Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2006

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

Image:Sandro Botticelli 046.jpg - Original nomination delisted[edit]

This picture of the famous Botticelli's painting is cropped! Just compare to Image:La naissance de Vénus.jpg. -- El ComandanteHasta ∞ 23:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist El ComandanteHasta ∞ 23:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist the other image is better. --Mglanznig 09:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The other image has lower resolution and wrong proportions (horizontally stretched). Olegivvit 12:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stretched or not it shows parts of the painting that does not appear in this version. El Comandante

Hasta ∞ 19:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if other image is not better, then I oppose a delisting. Gryffindor 18:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the other image isn't better (and it is not), I don't think that this picture can be considerated a FP if it isn't complete! El Comandante

Hasta ∞ 19:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it does seem cropped. I am changing my vote to neutral, I still think it deserves to be listed, but if it's cropped... oh well, too bad. Gryffindor 07:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 14:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong oppose --- gildemax 21:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist a me no me gosta - I do not like this picture - das Bild gefällt mir nicht --gildemax 20:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 delist, 0 keep (no keeping interest whatsoever) --> delisted Lycaon 12:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Frostbitten hands.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by (Winky) - uploaded by FlickrLickr - nominated by SFC9394
Support Thought I would test the waters with something a bit different - Technically proficient with an interesting subject that is a bit different from the "sunset set"--SFC9394 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not very beautiful --Luc Viatour 19:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is entirely the point. From the nominator’s guidelines above: "beautiful does not always mean valuable", the reverse is also true. I thought I would test things a bit here, because featured pictures is meant to represent what is most valuable to the commons, not just what looks nice - and this picture is both technically sound, and the only picture of frostbite on the commons (I uploaded a number of beautiful mountainous pictures from the same photographer with the last ‘Licker upload – but I thought I would choose this to try and get something featured that isn’t just another panorama scape) SFC9394 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ I understand — and agree with SFC9394 : we can't have only landscapes (or caterpillars;)... ~~But this interesting picture is, IMO, below FP-standard. --Jod-let 20:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)~~ Neutral Jugement un peu hâtif...--Jod-let 15:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's really not very beautiful, but it's clear and sharp and composition is good norro 22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with norro. --Malene Thyssen 22:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not very beautiful :-( --Stunter 08:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with norro, too Akriesch 13:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too shallow DOF. Fingertips are either out of focus or frostbite leads to loss of skin texture(?) Because of this ambiguity I don't think its that great as illustrative medical image. --Wikimol 20:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- different: yes, FP material: nope -- Boereck 08:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 14:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Not beatiful" seems to be the point. --^{Brandt Luke Zorn}_{talk to me} 04:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No matter the subject, I don't like the picture on a technical point of view (composition, sharpness ...). -- Fabien1309 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gross. I love it. 07:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Support disgusting. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support for educational purposes. A better illustration of frostbite than those extreme cases one usually gets to see. There should, however, be more info. Under what conditions does one get this kind of frostbite (temperature, humidity, clothing, exposure duration)? And what stage is this? Apparently not quite recovering yet. A series showing the recovery process would also have been nice, but that may be asking too much. DirkvdM 11:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 21:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beauty is not the point, but this picture is partly blurred, one hand is cut, and both composition and background are not commendable. Roger McLassus 17:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Roger McLassus. --— Erin (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 10:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Domestic goat May 2006.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 09:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would not consider it very special or valuable. Freedom to share 13:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I like the composition a lot but the shadow on the goat ruins it for me, sorry! -- Boereck 13:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Boereck --Luc Viatour 19:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Artefacto 22:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LadyofHats 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neutrality 19:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 21:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC) - not exeptional[reply]

3 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Great alpine rd outside omeo.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 09:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither special, nor valuable, yet I would recommend adding it to COM:QIC Freedom to share 13:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Freedom to share --Luc Viatour 19:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not interesting-- LadyofHats 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 15:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautiful landscape, althought not very intresting.Moralist 17:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Twelve-bens.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by AnjelaWhite
Support --AnjelaWhite 02:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose far too low resolution, nice image though — Lycaon 07:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too low resolution. Freedom to share 07:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too low resolution --Luc Viatour 19:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution too low --Artefacto 22:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -as above- LadyofHats 18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad "scaling", normal colors, nothing special --Stunter 00:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tirtankara.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by (Gérard Janot) - uploaded by Gérard Janot - nominated by Gérard Janot
Support --Gérard Janot 20:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- tilt Gnangarra 08:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- yawn² -- Boereck 13:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 19:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose little sharpness on the top --Artefacto 22:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Hi-tacks 15:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support QuartierLatin1968 17:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LadyofHats 18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 04:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 14:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Amazing picture, but the people by the sides of the picture are distracting. --^{Brandt Luke Zorn}_{talk to me} 04:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 20:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is nice and interesting, but no one can tell me, that this is the best way to show this object. It's just a front shot with not best lighting norro 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 09:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Motherhood and apple pie.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Scott Bauer - uploaded by Andersersej - nominated by Anetode
Support --Anetode 10:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition... Freedom to share 14:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - edge of pie cut off - MPF 14:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the compostion as well... though it is incredibly American... Cabin Tom 16:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Lycaon 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too clichéd, and caused a POV battle on en:Apple pie a couple of years ago. Image:FoodApplePie.jpg is much nicer and shows the subject more clearly. -- Solipsist 18:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject here is en:Americana Anetode 17:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- nice composition but the main subject poorly cut off Gnangarra 08:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I like the image itself (including the chliché) but it is a pity that the pie is cut off and that the upper right hand corner is a bit too dark. -- Boereck 13:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Boereck, but such faults are for me enough to oppose. --Artefacto 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Forget about the cut off. The photo looks perfect to me. -- Lerdsuwa 04:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cut images are fine by me --Gordo 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ack Boereck Hein 17:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like still-life composition, good colors and resolution Ceridwen 23:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It took me some time to figure out what this was about. There are only three subjects: a flag, baseball and apple(pie). The flag is the hint but not visible enough. Baseball fits in. But what about the apples? Surely, that's not something that is strongly associated with the US. Maybe it is a play on 'American Pie', but that would be too far fetched. It is neither visually impressive (for a composition) nor educative. DirkvdM 09:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, since it's perfectly kitschy and stereotype norro 15:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Bad cropping, the apples are the only subject not cut off. --— Erin (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: where is motherhood depicted in this picture? Unless the flag is your mother. (All joke, no offense.) – Tintazul ^talk 14:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support very original Reywas92 18:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured
(votes after the end of the voting period are not counted) Roger McLassus 09:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VallesMarinerisHuge.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Dhenry - nominated by Hein
Support --Hein 16:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 20:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC) -- just one among a million pictures of mars; don't see the point in featuring this one. It's good, but not special one.[reply]
Neutral -->This image has stitching faults (vert lines on left). Snowwayout 20:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 07:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ditto to Ss181292 and the description is lousy. You have to guess, that this is a picture of mars norro 19:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 18:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FoeNyx 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't get it! -- Boereck 08:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MGo 10:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 14:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 10:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SF_Filbert_St_North_Beach_CA.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Dschwen - uploaded by Dschwen - self-nominated by Dschwen 22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, Oppose edit. The original image alreayd makes use of the full tonal range. The edit looses detail and incorrectly depicts the atmospheric conditions in San Francisco on a hot summer day. --Dschwen 22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that last bit. Other than that

