo.--Wing-Chi 00:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 4 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Apsoni.jpeg - not featured[edit]

nomination --Vvs 15:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - elbow and hat outside frame. A.J. 06:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cut, rather limited resolution and sharpness, nothing outstanding MGo 08:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it doesnt have to be all in frame - that's about cut, and about res/sharpness - want me to upload 90 megs original tiff ? Anyways for resolution/sharpness questions - http://vs.fotography.ru/heidelberg/ unsigned comment by Rolleiflex -- Roger McLassus 15:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not TIFF, but JPEG and original size would be nice anyway. A.J. 09:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res (0.6 mp) -- Gorgo 02:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 3 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Police officer on duty - not featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support Vvs 08:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template created Roger McLassus 11:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment did this police officer agree a photograph representing him to be published under a free license? ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 12:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is a public person. I am not sure he has to be agree or disagree. Rolleiflex 13:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 13:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad lighting and composition, disturbing and blurred background, not outstanding, rather limited resolution, legal situation not clear MGo 08:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSs181292 11:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC) -- picture is focused on policeman belly.[reply]
Comment Actually the guy is so kewl I focused rather on his balls - think they are big! unsigned comment by Rolleiflex -- Roger McLassus 15:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Neutral Looks like a pretty tough guy to me, but otherwise, not really remarkable. BTW, I'm confident he has agreed to having his picture taken, otherwise he would have made the photographer eat his camera;) MartinD 11:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting and composition is not that great --Gorgo 22:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ? Francisco M. Marzoa 05:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 5 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 20:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Acqui. Tramonto. Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - Novembre 2003.jpg - not featured[edit]

Self nomination --G.dallorto 19:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Not that I think to get the nomination, but I'd like to get your comments & suggestions. Thks. P.S. The title means "Sunset near Acqui".[reply]
Template corrected Roger McLassus 20:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - dark, but the sun in the sky is nice. YolanC 21:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring -- Gorgo 23:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 13:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark foreground and too much of it. The subject of the picture is the sunset, and this subject is so excessively common that excellent quality and something outstanding would be needed for FP-status. But this is just a run-of-the-mill sunset. MGo 09:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo l'ha detto... --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 5 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 20:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Somnathpur pictorial cancellation.JPG - not featured[edit]

Nomination (The nomination was done by User:Pratheepps, who didn't use the correct template. I just corrected this -> Neutral) --Pumbaa 11:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
also a candidate for FP in the English Wikipedia Roger McLassus 18:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not impressed by the special cancellation - let alone by this picture of the letter box MGo 15:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Joonasl 09:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greycard 13:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 10:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oonagh 14:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Friday 08:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 6 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 20:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LunaPark 0135.JPG - not featured[edit]

'Support'Self nomination --Bdude 08:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For one thing, it sure ain't Luna Park :) For another, I prefer Image:SydneyHarbourBridge6 gobeirne.jpg and Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge night.jpg. Bridge is cut, weird thing in top right corner and unless you're trying to make the point that Sydneysiders will jog past anything, I find the jogger distracting. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see nothing that could justify FP-status MGo 14:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 09:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greycard 13:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 10:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are so many pictures of the coat hanger that are better than this. The opear house has the light pole through it, the jogger is only appropriate if the image was for an article about jogging. Wheres Luna Park, I assume its behind the photographer. Gnangarra

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 20:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amazons riding sidesaddles.jpg - not featured[edit]

Self nomination -- Ss181292 05:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC) I believe this it is pretty and unique.[reply]
Support -- Ss181292 05:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. dull colors, cut at the left edge of the frame. --Dschwen 06:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Dschwen MGo 08:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack, and subjects *seems* to be cut & pasted on the background, probably due low quality. Francisco M. Marzoa 09:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to correct (a little) cropping and adjust colors. The problem, that subject *seems* to be cut & pasted on the background... well my camera uses awful JPEG compression, I tried to correct it using some blur tool... maybe it is the cause. (the orginal version of this photo can be found here, maybe someone else could fix it?) Ss181292 10:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dschwen. Thryduulf 10:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 13:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 7 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 19:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Waterloo and City crane 2006 tall.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

—Thryduulf 23:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Thryduulf 23:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not that exceptional for me -- Gorgo 01:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 04:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not impressed MGo 08:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my city trains does not usually fly. Francisco M. Marzoa 09:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Quite unusual sight, but I would have loved to see more of the crane --Pumbaa 00:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose} -- Captain Scarlet 22:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gordo 14:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose .. Pjotr 10:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 19:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Little_gulls.jpg - featured[edit]