Neutral. DirkvdM 08:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Francisco M. Marzoa 10:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too noisy --Jacopo86 09:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

are you referring to the composition or the image quality? Some of the noise is caused by hot air. --Dschwen 16:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No pun? :) DirkvdM 08:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, yes, there are so many levels to those statements :-) --Dschwen 15:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 18:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the edited version / tsca @ 12:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- yes, I am a SF fan and yes, I am very receptive for SF images. but this is not FP quality. a good shot for the neighborhood site but that is pretty much it, sorry! -- Boereck 08:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —freakofnurture 16:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Andreas.Didion 22:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good pic, but too busy. --— Erin (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the busyness of this - it's fun to scroll around the full size. In the minimized version above I prefer the edited one, but full scale I think the original is better. /Dcastor 23:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 10:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SF Golden Gate Bridge splash CA.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by Dschwen - uploaded by Dschwen - self-nominated by Dschwen 22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dschwen 22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Francisco M. Marzoa 10:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 11:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose already two better featured pictures --Luc Viatour 07:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition is good and I like the "looking up at it through the mist" aspect, which IMO makes it significantly different than the other two GGB photos. --Fastfission 03:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing it was only a week after mine... Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 18:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 12:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support San Francisco Personified, but needs some color-correction... Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 07:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Luc Viatour; it's also too grey. – Tintazul ^talk 13:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —freakofnurture 16:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it is better, or at the same quality as the "two better pictures" that had been shown. [[User:Moralist|Moralist]] 12:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 16:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too cloudy Reywas92 17:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 4 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 10:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:USA_Lassen_NP_Kings_Creek_CA.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by Dschwen - uploaded by Dschwen - self-nominated by Dschwen 22:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dschwen 22:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Francisco M. Marzoa 10:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 11:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 21:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 07:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 18:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lumière et couleurs, joli -Cerise 10:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 1 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 10:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ferrofluid large spikes.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by (User:Gmaxwell) - uploaded by User:Gmaxwell - original nomination by Omegatron, current nomination by Bastique.

This image was originally opposed due to size. A larger version of the image was uploaded, and much of the opposition changed their votes, but not until after the deadline. I'm resubmitting it for nomination. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, the previous nomination was incorrectly closed with an obscene level of process-wonkiness. --Cyde 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous nomination was very correctly closed according to the rules. Not sticking to rules makes for very biased rulings. Criticizing is easy I invite anyone to finish of nominations... Het zou u trouwens ook beter staan van niet zomaar te beledigen, maar zelf 'ns de handen uit de mouwen te steken.Lycaon 17:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support improved resolution Lycaon 17:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Omegatron 21:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - This would be a great combination of beauty and educational value (the two maincriteria here, as far as I'm concerned) if there would be more info on the page. What are we seeing? Is the bottom half a reflection? What is the white and is the blue something in the background? How much manipulation has taken place here? Especially that last bit is important here because of the potential educational value. Give the info and you'll probably get my support. DirkvdM 10:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I'd like to see more info, too. The bottom part is a reflection. — Omegatron 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at ferrofluid which explains it and has other pictures too. The blue-and-white is the edge of the glass it is on, I think. It is a liquid which responds to magnetic fields or something like that. --Fastfission 03:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gmaxwell's user page has another photo that makes clear what the blue and black are - two sides of the glass it's on (so you were close). I've put a request his talk page. DirkvdM 08:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Luc Viatour 07:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have no problem with the fact that this image is not completely self-explanatory, but rather piques the interest in exactly what a ferrofluid is. William Avery 13:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 18:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very pretty. Though this one is pretty extreme, too! It's really hard to pick amongs Gmaxwell's ferrofluid photos.. --Fastfission 03:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andel 17:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Since my info-issue has been resolved, I now change my vote from neutral to support. DirkvdM 13:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support → featured Roger McLassus 10:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Langaa egeskov rimfrost.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by Malene Thyssen - uploaded by Malene Thyssen - nominated by Malene Thyssen 11:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 11:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it! --Tomascastelazo 12:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not outstanding, and the resolution is rather low Hein 19:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral not very interesting --Blofeld 00:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - outstanding photography, but only a thumbnail. IMO uploading lower resolution image to Commons and keeping full res data for potential non-free-license use is ok, but not exactly the best practice, which should be promoted by FP. --Wikimol 23:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only a thumbnail? I'd like to see the size of your thumbs. :) DirkvdM 10:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Support as the larger version is now availiable. --Wikimol 11:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Olegivvit 09:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 21:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I agree with Wikimol --Luc Viatour 07:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm I haven't uploaded the larger version that I made on request from user:Pred several months ago - its on its way now. --Malene Thyssen 07:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support --Luc Viatour 09:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dramatic and informative --Gordo 08:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jod-let 19:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- great atmosphere - good shot -- Boereck 08:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beutiful picture, with nice colors. Moralist 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 10:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Smithson.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Krocat - uploaded by Krocat - nominated by Krocat
Neutral (own nomination) --Krocat 17:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --> Composition is a bit off, with too much building above the statue and lower part cropped out. Snowwayout 04:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Francisco M. Marzoa 10:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- quite a lame image! -- Boereck 08:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 16:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 10:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Argynnis_paphia_ssp.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Stse - uploaded by Stse - nominated by Stse 14:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
Neutral (own nomination) --Stse 14:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The flowers in front are a bit too blurry for their proximity to the object of the photo, which itself is just a little too off-center. The only thing that is really in focus is the month's face (and even that could probably be sharper), which is too small (and too connected to blurry parts) to be visually interesting in and of itself. In the end it just doesn't have the crispness I'd want out of a macro lens photo, probably owing to limitations of the camera. --Fastfission 15:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --> Not FP Quality Snowwayout 04:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry and cut Hein 19:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 09:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The fact that it is a bad camera shouldn't vote this picture down. It is a really exciting picture, with an extraordinary scene. /Moralist 16:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 10:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:El torico de la cuerda, Chiva.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Joanot Martorell.
Support --Joanot Martorell ✉ 13:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The people look bored, the bull looks bored, and I am thus bored. --Fastfission 15:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bramfab 14:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mmmmm. colors.... Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 17:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors - nothing more of any interest. --wau 22:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - wondered what was wrong with it before, Fastfission has nailed the problem - MPF 22:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like this pic shot on a pause of a typical street bull-running in Valencian town Chiva (Spain). It's showing a very representative moment in this fiesta. Also the space composition is a good choice.
Oppose ack MPF -- Lycaon 06:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 19:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --MGo 10:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Denkmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas .jpg - featured[edit]

Info Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin created by (Tobias Rütten) - uploaded by Metoc - nominated by Metoc
Support --Metoc 02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special -- Lycaon 11:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good study in volume, rythm, perspective. Very good graphic attributes. Aside from the symbolism.--Tomascastelazo 15:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Der Dateiname macht das Bild zu etwas Besonderem, für die, die es noch nicht gekannt haben - Andreas.Didion 16:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the filename is irrelevant, but the picture is fine - Support Roger McLassus 16:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 00:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Killer geometry! pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition and perspective. --Jacopo86 09:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question — Is this a photograph? The detail of it looks very strange when magnified. I like it a lot, though, but want to be sure I understand what it is, first. --Fastfission 15:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a picture of this momorial Metoc

I couldn't tell if it was a photo or not, the texture is very strange. But I like strange things.