Self nomination Gerry Lynch 16:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 17:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done! --Nvineeth 17:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Minto 19:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The birds are Black-headed Gulls, not Little Gulls - MPF 23:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine enough. Francisco M. Marzoa 09:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 13:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pjotr 10:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rama 14:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wing-Chi 00:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ayacop 14:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Freedom to share 18:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 support, 2 oppose --> Featured Roger McLassus 19:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Butchers_creek_-_omeo07.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate -- Zanimum 13:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Gnangarra 13:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bright parts (especially the running water) overexposed, long exposure time makes the water look unnatural MGo 13:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposition on some leaves. Composition is nice. There's nothing wrong for me with the unnatural water. Francisco M. Marzoa 15:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with MGo on blurred water - MPF 23:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course you can like it or not, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with blurred water. I've seen this comment before, so I link to a NG tutorial explaining that blurring motion in general -and water in particular- is not wrong, but just another view of the same scene: [3] [4] Francisco M. Marzoa 09:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't like it, because it is not as the eye sees it, so it looks unreal and unnatural. If there's nothing wrong with blurred water, then there's nothing wrong with blurred anything! And blurred pics generally don't win being featured . . . MPF 14:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a fallacy, indeed. Bluring motion is usual in professional photography. You should read the articles linked. Francisco M. Marzoa 05:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unnatural water from a long exposures has been accepted before even as recently as image:Jonathan's Run Falls.jpg promoted earlier this month. Gnangarra 14:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Hein 18:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 15:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greycard 13:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 6 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 19:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:A hand held magnifying glass.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

—Shizhao 13:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Shizhao 13:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 13:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - license uncertain, no direct permission from author, see COM:SXC. A.J. 17:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This image should be DELETED because of copyright violation, see: Image talk:A hand held magnifying glass.jpg. A.J. 10:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I am surely not seeking to hurt anybody but this image is pretty much the definition of lame - Boereck 17:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Boereck Hein 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Martinroell 09:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 14:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is a good one but there are restrictions on its use. Zimbres 00:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 10:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 8 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 16:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Xanthoria parietina (06 03 31).jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

Fine specimen, excellent quality. —A.J. 10:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —A.J. 10:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 13:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the greenish one more. At any rate, it seems like a very standard photo of a "common" lichen. I think even I could manage to focus on moss. :P pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- skINMATE 19:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 04:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Lycaon 10:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite good, but neither outstanding nor difficult to photograph. So FP-status requires a higher degree of sharpness. MGo 15:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack with MGo, needs some optimizing too (CA, Sharpness).Darkone 18:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too soft Pjotr 10:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ok, so this is my photo, uploaded on request of A.J., who found it among my flickr photos. He was so kind to nominate it here. You have had years to shoot a photo of one of the most common lichens around. It is really growing around the corner of each of your houses. All what you have been able to produce is visible at Xanthoria parietina. If you can do it better, then do so. As has been stated, it is really not that hard to focus on moss. But I don't think I like to read some of the comments above. Taka 13:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support why should an excellent photo be difficult to photograph? --Ayacop 14:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support its hard to present a simple subject well then to present a diffcult subject Gnangarra 15:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What Elise said... --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 22:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 16:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stonehenge birds nesting in megalith cavity April 2005.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support Hein 13:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition and quality, unusual view on Stonehenge MGo 14:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 09:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadow on the right side of the picture is distracting. --Joonasl 09:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't see more than one bird. I don't see much of it. I don't see its nesting activity. To me, the picture is rather boring; nothing exceptional. --Pumbaa 09:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greycard 13:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - agree with MGo. The bird is a Jackdaw. - MPF 14:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friday 08:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- If you say that the main subject is that tiny black point (hmmm... how did you call it? bird?...) there's nothing more to talk about... Francisco M. Marzoa 05:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 13:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see why this should earn FP status. The idea is good, the execution not so. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 22:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Freedom to share 18:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 5 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 19:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:060404-Aix-galericulata-Mandarinente-Elbe.jpg - not featured[edit]

Self nomination --Martinroell 09:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring composition and disturbing background, not sharp in full resolution MGo 14:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 09:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greycard 13:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice pic of the duck, shame about the litter (plastic bottles, etc) behind it! - MPF 14:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with mgo and mpf -- Gorgo 23:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support! FML ^hi 14:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 10:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 10:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it. Sorry, but to me the trash in the background adds something to the picture. The blurry quality when magnified is sad but the vibrant colors make up for it in my opinion. :-) - 20:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC) unsigned vote by Boereck –— Lycaon 10:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wing-Chi 17:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 7 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 19:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Falcon_GreyBG.jpg[edit]

Nominate

—Thermos 19:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

original version (left) - not featured[edit]

Support —Thermos 19:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC) misplaced signature of user Joonasl removed -- Roger McLassus 18:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Great quality, impressive details. But there should be some space on the left hand side. Also, it looks kind of cut-off at the bottom --Pumbaa 00:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose needs more space on the left; cut-off at the bottom. --Martinroell 09:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cut, partly blurred, bad composition, boring MGo 14:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you all for your comments, which I found to be constructive. Sometimes, it is just quite hard to objectively evaluate own work - which is the point in this case.
Oppose Pjotr 10:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per comments recieved, I begun to look at the composition. And in the original image, it is far from perfect to say the least. Yes. The composiotion must be improved. Your comments are right.