Support. --Fastfission 03:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wikimol 18:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. Snowwayout 04:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Chosovi 20:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the symbolism. Will Israel now build another for the murdered of Lebanon? - MPF 22:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 20:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC) -- too narrow field of view[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 07:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 09:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is another picture I think is better, although it needs to be cropped. I don't think this one has enough contrast, or is particularly special. --— Erin (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wmeinhart 10:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15 support, 3 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 10:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:View from macmillans lookout - benambra.jpg - featured[edit]

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 01:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Thermos 14:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 22:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 00:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - some more info would be nice, though. Where is Benambra (I shouldn't need to look that up). DirkvdM 10:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Benambra is in north-east Victoria, Australia. — Garry R. Osgood 15:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 09:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Template:I Love -- the lighting is great! the setting is well-chosen! good job! -- 85.16.99.193 08:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC) please log in to vote -- Lycaon 15:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support / tsca @ 12:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I have seen this photographer's work in featured pictures before; I find it superb work, in my humble opinion. — Garry R. Osgood 15:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 14:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 support → featured Roger McLassus 10:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Temple detail guanajuato.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by (Tomas Castelazo) - uploaded by Tomascastelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo
Support --Tomascastelazo 19:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose White background --Teme 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the white background and the way it is cut off at the top make me disinclined. It looks cut out of its background as a result, and that hurts the composition of it. --Fastfission 15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bramfab 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Interesting documentation of an old and unusual representation of Passion[reply]
Yes, in the clothing you can see the influence of Spanish dress as well as the hair. In the skull you can see the influence of Mexican natives. Done during the Spanish colony. If I am not mistaken, 17th century.--Tomascastelazo 14:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support this original (like Teme and Fastfission, I didn't care for the previous cut-out white background) - MPF 22:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 14:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 2 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Physignathus lesueurii.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Fritz Geller-Grimm - uploaded by Dysmachus - nominated by Ptcamn
Support --Ptcamn 19:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad cut, otherwise nicely sharp, great close up. -- Lycaon 11:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 1 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:XN Bos taurus taurus 818.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by XN - uploaded by XN - nominated by XN 18:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
Support --XN 18:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cut , flies ;-) -- Lycaon 11:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Good if you remove the flies Ceridwen 00:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --> With the flies. Nice perspective. Snowwayout 07:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Flies are important. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 17:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One should be careful with editing. The flies even make the picture more realistic (now don't start adding flies :) ). DirkvdM 10:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altough I would added some flying elephants or so... :-P ;-) Francisco M. Marzoa 10:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 20:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC) - no value exept aesthetic one[reply]
Oppose Lestat 09:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This picture doesn't seem to be special, important, interesting...feature worthy. --— Erin (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —freakofnurture 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one because it isn't manipulated, and the flies are beutiful. /Moralist 16:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 10:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:XN Bos taurus taurus 818 flrem.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by XN - uploaded by XN - nominated by XN 06:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC). This is an edited version of the above image with removed flies.[reply]
Support --XN 06:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unnescessary manipulation (speaking of..). Flies are a natural companion of cattle. --Dschwen 22:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like computermanipulationa at all, and I thought that the flies were nice. /Moralist 16:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 2 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:La luz altar.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by (Tomas castelazo) - uploaded by Tomascastelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo
Support --Tomascastelazo 16:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photo is not outstanding - and the subject is simply ugly Hein 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can understand you not liking the picture itself, but do elaborate as to the photo, exposure? composition? color? DOF?. This picture is not for the picture itself, but rather, an observation of a culture/religion, a window. An uneducated eye cannot see the beauty beyond the photograph. Appreciate not the photograph, but the sculptures.--Tomascastelazo 20:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --> The image is excessively cluttered and poorly composed IMHO Snowwayout 02:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What elements would you leave out? Crop it and propose a new version. --Tomascastelazo 03:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think I am able to improve this image with a simple crop. To reduce clutter a wider view would be be required. Alternatively, concentrating on fewer elements, such as completing the statue at the bottom or the figures at the top. I fell that the perspective, the photo appears to be taken from below, results in both statues being incomplete and cluttered with flowers etc. Anyone else is of course welcome to have a go. Snowwayout 10:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Snowwayout - Above you will see the wider view. The scence is what is. Is is the remnants of the Baroque period (a dynamic and dramatic style of art and architecture in mostly Catholic countries during the 17th century that stressed emotion, variety and movement. It was a style that used ornate forms as well as illusionism and realism to achieve its purpose. www.wideskiesart.com/fineartglossary0.php). Interfering with the objects or the scene would destroy its intent. Much like shaving the lion´s hair to make him look better. I do not interfere with the subject. This is not about the picture, I invite you to explore the faces, the symbols and appreciate them for what they are. Look beyond the picture. Look beyond the glass. And you can still not like it... no problem. --Tomascastelazo 14:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wide view, it clearly demonstrates the fine craftsmanship of the period. I can also appreciate how the subject matter would be highly emotional and symbolic for some people. However, my oppose vote is for the image itself (for reasons already given). With respect, this is Featured Pictures, therefore the quality of the picture is paramount.Snowwayout 21:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 2 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Iphiclides podalirius 4.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by che; we don't have many photos which allow people to look in the face of a butterfly
Support --che 11:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support brillant sharpness and colours! --Stse 15:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but not FP Lycaon 18:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp, a face is not enough --wau 22:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 19:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; bad composition – Tintazul ^talk 14:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting, unusual picture, with rather nice colors, and good sharp. Moralist 16:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 3 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Single lycoperdon perlatum.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by Daniel Ullrich - uploaded by Threedots - nominated by Halved sandwich
Support -It's a beautifully detailed image with great composition. -Halved sandwich 20:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent shot! - MPF 14:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cherry 16:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice... very good shot --Tomascastelazo 18:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--João Carvalho 14:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 00:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wikimol 18:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support There could be more info though, such as where the photo was taken. DirkvdM 10:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice! -- AM 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC) -- very nice piece of macrophotography[reply]
Support: nice photo. Please add more detail about where taken. Jonathunder 01:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 19:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 12:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 support → featured Roger McLassus 10:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaindy lake in Kazakhstan - featured[edit]