For that reason I cropped the image to still reasonable 1944 x 1944 pixels. I think that this should focus more on the actual subject. In addition, I think that it benefits the image as a whole, leaving away much which is boring. Also, as I used a "fast" telephoto lens "wide open" the depth of field is shallow. Hence, there is nothing I can do to get more of the image "sharp". However, as it was my intent to "to blow away the background", perhaps it is better to crop the image to such parts, that remain at least rather sharp. Which I think is the case with the cropped version.

For further improvement, however, there are limits. First, regading the left side, there is not one pixel of more space. Unfortunately, this guy got away after the shot. And other images I have, are simply out of focus. Yes, there is more sky available in the original, but that would be just more grey background above the bird. If anyone wants it, that can be provided.

In any case. PLEASE, for further comments and for the purposes of voting, PLEASE EVALUATE AND COSIDER the CROPPED IMAGE, titled "Falcon_Grey_BG_Crop_A.jpg". That is the one on the right. Thank you. --Thermos 16:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 3 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured

edited version (right) - not featured[edit]

Support crop, good call. --Dschwen 21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop --Joonasl 09:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop Freedom to share 18:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 09:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop. Thryduulf 09:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Looks like a studio photo of a captive bird, with an un-natural background and no location information. Also no identification; it isn't a Grey Falcon (Falco hypoleucos), despite the image name. - MPF 14:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The edited version is not yet supported by the nominator. Roger McLassus 18:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop.--Thermos 04:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop.El Comandante 23:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 10:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the subject, but DoF is far to be perfect, that bird needs more space to breath and the background is ugly. Francisco M. Marzoa 06:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not outstanding. I agree with MPF here. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 22:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 5 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 19:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chinese astronomer 1675.jpg - featured[edit]

Self nomination — Laura Scudder | Talk 19:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And of course Support. — Laura Scudder | Talk 19:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rodge500 21:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the white borders should be cut off. They're kind of disturbing at full size. Apart from that, a good picture.--Pumbaa 22:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shizhao 13:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 15:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Pumbaa that the white border should be cropped, but I support the picture anyway. MGo 09:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's great and don't notice the borders. Maybe someone cut them out. NPPyzixBlan 17:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support if and only if borders are cropped. Neutrality 22:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rama 14:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 07:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greycard 13:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friday 08:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've cropped the white borders off. — Laura Scudder | Talk 00:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wing-Chi 00:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 09:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13 support --> Featured Roger McLassus 09:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Seioubo Japanese traditional sweets.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

a nice Flickr find. I asked on ja.wp's non-ja page for someone to put it in the appropriate article. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Funny, but not FP (IMO). YolanC 21:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 15:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring composition, blurred MGo 09:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support FML ^hi 14:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Funny[reply]
Oppose, boring. Neutrality 22:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Friday 12:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 5 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 09:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Railroad1860.png - featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support Greycard 13:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support MGo 14:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support bearing in mind the age of the photo. So how long till that bridge fell over? Doesn't look like it meets modern strength standards!! - MPF 15:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it is neither historical outstanding nor photographical -- Gorgo 23:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 13:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 15:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 07:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friday 08:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Lycaon 10:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Caught my attention because of its sheer age. StephenFalken 12:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ayacop 14:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Initially i thought otherwise but have viewed a few times as something looked unusual. I've finally worked it out For 1860 the use of duel locomotives would have been an unusual occurance, and significant. Gnangarra 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Can't make up my mind. It IS old, though. Are there two guys under the bridge near the middle? --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that two guys very clear, even the ant that's climbing by the arm of the one on the left... :-P Francisco M. Marzoa 23:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 09:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral --> Featured Roger McLassus 09:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Baldung hexen ca1514.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support Greycard 13:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support good scan of a great piece of art MGo 14:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - rather yukky, doesn't do anything for me - MPF 14:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose uuuhh -- Gorgo 23:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good. vote by FML -- Roger McLassus 17:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Support Good scan. Jkelly 18:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, doesn't do anything for me either. --Neutrality 21:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the artwork itself is good, a as presentation of the artwork there's a slight tilt and the complete artwork should be shown including mounts(frame) Gnangarra 02:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 07:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friday 08:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ayacop 14:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 17:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 6 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 09:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sunset on North Beach at Fort De Soto Park.jpg - not featured[edit]

Self nomination -- Wdwic Pictures 02:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Horizon is not horizontal, and a sunset is such a common and inherently pretty motif that the image should be way more spectacular to justify featuring. --Dschwen 07:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Dschwen MGo 09:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 20:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC) not very spectacular[reply]
Oppose A sunset over the beach! Francisco M. Marzoa 06:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While beautiful, the idea of this picture being anything more than strictly aesthetic is unrealistic. NPPyzixBlan 06:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special everyone can do a sunset picture, it just requires some luck. Now what we need is a really good execution of a sunset picture. Freedom to share 18:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To previous comment: Many great shots need a bit of luck! But you're mostly right, a sunset picture has to be really outstanding to be featured. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice jacob scale VIGNERON 13:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 8 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 09:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bangkok sunset burning sky.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