Info created by (Jonas Satkauskas) - uploaded by jsx - nominated by Jsx
Support --Jsx 07:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~* Oppose~~ verry nice,*~~but Low res~~ --Luc Viatour 10:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi resolution version is available, will upload it soon (Sorry, slow connection) --Jsx 14:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 15:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prefer Edit1. Olegivvit 13:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the edition. Some of the trees on the opposite mountain are lost with it. --Jsx 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer increased contrast of the edited version, I'll support it as soon as there's higher resolution and a piece of description which would tell me where those sticks came from. --che 21:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sticks were there before the lake. :) The mountain lakes like this form after the lanslide blocks the mountain river. The sticks are dead pine trees. --Jsx 04:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, now I can Support the pic (or preferrably the higher-contrast edit, when the resolution is updated) --che 10:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same trees in Almarasan gorge in winter. There are trees only on the top of the mountain. The slopes are too steep for them. Jsx 17:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    spruce trees, actually. What part of Kazakhstan? (the information will help identify the species of spruce). Can you get more photos of the trees in the area, including close-ups? Wikipedia doesn't have any photos of Kazakh trees at the moment! - MPF 14:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are not many trees in Kazakstan indeed :). Can make more photos, if you are interested. Jsx 17:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - MPF 14:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 00:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Bramfab 14:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like both versions Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can not see the difference between the two anymore. Still with the original version. It shows the natural colours (however unusual), as it has never been edited. Jsx 17:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack Francisco M. Marzoa 10:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The trees in the background - these thin lines - looked just surreal in the preview. I also like the shade of the stump in the foreground. Nice composition and great colors. Metoc 13:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 12:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and would like to see this featured as picture of the day too! – Tintazul ^talk 14:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great colours. Lusitana 10:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13 support (1 late) → featured (original) Roger McLassus 10:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Minuteman III MIRV path.svg - not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:Fastfission
This is a self-nomination, but I was very happy with how it came out. It is an explanation of how a multi-stage MIRV missile (in this case, a Minuteman III) is launched. It is based on an image in a US government publication, but completely re-drawn from scratch in Inkscape with a number of big changes, and with numbers for easy internationalization. You can see it used in an article at the MIRV article on the English Wikipedia. --Fastfission 00:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fastfission 00:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This is a US missile, which suggests that that is the US on the left. Which would make that Europe on the right and the island (Great Britain?) reinforces that notion, which makes the image a bit too suggestive, even though the countours don't fit. Moving the island to the other side of the ocean would probably solve that. DirkvdM 19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The landscape is generic (it could just as easily be firing over the North Pole, or over the Atlantic Ocean), but sure, I could move the island, it's no trouble. --Fastfission
  - Also, ever heard of arms dealers? US arms make it out of the United States constantly to other countries. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 18:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but probably not a three-stage MIRVed missile armed with nuclear warheads, which someone would notice missing I'm sure (and would not be worth the expense to traffic—you can do more with less these days). --Fastfission 18:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support i wouldnt have minded the island where it was. you are being too paranoid -LadyofHats 09:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support → not featured Roger McLassus 10:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coat of arms of Hungary.png - not featured[edit]

Info created by David Liuzzo - uploaded by David Liuzzo - nominated by 217.95.240.12 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Support High detailed version (click to enlarge) --217.95.240.12 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC) please login to vote Lycaon 11:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no antialiazing, should be svg -- Lycaon 11:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Full size looks terrible. A picture like this shouldn't even be uploaded if it isn't SVG. --Dschwen 20:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree it has to be SVG -LadyofHats 09:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pano_Quai_GareDeBercy.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Blofeld - uploaded by Blofeld - nominated by Blofeld 23:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Blofeld 23:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent view from the station Cherry 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mainly by that big black frame added Francisco M. Marzoa 09:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral but would support if the black frame is removed -LadyofHats 09:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 10:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LynxInNumedal.jpg - not featured[edit]

File:LynxInNumedalPortrait.jpg

The section of the image on the right hand is not for nomination but to show that the view of the animal is not really boring (it is - if you just look at the 300px version)

Info taken, uploaded & nominated by Andreas Tille
Support --Luc Viatour 15:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - amazing pic from the wild - MPF 22:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - i dislike the plants that are out of focus. i find them distracting-LadyofHats 09:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I dont care about the plant out of focus... ;) --Jacopo86 13:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I even intended the plants out of focus because I wanted to streß the animal. Andreas Tille 18:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Zoo shot, not a shot that denotes personality of the cat... --Tomascastelazo 18:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry but do we evaluate the image or where it was shot? Since when are zoo shots not acceptable for FP? Andreas Tille 19:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not where it was shot, the cat seems uninteresting (to me). Generally zoo shots do not show the animals in motion, or their natural level of alertness, etc. Your picture Image:WolfInNumedal.jpg, for example, is a much, much better image. That is my opinion.--Tomascastelazo 15:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is way too much stress on pretty pics here and too little on encyclopedic value. Where a photo was taken is very essential information. Especially when a natural subject is taken out of its natural environment. This is not a natural shot and that should be made very clear. For this photo the description was removed, so the fact that it was shot in a zoo is only visible in the file history. That doesn't make it a bad photo, though, I'm just reacting to the question whether this info matters. DirkvdM 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint that I have removed the Zoo information. It just was a mistake when I switched from the simple upload text to my description template. It is readded now and it was not intended to hide information (which can be obtained from the source page anyway). On the other hand I continue to fail in seeing the difference between a Zoo shot and a wildlife shot. I think the difference can probably be seen on a video, but I certainly doubt that a blind study containing wildlife and Zoo shots will show that people are able to separate these two groups. So the missing information was a drawback for the image but this is fixed now. Andreas Tille 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't see the difference, but I'm pretty sure that in general animals behave differently in captivity. Then again, a realistic representation would be a series of random shots. By selecting the nicest photo, we also manipulate how people view animals. There's a constant friction between truth and beauty in photography. DirkvdM 09:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, I find it boring and light is not good. Francisco M. Marzoa 10:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with FMM Tbc 09:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong support~~ 84.202.133.179 14:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC) anonymous votes are not valid Roger McLassus 10:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

3 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Digitalis purpurea alba of Poland.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info taken, uploaded & nominated by Kyle_the_hacker
Support Kyle the hacker 11:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 08:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unsharp - Andreas.Didion 10:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose subject may be interesting, but the photo is so so --Stunter 15:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Hi-tacks 16:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rémi 21:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC) I don't like the framing[reply]

1 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Argynnis paphia on cirsium palustre.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info taken, uploaded & nominated by Kyle_the_hacker
Support Kyle the hacker 11:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 08:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- when you have such a small subject is not good to place the whole picture centered. it makes the composition uninteresant. on the other hand if you place it a bit out of the center then you get a stronger much more dinamic composition like here. centered images have only a good efect when it is about heavy, big fat looking objects. -LadyofHats 09:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 18:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the photo concentrates too much on the blurred leaf in the background; the real subject isn't very obvious, nor at a good angle for seeing much detail - MPF 14:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eriophorum of Poland.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info taken, uploaded & nominated by Kyle_the_hacker
Support Kyle the hacker 11:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 08:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- that the whole thing is so centered, and that the actual object of the picture is so thin compared to its surroundings makes the photo to look plain. for such an object i would have more recomended a rule of thirds. that is that it is not on the midle but one third to the side.-LadyofHats 09:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - needs species identification and listing on the Eriophorum page - MPF 14:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's Eriophorum latifolium Kyle the hacker 09:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 10:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:All.png - not featured[edit]