--Nicke 18:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Nicke 18:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: high building fragment on pictrure left side: remove it and I'll support this one. A.J. 14:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The sky is super-beautiful, but the composition of the image just isn't. --Dschwen 15:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad foreground (especially ugly bus) and the sky is much too yellow to be plausible for a sunset. I suppose the sun is only hidden behind the big building in the center and the picture is taken quite a while before real sunset. Both the house on the left and the bus should be cropped and the picture renamed. MGo 18:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While I can accept opposes and respect people's reasoning for them, I have to step in here, and say that as the original photographer, I can happily admit that I did not modify or enhance that sky in any way. What I did do was brighten the shadows of the foreground buildings to give them a bit more life and texture, but I think you should be slightly more careful with what you claim is implausible. Sunsets come in varying colours and intensities and I just happened to witness a pretty spectacular one. I have many more in a series I took of the sunset, showing its progression as the sun set. The sky ranged from a bright yellow to a deep orange to purpley violet. Diliff 22:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You misunderstood what I wrote. Not the colours of the sky are inplausible but their occurrence during sunset. Sunset means that the evening sun is partly below the horizon (the real horizon, not just the sky-line of buildings or mountains). Due to the laws of physics the colour of sunset must be red. So if the colours in your picture are true, it cannot show sunset but rather the sky in the late afternoon. I oppose the use of the word sunset in the name of this picture, but as soon as this is corrected (and the bus and the house on the left are cropped) I'll support the picture. MGo 06:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the mood ! -- Fabien1309 20:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the juxtaposition! -- Gordo 09:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose beautiful sky, but the foreground doesn't fit for me --che 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree on the foreground. -- JonasRH 19:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sky is certainly stunning and the mood is good. I also like the way you have managed to get lamps within few buldings lit up, while within most buildings the lights are not yet on, perhaps indicating a town preparing for coming night. However, as per some opposing votes, I am wondering what could be achieved by simply cropping the picture a bit?

Would it be too much to ask, if you could provide a cropped version of your picture? Or perhaps you could provide another picture with a little bit different composition (I understand that you have more pictures of this moment)? In any case I would not oppose this picture, but I am wondering, if something even better could be had. Please, consider my comment. You certainly happened to be at the right place and at right time with your camera. --Thermos 05:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- skINMATE 14:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- georgeous sunset! I love the clouds! but too bad the picture is (or more neutral: looks to me) somewhat off-center, I am not sure if it is wanted or an "accident" -- Boereck 20:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Amazing sky. I'm still trying to find the quake sprite jumping around. It may be better without the piece of building on the left. Francisco M. Marzoa 07:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I generally vote no on sunsets -- I almost voted for this one, but the colors just seem too far off to be real. -Quasipalm 15:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tomato scanned.jpg - not featured[edit]

Scanned! From Flickr, Nominate

--pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 11:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC) -- background should not be dark.[reply]
Oppose black background, too dark, leaves cut MGo 12:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background too dark. Interesing, but not enough good quality. historicair 12:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a scan, people! How else can you get the colours so bright without having the background so black? pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean without having the background so black? - it is black! By the way, I am very sceptical about the claim that this is a scan. Has anyone here ever scanned a three-dimensional object with a comparable result? MGo 15:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well how can it be "too dark"? If you are skeptical then how do you imagine this image was taken? Maybe it was scanned and edited to make the background blacker, the colours brighter, I don't know... I can't imagine how else it would have been taken though. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Quick lesson to scan a 3D object with a black background you either place a black cloth over the object, you use a box with the inside painted black or even a darkened room. As there no pressure points a box was the most likely method. The reason you can tell its a scan is the dust on the glass and the lines in the black Gnangarra
- In the meantime I have made some experiments with my own scanner. As a result of this I am no longer sceptical and now believe that this picture is a scan. But scanning, however, is not the best method to create an image of tomatoes. Those parts of the tomato which have a greater distance from the glass get too little light and are therefore too dark. Apart from this inevitable disadvantage of scanning there is also too much dirt visible and the leaves are unnecessarily cut. So my opposing vote stands. MGo 17:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too much dirt in the black areas and on the leaves, cut at top and bottom. --Pumbaa 15:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - dust on glass and scan lines Gnangarra 13:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tbc 09:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC) scanning is not the most optimal method to make images of 3D-objects[reply]
Oppose - Interesting experience, but not worth being a "Featured Picture" -- Fabien1309 20:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Fabian1309 Pjotr 10:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- skINMATE 15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whyis exactly a fruit scanned? A simple 3D object I would support, but a fruit? No way! It looks fake!

Freedom to share 18:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Friday 12:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 10 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ethiopia 3.jpg - not featured[edit]

From Flickr, Nominate

by  pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Maybe a touch dark, although the colours are very rich. I leave it to the editing wizards to see if it can be improved. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor Colors and resolution historicair 12:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This version is much too dark. In case of an edit I'll reconsider my vote. MGo 12:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Urban 17:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I tried an edit, but there are some problems which can't be adressed easily : resolution is low, and the quality is bad (way too much JPEG artefacts). -- Fabien1309 20:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- D'oh! Oh well, thanks for trying. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Actually, I like it the way it is. MartinD 11:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Composition is great, and I think the faults (grain/noise, too dark subject, etc.) contributes to give it more dramatism. Perhaps in B&W it may be even better. 07:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I've created a version on sepia just with a decor script-fu from The Gimp, Image:Ethiopia_3_sephia.jpg. As I expected, I found in this version the subject seems to be more separated (I want to say another thing but my english is the worst) from the background, and it has more power without the color distractions. Francisco M. Marzoa 11:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, thanks a lot for trying! But personally I much prefer the rich colours of the original, especially for the skin colour. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like both versions, so I'll keep my support vote anyway. Francisco M. Marzoa 23:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Lycaon 17:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Friday 12:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it as a photo. Darkness would be ok, if there were details in shadow... unfortunately there are only jpeg artefacts. --Wikimol 00:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 6 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Soapbubbles-SteveEF.jpg - not featured[edit]

From Flickr, Nominate

by pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it's really well done, without being trite or too cute -- right down to her dirty hands. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject of the picture, the soap bubbles, are all extremely blurred. MGo 12:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If I thought that the bubbles were the main subject then I would also have voted oppose. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. I agree that the girl is the subject, not the bubbles. NPPyzixBlan 17:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 20:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC) If that bubbles are not the main subject, the picture is worthless.[reply]
Support - Composition is very good -- Fabien1309 20:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neutrality 22:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but not enough to be featured. El Comandante 23:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MartinD 11:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but although the girl is the subject, blurred bubbles look weird to me. --che 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral i wish the bubbles were in focus. --Nvineeth 07:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 22:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe it would be better with bubbles within DoF, and may be not. It's a great shot anyway. Francisco M. Marzoa 05:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wing-Chi 17:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Pfctdayelise. Thryduulf 09:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Friday 12:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurred bubbles - MPF 22:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support almost too cutesy, but I'll support -Quasipalm 15:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ireland cliffs of moher3.jpg[edit]

original image (left) - not featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support Hein 13:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - horizon line not horisontal. A.J. 14:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Good composition and quality, genuine colours (I know the site). ~~The tower is upright, so the picture is not leaning.~~ The non-horizontal line is not the horizon but a nearby coast. MGo 14:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my vote to Oppose because I am no longer sure about the tower, and I did not see the finger when I supported the picture. MGo 09:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Killeroy 17:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good picture to illustrate a geological work. Who knows the local geology? Zimbres 00:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There's a finger in front of the lens (bottom right). And yes, there is a tilt. Even at coastlines, the water obeys gravity laws ;-) I put an untilted version to the right, rotated by 1.8 degrees. Please compare. --Pumbaa 09:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the finger I guess you are right, but the tilt is not so clear. The tower is too small to measure its uprightness with the necessary precision. The coastline is horizontal in the modified picture but not necessarily so in reality. This depends on whether the coast has the same distance from the photographer on its left and right side. If it is nearer on the left (which cannot be ruled out) the original picture is upright and the modiefied one tilted. Roger McLassus 09:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right, but I'm pretty sure that the cliff from which the photo was taken is not high enough to make such an effect visible. If the photo were taken from a plane, I would agree. But the shape of coastlines can't be recognized when looking at them (almost) horizontally. --Pumbaa 16:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Got to agree it is tilted, but only by about 1° to 1.5°. Also that finger. I'd support a straightened version with the finger removed. - MPF 15:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Rodge500 21:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 5 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 19:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edited image (right) - featured[edit]

Support A.J. 06:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MGo 18:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support El Comandante 23:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 06:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greycard 13:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friday 08:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gnangarra 15:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The tower is good because it gives perspective, but something's just not right. Maybe you just grow more demanding when checking out new candidates. I get the feeling you could take a much better shot in this location, perhaps on a cloudless day. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --Pumbaa 12:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 22:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It was good that the tilt was spotted and corrected! Freedom to share 08:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support, 1 neutral --> Featured Roger McLassus 05:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HveraroendWinter.jpg - not featured[edit]

Hot spring in Hverarönd in winter, Iceland; Andreas Tille 15:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The right version is a suggested cropping done by User:Gnangarra. If people agree that this image is better I would start a new FPC entry for this version. Andreas Tille 06:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self nomination; no vote Andreas Tille 15:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - strange light makes this picture kind of unbalanced. Your sight is lured by shining on left and hits picture frame :/ A.J. 09:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question: Would you prefer this point of view regarding the balanced light? For my taste the foreground is to dark here and I decided to upload the FPC image to WikiMedia. Andreas Tille 18:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both pictures have problems with exposition, but the second one is better composed anyway. A.J. 17:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - MartinD 11:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. NPPyzixBlan 16:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture, but badly overexposed on the left side. MGo 06:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Beautiful image, the exposure on the left is too distracting maybe a crop to around the last highlight would overcome this Gnangarra 15:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. My problem as the author of this image is that I'm personally not distracted at all - kind of personal feeling about own images which is far from objective. So I would be more than happy if you would suggest some croping coordinates or upload a cropped image to a public place or whatever to make clear what you would regard as a better image. This would definitely be apreciated. Andreas Tille 18:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose kinda blurry -- overexposed -- almost there though. -Quasipalm 15:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 2 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 14:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fuzoku-High-3.JPG - not featured[edit]