Info created by (Jsheyl) - uploaded by Jsheyl - nominated by Âme Errante
Support I find this image to be a beautiful example of how mathematics can be art --Âme Errante 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -LadyofHats 07:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't get the point nor the beauty :-S --Stunter 15:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --^{Brandt Luke Zorn}_{talk to me} 04:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Artefacto 13:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not the best fractal image on Commons. Snowwayout 01:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Considering this image is computer generated, how about a higher resolution version? A better name would be nice too. Illuvatar 18:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose have to agree with Stunter - MPF 14:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jarring color choices, too low a resolution, and apart from a passing similarity with a well-known female sexual organ it doesn't strike me as a particularly interesting image, as far as fractals go (compare with something like Image:Buddhabrot-deep.jpg). --Fastfission 15:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-Chosovi 13:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 19:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 10:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Farragut class destroyers Norfolk.jpg - not featured[edit]

Original / Softened

Info created by (PH 1 HAROLD GERWIN, USN) - uploaded by Dual Freq - nominated by Dual Freq
Support --Dual Freq 02:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too noisy, too cluttered, cut at the top norro 09:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that was one of the reasons I liked the image. --Dual Freq 11:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the clutter. I don't like the grain, too much visible for my taste- IMO it could be suppresed by some processing, is some does that, I would support. --Wikimol 20:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I ran a soften filter on it and that seems to smooth things out, but I'm not exactly a photo-shop expert. Dual Freq 01:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think better noise reduction without visible softening is now possible. Unfortunately its computationaly-intensive and in non-free sw (Neat Image, Noise Ninja, and others) --Wikimol 23:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Norro - MPF 21:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -i do not like the composition. apart from the noiseLadyofHats 07:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack LadyofHats --Ikiwaner 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 10:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anta orca de pendilhe 0486.JPG - featured[edit]

Info created by (João Carvalho) - uploaded by João Carvalho - nominated by João Carvalho
Support --João Carvalho 00:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~{Neutral}}~~ - very nice pic, except for the corner of the car and the person in the fluorescent green jacket. Will support if someone can edit them out carefully. - MPF 18:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now they have been edited out - MPF 21:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -LadyofHats 07:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no car. Must be already done, then. --Ziga 14:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful Lusitana 15:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 09:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Nice picture. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 18:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 19:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 12:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support → featured Roger McLassus 10:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Astilleros de Gdansk.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created and uploaded by Valdoria (talk · contribs) - nominated by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk
Support I think the image is quite stunning, at first I thought it was a composition of few images, but it is actually a real photo. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- some artistic interest, I think ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 09:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - blurred - YolanC 16:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC) - this picture is a mess[reply]
Oppose - messy, no clear subject; the bottom and left of the banner is cut, the stuff over at the right doesn't show anything in particular - MPF 21:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -LadyofHats 07:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- agree with MPF! -- Boereck 08:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 10:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC) too late[reply]

2 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kalamos.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by AM
Support --AM 12:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, not featured. When you look closer, there is much noise. Colours are a bit too dark. We have better sunsets. Well, maybe not from Kalamos, but this picture is not good enough. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 14:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Ss181292 21:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC) - Aaaarghhh, another sunset![reply]
Oppose -LadyofHats 07:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful Gérard Janot 18:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 19:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To much noise. What's up with the colors? I've never seen such a sunset. And I was in Greece ;) Metoc
Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info I reduced the noise. -- AM 14:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sunset may 2006 panorama.jpg - featured[edit]

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 09:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 10:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacopo86 17:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent - Andreas.Didion 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yet another great one, Fir! --Ali K 07:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not exceptional. Especially the foreground is not that interesting norro 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd question whether we really need another sunset, but that's not so much an issue on Commons. Definately better than most of the other sunset images here. -- Solipsist 09:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aka 14:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Ss181292 21:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC) - Aarrrghhh, another sunset![reply]
Support -LadyofHats 07:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Ziga 14:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI agree with norro --Luc Viatour 15:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. So much more than a sunset. --^{Brandt Luke Zorn}_{talk to me} 04:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Maybe we should think about delisting some sunsets. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 07:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 22:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just : Wow ! Ceridwen 23:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support striking pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral A bit more than 'just another sunset'. But the stitch- and clone-artefacts between the 'flare' and the tree are a bit too visible, especially the colour differnce and the sharp (but wavy!?) dviding line. Did you not use the same exposure or did you 'cut out' a section? DirkvdM 10:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, I find it exceptional, not just another sunset. Colors and composition are really great. Francisco M. Marzoa 10:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Where was it shot? What clouds are those? What species of tree? And even more relevant, what does this picture add to the present collection of FPs? Other than that, the image is just gorgeous. – Tintazul ^talk 14:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC) closed[reply]

16 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 10:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Parthenos_sylvia_philippensis.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created, RE-uploaded and nominated by Andreas.Didion 18:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the species is correctly identified, the image should be renamed and RE-Upload. BIG Realy THX to http://www.lepiforum.de/cgi-bin/forum.pl -Andreas.Didion 18:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neutrality 19:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 20:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 21:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the votes at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Schmetterling2005-07-26 01.jpg should also be taken into account. — Erin (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnangarra 05:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per my previous comments that I'd support once identified and named - MPF 18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Solipsist 09:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice --Stunter 15:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--João Carvalho 21:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info Please see this edit and make your own opinion on Andreas.Didion --Ikiwaner 16:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture, but unsharp and for an ISO 200 captured image it is very grainy, white point ist set incorrect. See this image for realistic colors. --Olei 21:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unsharp ?! and here more incorrect color photos http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Parthenos_sylvia -
have a nice day Andreas.Didion 13:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Yes, it is "unsharp" Gordo 09:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ... and has a white bar on the bottom image border. --Ikiwaner 16:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Tintazul ^talk 14:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC) after deadline -- Colin (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 10:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Achelousaurus dinosaur.png - featured[edit]

Info created by LadyofHats - uploaded by LadyofHats - nominated by LadyofHats 18:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral i do thing it has not only quality but it gives a lot of information--LadyofHats 18:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 19:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support a top dino-image! --Dudo 20:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 20:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*{Oppose} - very nice work, but I'm afraid the tail is badly wrong - it's pretty conclusively known now they had rigid tails which stuck out straight behind, not dragging along the ground. Would have supported otherwise. - MPF 18:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

are you sure about it? if so i will change it -LadyofHats 21:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is ok, now i changed it to have a straight tail. i just uploaded the new file -LadyofHats 11:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks much better now, thanks! - MPF 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lifting the tail improved it. Nice work, great image! --Firsfron 18:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crisp, colorful image, skillfully done. --^{Brandt Luke Zorn}_{talk to me} 04:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good drawing Ceridwen 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good image. --Nvineeth 05:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: can you provide an SVG version? If you can't, then consider my vote a positive one! – Tintazul ^talk 14:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
- the day you give a SVG version of each one of your photos. i will give you an svg from this. it is a drawing, not a diagram. and it is PNG as requierd by commons. -LadyofHats 09:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC) closed[reply]

6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral, 2 late → featured Roger McLassus 10:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TDF06 (stage13) Anduze.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info created by Sanguinez - uploaded by User:Sanguinez - nominated by Andrew Levine. I love almost everything about this photo: The motion suggested by the varying angles of the cyclists as they round the bend; the beautiful countryside in the background; even the excitement implied by the spectator applauding in the upper-left. To me it captures all the essential elements of the Tour de France.