Nominate

This is very beatiful flower.--220.144.69.50 07:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What's the species ? - YolanC 08:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - May be an almond tree? Francisco M. Marzoa 09:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it's a cherry tree --Pumbaa 22:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ugly background, bad lighting, low contrast, boring composition norro 15:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Norro MGo 06:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wouldonly support if lighting is fixed. Freedom to share 18:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Friday 12:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - background buildings - MPF 14:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 6 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 14:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snail on a car - not featured[edit]

Self- Nominate

David.Monniaux 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support Image:Snail on a car p1120083.jpg and Oppose Image:Snail on a car processed p1120083.jpg because the processed one has too low resolution.--Wing-Chi 00:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please use the voting symbols only for real votes, not for fictitious ones. Roger McLassus 09:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res -- Gorgo 13:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res, angle, dirty background. --Dschwen 20:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Dschwen MGo 06:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 14:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Friday 12:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A.J. 20:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 7 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 14:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Iranian stork's bill.jpg - not featured[edit]

Self nomination --David tm 08:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - beter cut most of green, square frame would be better A.J. 09:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - done --David tm 10:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have my Support then. Not very original photo but I simply like it. A.J. 11:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty enough, but hasn't got enough detail (most noticable at 100% in the centre of the flower). --JonasRH 18:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack JonasRH about the details, and boring composition MGo 06:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support shows color nerves of petals nicely --Ayacop 14:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnangarra 15:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 22:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Minto 15:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 3 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 18:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

Image:Karen Padaung Girl Portrait.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

-- Fabien1309 21:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Fabien1309 21:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dschwen 23:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnangarra 05:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nvineeth 07:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD 09:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Taka 13:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC). Legs are missing. Unclear what the point of this image for wikimedia is.[reply]

pictures on commons should be evaluated on an artistical level only, this is not wikipedia -- Gorgo 21:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Padaung. Clear now? --Dschwen 22:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - YolanC 18:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree Taka, maybe needed fill flash too?--Rodge500 18:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice even though it's somehow overdone with all that jewelry on that little child -- Gorgo 21:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joonasl 14:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- skINMATE 19:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For non-famous people, is it the policy of commons that we need to get prior approval of the person in the picture before it could be posted here?--Wing-Chi 00:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- where the photographer has paid for the model, in this case the village for permission to take the Photograph, further permission isnt required as they have already entered into an argeement to be photographed the use of image after taking the photograph becomes the sole discretion of the photographer. Gnangarra 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Why legs cut off...? --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Holy Ganga 10:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Minto 15:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Quasipalm 15:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special --Peter Andersen 17:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Peter Andersen - MPF 23:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not exceptional. A.J. 15:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 07:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 05:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image was renominated at Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Karen_Padaung_Girl_Portrait.jpg and passed. --Dschwen 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:London Eye Twilight April 2006.jpg - featured[edit]

Nominate

-- Fabien1309 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Fabien1309 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dschwen 23:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnangarra 05:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Taka 13:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC), Nice colors, but the buildings at the sides are distorted in an unnatural shape.[reply]
Support ed g2s • talk 15:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool. pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice -- Gorgo 21:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pretty cool norro 12:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing --Joonasl 14:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is beautiful. I love the long exposure that captures the blue lights. Great! NPPyzixBlan 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I especially like the blue lights - very good job! StephenFalken 12:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Francisco M. Marzoa 15:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have to support... the composition is marvelous. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent. Thryduulf 09:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - distortions (why is the top of the wheel squashed?) and don't care much for city-at-night pics anyway - MPF 22:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support FML ^hi 19:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 support, 2 oppose --> Featured Roger McLassus 05:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Putbus Park 5.jpg - featured[edit]

Nominate

-- Fabien1309 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Fabien1309 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, nice but not stunning. --Dschwen 23:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect autumn. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Ah, I love the atmosphere, but the composition is boring. Not stunning enough. -- JonasRH 11:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- skINMATE 19:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the atmosphere.--Wing-Chi 00:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support quite nice -- Gorgo 13:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support and love autumn and this photograph. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joonasl 08:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 09:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know what it is, I just don't like it, sorry. I prefer this one --Pumbaa 14:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support FML ^hi 19:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral --> Featured Roger McLassus 05:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lachmöwe (Larus ridibundus).jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