I just want to thanks you for the nomination! and add a precision, it's in this stage that Oscar Pereiro wins his yellow jersey. Sanguinez 10:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Andrew Levine 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC) (OPPOSE version without hands; they help frame the image, and in my mind add to the excitement and life of the scene)[reply]
Support -LadyofHats 18:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The hands distract. --Neutrality 19:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--João Carvalho 00:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition, background norro 11:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original, * Support Fir0002's edit - MPF 18:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It just don't do it for me! -- Boereck 08:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- as the author can I vote??? Sanguinez 08:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —freakofnurture 16:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image:Dorothea Lange 1936.jpg - featured[edit]

Info Dorothea Lange in California. For the resolution freaks: it's 17 megapixels. Created in 1936 by Paul Schuster Taylor — uploaded and nominated by MarkSweep.
Support --MarkSweep 23:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gordo 15:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fabien1309 16:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LadyofHats 18:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 04:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I suppose the person is supposed to be famous, but I've never heard of her, and this pic doesn't do anything for me - MPF 18:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I don't know her either, yet the image is somewhat different from the usual sunset and vacation shots... not good enough to be featured in my eyes, though - sorry -- Boereck 08:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dorothea Lange = One of the best photographers ever. The picture is technically great, informative. It shows us equipment and technique from the photographer. The high angle is characteristic of the times (Ansel Adams did it a lot). This is one of those images that although not attractive for many reasons, it is nonetheless a good photograph. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Lange. --Tomascastelazo 01:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fabien1309 19:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bluffed by the shoes ! this photography could be contemporary Ceridwen 23:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jonathunder 01:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 10:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image:Snow crystals.png - featured[edit]

Info created by (IMAGEAUTHOR) - uploaded by Brian0918 - nominated by 89.49.133.172
Support --89.49.133.172 18:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC) anonyms can't vote, sorry Lycaon 19:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 19:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Thermos 19:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 19:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 21:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral where does the color come from? norro 22:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They are called "pseudo colours", are computer generated and are a standard technique used with SEM (scanning electron microscopy) images. Lycaon 09:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support, but pseudo colour should be mentioned in the image description norro 12:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ahh, one of them new color ess-eee-ehms.. --Dschwen 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing --Jollyroger 10:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Artefacto 14:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LadyofHats 18:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 04:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good, but I've seen much better photos of snowflakes (not PD or free license, unfortunately) - MPF 18:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like it -- Boereck 08:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful. --^{Brandt Luke Zorn}_{talk to me} 04:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great. Looks like plastic. --Ziga 22:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing Ceridwen 23:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ despite the great combination of beauty and educational value (my main criteria) because for the latter there should be more info, especially about the colours. Despite norro asking for this two weeks ago, this info has stil not been added. DirkvdM 10:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Explanation about those colours was already added on this page (and now even on the image page!!) two weeks ago... ?!? -- Lycaon 11:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation here is useless. This is a central media base for all the wiki projects, and they need the info on the image page (where it has now been added, probably due to my request). Yes, two weeks ago, by norro (27 July). Since the info is now there, I will change my vote. DirkvdM 17:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be serious people. If the info is here and you don't see it over there, what stops you from adding it yourself, instead of complaining and voting negatively. It's beyond me ....???! Lycaon 19:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I'm new here and regarded the photo pages as a bit too 'personal' (sort of like user pages). I'll mend my ways. :) DirkvdM 12:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support now that the info has been added. DirkvdM 17:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 20:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC) -- high educational value[reply]
Support Wmeinhart 10:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC) After 11th August deadline -- Colin (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16 support, 1 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 10:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Parc Monceau 20060812 35.jpg[edit]

Info created by (Guillaume Jacquet) - uploaded by Okki - nominated by Okki
Support --Okki 01:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice composition, but out of whack and the sky is clipped. DirkvdM 05:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can the sky not be clipped? Gordo 08:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he refers to the tonal clipping (blown-out). And I suppose out of whack means tilted? --Dschwen 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant tilted. I should be more careful with colloquialities in foreign languages. What other meaning can 'clipped' have that can apply to the sky? DirkvdM 05:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cut Francisco M. Marzoa 11:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I like the pov, but the overexposed rooftops and primarily the rather disturbing tilt ruin it for me. Rotating a tilted image should (almost) allways be the first step in post-production. ;)/Dcastor 22:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- needs rotation -- YolanC 13:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of non-horizontality and burnt sky. CyrilB 12:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad angle --Sunshade1 15:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 16:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Square des Batignolles 20060815 18.jpg[edit]

Info created by (Georges Seguin) - uploaded by Okki - nominated by Okki
Support --Okki 01:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special. --— Erin (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture but, as Erin put it, not special. /Dcastor 23:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above Reywas92 17:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 3 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 16:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DirkvdM natural spiral.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by DirkvdM - uploaded by DirkvdM - self-nominated by DirkvdM
Support --DirkvdM 08:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF, focus, species name, even resolution.... -- Lycaon 09:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say a wider DOF would have killed the photo aesthetically, but that's a matter of taste. DirkvdM 14:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Neat! Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 18:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the depth of field works great. Ideally it'd be nice to know what plant this was, though. Higher-res would be more ideal, too. --Fastfission 04:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gordo 14:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 15:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 18:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - species should be identified Tbc 09:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would agree (very much so, even), but here, the subject is more generic, it's not about the specific species but an example of climber tendrils in general. I doubt ayone could identify the species based on this part alone. DirkvdM 12:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is a very beautiful and interesting picture, but it is unidentified and the resolution is a little low. Fix one or both and I'd support. Ram-Man 12:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

( Support Very cool! pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- agree with Lycaon! -- Boereck 08:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great photo - wonderful composition. --AngMoKio 12:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support My thoughts - pro and con - have been dealt with by others. /Dcastor 23:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unidentified, low resolution, background is a bit disruptive. Not very obvious what exactly is on the photo --Leclerc 16:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shry tales 17:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the opposers Roger McLassus 20:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus

Image:Fitz Roy framed trees.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by Jenny Mealing - uploaded by Wikimol - nominated by Überraschungsbilder 05:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

original version (left) - not featured[edit]

Support. Trees are probably (but not definitely) Nothofagus antarctica. - MPF 18:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Great composition. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 18:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- love it. but actually the left one with the "original" colors appeals more to me! -- Boereck 08:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original version. Lusitana 10:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favour of the corrected version Roger McLassus 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral →
not featured due to comparison with edited version Roger McLassus

new version (right) - featured[edit]

Comment I adjusted the colour balans. Better? Lycaon 19:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, yes :-) --Überraschungsbilder 11:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont't know why, but I actually like more the picture with the obviously bad red cast. --Wikimol 14:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support adjusted colour version --Luc Viatour 18:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The adjusted color version only -- Ram-Man 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support adjusted colour version Romary 12:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very artistic! I prefer the white snow to the reddish. :) /Dcastor 23:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the balanced version (the one on right) --Leclerc 17:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The balanced version have 2.7Mb, while the original have 4.3Mb. When zoomed very close to 200%, there are little JPEG artifacts in the balanced image. Lycaon, can you adjust the color balance again and save with higher JPEG quality? --Leclerc 17:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Roger McLassus 20:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version looks better, no red snow --Digon3 17:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured Roger McLassus

either version[edit]

Support great scenery, good composition --Überraschungsbilder 05:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wikimol 14:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FoeNyx 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Tintazul ^talk 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 16:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JettaMkV.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info created by Bcirker - uploaded by Liftarn - nominated by Bravada
Support --Bravada 21:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC) - I came accross this photo on English Wikipedia and wanted to remove the darn promo pic and reprimand the user who inserted it. Surprisingly, it proved to be no promo photo, but a file from the Commons! I know it is ONLY a car, foo foo, but its quality and artistic value are great. With so many random, low-quality pics of dirty cars taken on the run dumped into the Commons and WP of recent, I believe we might use an example that one can create a really good picture of a car by him- or herself.[reply]
Oppose -- leaning on the right hand side, needs that side pulling upright in a graphics editor (easy to do in Photoshop) - Arpingstone 21:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ACK Bravada, but could be cropped a bit. Don't see it leaning norro 20:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- photographing a clean nice colored car doesn't make a FP --Stunter 13:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think there is still some difference between this and typical well done promo shot [1]. COM:QIC yes, FP no. --Wikimol 18:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you are right as to your first statement, but as concerns the example you provided, it is a rather poor one, if you'd ask me. An OK photo, but nothing special, other than it's rather well touched-up. The background is quite random, not to mention that the car itself is moderately plain (it's not the photographer's fault, but still). Btw, you probably already know you cannot hotlink to autogaleria.pl - for everybody else interested, the photo can be found @ [2] (the title is "Skoda Felicia Mystery 2000 r.") Bravada 23:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- uhm, I mostly gave you my support because we had not had cars in here since... well, I don't remember any to be honest (pardon my negligence if I'm off)... the car itself is a good quality shot, yes. but there is two things that identify this image not to be a commercial image: there is a tiny part of a light pole or a tree branch at the left border about the middle of the picture - distracting. and what most disturbed me: the flower bed bordering right in the front!! I am sure 15 min of photoshop could have improved this picture a great deal by having the eye go right on the car instead of being obstacled onto the left border and through the flowers before finally fixating the vehicle... too many words for too little a flaw: still a good shot - plus a car in here afterall :-) -- Boereck 08:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited this picture and removed the pole and the flowerbed and replaced with brick. It is very hard to tell they were even there. If this will make any differance tell me. --Digon3 02:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: we need less reflection and less background, IMHO. – Tintazul ^talk 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in my opinion a normal photo of a clean car in the streets thus really nothing special. For a good car shot there is too much reflection on the car and too much disturbing things in the background. ...and that it is nothing special bcs of its composition is obvious. ...and the sole fact that it is a car cant be the reason for a pro - sorry Boereck :-) --AngMoKio 21:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is so easy to win me over sometimes ;-) -- Boereck 10:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The tilt and the distractions at the left and in the lower right corner make it a con-vote. /Dcastor 23:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing out of the ordinary. Now I'll have to niminate a bunch of car pictures just to give some examples of some "above average" shots. // Liftarn
Oppose leaning, too little colour-contrast to the background, too much background, distraction on the left side, too strong reflections - and nothing outstanding anyway Roger McLassus 20:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with all opposers --Digon3 01:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have edited this picture and removed the pole and the flowerbed and replaced with brick. It is very hard to tell they were even there. If this will make any differance tell me. --Digon3 02:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 9 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nagasaki temple destroyed.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by U.S. Marine Corps - uploaded by Fastfission - nominated by Fastfission
Support What I love about this particular image is not only the symbolism, but unlike the other "destruction" pictures of Nagasaki, the foreground/background works out so that you actually feel like you are on the ground, like you can comprehend it at a human scale. --Fastfission 04:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing. -Quasipalm 01:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Chosovi 13:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 18:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 22:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —freakofnurture 16:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MGo 10:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Fastfission. —QuartierLatin1968 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture. Technical quality is surprisingly good considering age of the original picture--Leclerc 16:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above Roger McLassus 20:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TPM 01:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 support → featured Roger McLassus 10:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Baby foetus.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by (Andy Wright) - uploaded by FlickrLickr (reviewer Andre Engels) - nominated by Andre Engels
Support -- nice image of a rather rare subject. Andre Engels 19:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uploaded from Flickr. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 22:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that your reason to oppose? I think, that isn't fair. We're looking for the most useful pictures for wikimedia projects. Either it's useful or not, but not dependent on where it was uploaded first. norro 20:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what you are looking for. I place a much higher value on contribution of Commons and Wikipedia users than images uploaded from elsewhere, notably images that could have easily been taken by Wikipedia and Commons users, but weren't. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 15:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Query What is that white stuff to the left? I doubt it's relevant, it distracts and can be easily edited out. DirkvdM 12:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is from the (I recognise it). The white stuff is an information panel telling you stuff about foetuses. --Leon 2323 20:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It looks like a plastic model. The glare is a little tacky. I don't find it very striking, just creepy. A picture of a foetus should make me think about life and birth and being human; it should not make me think "is that made of out of wax?"--Fastfission 14:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am sure this is a plastic model - and not even a good one. Roger McLassus 19:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Background, angle norro 20:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Fastfission - MPF 14:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —freakofnurture 16:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fastfission sums it up well above. /Dcastor 23:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose waxy and fake looking, ugly, not something I would want featured. --Digon3 19:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Fastfission, creepy, ugly, kinda makes me sick looking at it, sorry --Sunshade1 15:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 8 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hibiscus pink.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Nvineeth - uploaded by Nvineeth - nominated by Nvineeth
Support --Nvineeth 05:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 13:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no species / cultivar name information. Commons has far too many un-named Hibisci, and not enough named ones. - MPF 23:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with MPF Tbc 09:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's a Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, like probably the entirety of Commons' unnamed Hibiscuses. These flowers are mostly a single species with all sorts of varieties, with a few exceptions. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 17:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure on that - H. syriacus is also very commonly cultivated. But even if they are mostly H. rosa-sinensis, unless they are wild-type plants (preferably photographed in the wild!), they should have a cultivar name - MPF 23:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful photograph. Information on genus, species, and cultivar is desirable but not a requirement. Fg2 01:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The species is Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, I got it confirmed from the Chinese Hibiscus article. But still I dont understand why the species name is so important, I am not a biologist to know the genus, species and all that, I am just a layman and I come across a beautiful pic and nominate it :) --Nvineeth 09:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that genus and species labels are desirable but should not be required for featured status. Fg2 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support with or without genus and species identification. Fg2 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice picture, but not more. Macro pictures of garden flowers can be taken with great controll over circumstances, and thus I think they need to be close to perfect to be featured. In this the dof is lacking slightly, in the very focus of the picture at that. It may not be a simple task to avoid that, but still a requirement to get a pro-vote from me. /Dcastor 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No cultivar and not an exceptional flower pic. --Dschwen 15:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

store of pearls Essaouira (Moroco) - featured[edit]