-- Fabien1309 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Fabien1309 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice DOF. --Dschwen 23:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nvineeth 07:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aka 09:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 16:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not my taste - YolanC 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - slightly tilted - Rex 22:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - DOF is perfect, is sharp enough, motive is good but... I think that bird needs a bit more of space (specially on the right) to breath. Francisco M. Marzoa 05:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK F. M. Marzoa, but its leaning and contrast could be higher
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support why are you so sure it's tilted, you can't know that with animals --Ayacop 14:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the legs lean to the left. Rex 18:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yeah, the tilt comment was weird but I too would like to see more background. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Friday 12:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 18:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 05:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lightmatter colosseum.jpg - not featured[edit]

a very nice photo of Colosseum. I use it for my user talk page, and I think that it would be a good candidate to featured. --RED DEVIL 666 12:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --RED DEVIL 666 12:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bouncey2k
Support --Frieda 13:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution, and the colours are characteristic of the lamps, not of the building MGo 14:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentColosseum is artificiaaly illuminated all nights. This is a charactheristic of this Building. --RED DEVIL 666 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please put new nominations on top of the list. I have now repositioned your template. Roger McLassus 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I like the lighting and the colors! Moreover the image is well taken, I suppose. But the low resolution is a big downside. If you have a bigger image, I would go through the hassle of another upload (if only to win me over ;-)). -- Boereck 20:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution way too low (< 0.4 mp) -- Gorgo 20:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 21:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC) - awful perspective - picture taken from to short distance.[reply]
Oppose, low res and grainy. --Dschwen 23:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- different POV from all other images of here, The short exposure time has left more structural detail visable. It's the best night shot on commons of the colosseum. A higher resolution would be better Gnangarra 05:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, see Dschwen. Rex 22:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I do not like the subject, ITS BROKEN!!! (I'm joking, indeed... low res.) Francisco M. Marzoa 10:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark --Ayacop 14:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low low low loooow..(res)...--Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Friday 12:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bsides low res: not shifted --Ikiwaner 20:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 11 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 05:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:River in harrietville trout farm.jpg - not featured[edit]

Self Nom --Fir0002 www 23:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice mood, good overall sharpness, like the long exposure. But the tree in front has an eerie glow to it, how comes? --Dschwen 00:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expousre bracket :-) - that was the effect I was aiming at --Fir0002 www 00:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You composed the image to increase dynamic range? :-) --Dschwen 07:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The water looks unnatural, which could easily be avoided by a shorter exposure time. MGo 09:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yes, the water looks unnatural (IMO) - YolanC 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The whole picture looks unnatural to me (oversaturated colors, long exposure time). Rex 22:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it by the same things Rex dislikes, plus the framing. Francisco M. Marzoa 05:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Forests are usually dark, so if you want a natural water, everything else would be too dark to be discernible.--Wing-Chi 00:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with MGo - MPF 21:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice, but.. Too artsy. No categories. No meaningful description => hardly usable. --Wikimol 00:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Wikimedia Commons featured pictures are not an artistic category, but an informative one, the long exposure does not make it any more informative. Freedom to share 07:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Freedom to share 15:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the long exposure. But I agree with Wikimol, what should it be used for ? --Daniel78

4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 22:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flinders st station at night.jpg - not featured[edit]

Self Nom --Fir0002 www 23:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Shadows are a bit too dark on that one. Do you have a version with a little remaining sky light? I noticed perspective distortion in this one too. Tilt to the right on the left edge of the frame, tilt to the left on the right side of the frame. --Dschwen 23:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice picture of Flinders st station, note the road goes up over a bridge on the left and down hill on the right that would be the cause of the tilt Gnangarra
- Are the lanterns and the high rises in the background really leaning there? --Dschwen 07:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The bit to the left is boring, would be better to move the station steps to the left and show more of Elizabeth St on the right. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dschwen mentioned the details - and for my taste the result simply does not look good. MGo 09:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 19:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Friday 12:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 22:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mt hotham summer scenery.jpg - featured[edit]

Nice Alpine scenery

Self Nom --Fir0002 www 23:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. S-shaped horizon, resulting in varying tilts. What are you using for the stitch job? The horizon problem can often be solved by inserting horizontal guides. --Dschwen 23:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the panorama. I love the clouds and the composition. Great shot! NPPyzixBlan 06:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- skINMATE 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ayacop 14:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seriously, this is the 2nd photo in a row that immediately reminds me of the Need for Speed computer game series - in this case, the very first one from the mid-90's. But the reminiscing aside, it's a very nice shot. There's just the right amount of clouds in a deep blue sky and composition (the road on the extreme left) is just right. What a perfect picture for a travel guide. Vroom! --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great composition and I agree with Lumijaguaari about the travel guide. Thryduulf 20:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A.J. 12:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - would support if the wavy horizon could be corrected - MPF 21:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this vista lacks focus -Quasipalm 15:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only thing that irritates me is that the red pin and the other red parts in the right looks oversaturated (too red). This is not visible when looking at the thumbnail though. Otherwise beautiful, so overall I support. --Daniel78

7 support, 1 oppose --> Featured Roger McLassus

Image:Mt hotham summer scenery cropped.jpg - not featured[edit]

Renominate I have uploaded a version where the road was cropped off. I think it looks a lot better, so I Support it. Now I think that the composition is a lot better. Freedom to share 08:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the cropped version. Without the road the scenery looses something distinctive and it really doesn't look as special imho. Thryduulf 08:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much better with the road. --Daniel78
Oppose Agree with 2 previous commentators. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 22:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kailash Tibet.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

--Holy Ganga 18:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Holy Ganga 18:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too symmetrical, foreground too dark —norro 09:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - slightly underexposed; black right edge needs cropping off - MPF 21:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Norro MGo 10:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose foreground to dark Gnangarra 15:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 13:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boring composition and bad light. Francisco M. Marzoa 21:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 05:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Orchid_a1_15APR06_Powell_Gardens_MO_USA.JPG - not featured[edit]

Self-Nominate --Rod Divilbiss 01:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Updated classification and category. Companion image Image:Orchid_a1a_15APR06_Powell_Gardens_MO_USA.JPG

Rod Divilbiss 03:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Rod Divilbiss 01:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice colors --85.179.10.133 14:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anonyms can't vote, sorry. -- Lycaon 20:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose center composition --che 17:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thryduulf 20:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sharpness and composition MGo 08:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Friday 12:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 13:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 5 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 05:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rayon vert observatoire de La Silla.jpg - not featured[edit]

Nominate

Very rare event. --Cédric 08:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support The green ray is in fact a very rare phenomenon. MGo 09:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 20:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC) - i've seen better photos of this event... much better. I'll try to find one and maybe ask an author to publish it here.[reply]

Is the question finding the best photo ever of a Green Flash or just accept this one for a featured picture? -- Cédric 06:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Gnangarra 02:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- What's that? Francisco M. Marzoa 05:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a green flash, i.e. a rare atmospherique event lasting ~2 seconds or so, quite difficult to catch up. This one is particularly beautiful (IMHO) because the Sun has already disappeared below the clouds and also because of the thin bright line. -- Cédric 06:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very instructive. Thanks. :-) Francisco M. Marzoa 07:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Rama 08:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not very sharp, object too small norro 12:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object too smal?! Oh sorry. Thanks for this comment. -- Cédric 17:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- skINMATE 19:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose might be a rare event, but there are better pictures: This one shows a time series (the actual flash is as big as in the nominated pic), on this page there is a whole load of them, this one has pics too, scroll down for an animation, and some more (nice). --Dschwen 21:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice indeed. But there are not on commons. ;-) -- Cédric 17:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly -- Dschwen, can you find a better photo in the public domain?

This is absolutely not the point. A crappy picture of by behind will certainly not be featured, just because there is no better one in the PD (I hope). Pictures here should be judged on photographic merit. --Dschwen 07:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too dark anyway, we value pictures not events don't we? --Ayacop 14:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support people into physics will love this image -Quasipalm 15:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, I am into physics... --Dschwen 07:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My congratulations to catch this event and I think the author can be happy about shoting something rare. But I would not really regard this as a featured picture just because it was hard to shot. Moreover I think that some cropping might enhance the image. While the author wrote "The image has not been modified in any way." I think cropping is allowed. Andreas Tille 17:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course I considered cropping. But it will crop also the thin orange line of clouds below the GF. So I definitely think it's better like that. The contrast created by the fact the GF is very small is interesting. Anyway, I think arguing is pointless here, since people oppose simply because they are not "impressed" ... Waste of time. -- Cédric 08:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

since people oppose simply because they are not "impressed"? Please reread the comments. --Dschwen 08:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I usually need to read only once to understand, thanks for the advice. The pictures you link to, dear Dschwen, show very clearly the phenomenon, indeed but there are esthetically of very poor quality and/or small. Mine has its main quality in the absence of the sun, and the bright line of clouds, and in the contrast of the large but balanced image with the small size of the flash. Find another picture like that, I'll stop arguing. My image is not showing a rare event, it's showing a very rare event. And the image is of very good quailty given the difficulty of catching this event. Now, if you prefer flowers and ligthining, fine. -- Cédric 16:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers and lighting? What are you talking about. No need to get condescending here, especially with factually inaccurate statements. In my opinion there is not much merit in the size of the picture since most of it is blackness anyway. --Dschwen 09:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Friday 12:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support VIGNERON 12:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tvpm 16:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 18:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 07:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 support, 7 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 05:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Prambanam.JPG - not featured[edit]

Shown here is a 1100-year-old Siva temple in Java, Indonesia. The Prambanan temple complex is one of the largest Hindu temples in south-east Asia

Nominate

&  Support --Holy Ganga 20:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Low resolution -- Killeroy 04:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Low resolution -- YolanC 10:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cameraphoney -Quasipalm 15:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose highly overexposed clouds --Ikiwaner 20:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 10:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 22:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 13:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- LR Francisco M. Marzoa 21:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 8 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 06:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Natural Bridge in snow.JPG - not featured[edit]

Self nomination I really love this one and appreciate the feedback from my last entry. This might be more suitable.--Moof 05:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like A LOT the composition and some other faults may be minor ones, but is very, but very, but very very very overexposed. Francisco M. Marzoa 06:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you may try to take the same picture soon in the morning or late in the evening, when the light is not so hard. Braketing can help a lot also. It's a pitty because I really like the composition. Francisco M. Marzoa 09:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately, I'm not likely to be in the same circumstance again as I was just passing through town. :( However, I will keep in mind for future efforts! Moof 19:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Gnangarra 06:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting not that great (shadow + overexposed) -- Gorgo 13:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Gorgo MGo 06:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thryduulf 20:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - would have supported if an angle could have been found to exclude the seats - MPF 21:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 08:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]