Info created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by Luc Viatour 13:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 13:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. Unusual. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 17:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed and foreground of terrible quality. Nice composition and resolution though norro 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to correct slightly! Thank you for the relevant remarks --Luc Viatour 19:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - MPF 23:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The hole in the middle pulls too much attention, and subjects are uninteresting/irrelevant to image. --Tomascastelazo 19:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have pictured the same store myself some time ago, this image is much better! Jsx 06:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has depth, colour and is interesting. --— Erin (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --—freakofnurture 16:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support but next shot anyone use HDR please ;) --XN 19:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One day that will come… ;-) --Luc Viatour 14:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Mjem 14:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lusitana 09:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support QuartierLatin1968 22:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gordo 18:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Terrible quality, no centered object and too many details. --Atlantas 09:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a pity that some details in the foreground seem overexposed, because it's realy good picture. Pko 09:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lhademmor 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 21:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 support, 4 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 19:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ciudad de las ciencias noche.JPG - featured[edit]

Info created by (chosovi) - uploaded by Chosovi - nominated by chosovi 12:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Chosovi 12:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Mjem 22:48, 16 Août 2006 (UTC)
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question Where and what is it? 80.126.178.133 05:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Andreas.Didion 07:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Neutral -- great image. but unless the info is added, I refuse to support! -- Boereck 08:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support All you need to know is that the image is in Category:Ciutat de les Arts i les Ciències. — Erin (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- fine then! -- Boereck 12:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Tintazul ^talk 13:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not my cup of tea - MPF 14:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 06:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lalupa 22:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mjem 14:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have preferred it a bit sharper and with slightly less grain. It's still a very nice picture, though. /Dcastor 23:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough, too much grain visible at full res. Freedom to share 14:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a little grainy (hard to do night shots and not have that happen) but the composition and colors are so good that for me that pushes it into support. --Fastfission 13:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lusitana 09:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cerise 10:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have to come back - when I was there the later building was not yet finished. Andreas Tille 06:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition. The image is a bit noisy when zoomed 1:1 on screen, but thats "feature" of almost all night photographs. And though putting it in category is nice, description should be there too. --Leclerc 16:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, unique, good colours. --Digon3 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - cool --Lhademmor
Support--Hi-tacks 19:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20 support, 2 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 11:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Foret.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info created by Mjem - uploaded by Mjem - nominated by Mjem 17:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

Photographie de la Forêt de l'abbaye de la Crête en Haute Marne en France. Cette image est publiée sur Partage-images.net

Support --Mjem 17:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 19:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, tho' would like a little more info on species composition (some Fagus sylvatica present, can't quite make others out) - MPF 23:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Chosovi 12:41, 17 Agust 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry - (maybe i am blind but) i cant see anything special about that photo. It doesnt show any details of those trees nor is it a good composition --AngMoKio 12:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with AngMoKio sorry. --— Erin (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Moralist 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC) I agree, it's not very special.[reply]
Oppose I'll have to agree with the other con-voters. /Dcastor 23:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special Reywas92 17:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pleins de contrastes et de lumières avec un jeu de ligne intéressant. Cerise 10:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Please identify the trees in the foreground, otherwise it's a nice pic that i would vote for --Digon3 13:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring Likeitsmyjob 04:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 21:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ...and? Boring picture, like many others. --Erina 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 20:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rushmore 2.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Kelly Martin - uploaded by Kelly Martin - nominated by Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir
Support -- I find this image of a well-documented American landmark unusually beautiful. The dark clouds especially lend an air of heaviness to the image. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 15:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A great, high quality image. Mets501 21:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too tiny -- Lycaon 15:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aliman5040 16:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support me likes it Drini 22:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - only 146kB, and it shows. With a well-photographed site like this, I'd want to see at least 600-700kB (and many would want over a megabyte) - MPF 23:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Romary 12:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —freakofnurture 16:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the picture, but the size is insufficient for a featured picture. /Dcastor 23:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- resolution + I enjoy more without clouds (Image:Mt Rushmore 3 by erikmarr.jpg) --YolanC 13:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose off center, cloudy -- Reywas92 17:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grainy, not the most ideal outdoor lighting, small size. --Fastfission 00:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose small, wrong angle(can't see all faces that well), lighting off and a bit grainy. --Digon3 13:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 9 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gran cañon del colorado.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by (Tomas Castelazo) - uploaded by User:Tomascastelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo
Support --Tomascastelazo 19:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice high res photo etc, but background not really in focus. Try a longer exposure -- Tomhab 22:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Depth of field is a function of focal length and/or aperture. Density is a function of exposure. Sharpness is relative to medium and enlargement, as well as viewing distance. Pic taken with ektachrome 100, 35 mm. --Tomascastelazo 00:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't want to give a tutorial in basic camera operation, but you're right... Generally however, if you increase exposure time, you get better landscape pictures (better density and depth of field if you like). It is a shame because its a nice location, but I think it is possible to get a better photo from there. -- Tomhab 08:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment backround wrong colour and doesn't look right(focus)? --Digon3 02:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tomhab: All pictures can always be better, even good ones. As to density, if you know the nature of slide film and the shorter dynamic range, you will find that the density is correct, detail in shadowns, detail in sunlit areas. Slide film is unforgiving in exposure errors due to limited lattitude. Color in background is called haze... moisture in air does that to landscapes, that particular day, that was the way it was. Painters use haze a lot in lanscape paintings. It give the feeling of distance. Pic taken on tripod, 28mm lens, ecktachrome 100 film, 125/f11, cable release. Canon lens and camera. A lot of detail in a small surface. Of course you cannot see the needles of the pine trees in the other side of the canyon.--Tomascastelazo 16:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its kind of uninteresting and bland, looks like all one colour. --Digon3 18:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This picture by far misses the impression you have, when you are really there. Of course, there will always be a difference, but it should be much smaller. Roger McLassus 10:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Quality of light is very low. I don't like the harsh shadow and the sky is a bit boring. Indon 16:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MareaPacificoAgosto2006.jpeg - not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by RicardoUrbinaM
Template corrected and information added Roger McLassus 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too little contrast - the foam-figures are hardly visible. And they are cut on the right side. Roger McLassus 21:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't really see what it is - not very clear -- Tomhab 22:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I had to look very closely to see anything but the waves. If you could make the foam fingers more visible this would be a interesting picture--Digon3 00:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - pr. Tomhab
Oppose funny, but not a good picture Paulatz 15:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose flat constrast Tbc 19:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Queryzo 12:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 7 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vy i skottland.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info created by Moralist - uploaded by Moralist - nominated by Moralist. I have to say a thing about the picture that may be important. The original picture was taken by an analogue Camera, and I scanned the picture, that's why the resolution is so low. About the thing in the lower right corner: It is a Travel trailer. The lake is Loch Linnhe just outside Fort Williams in Scotland. Thank you for voting!
Support --Moralist 16:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good colours, but the thing right bottom spoils it big time. Resolution too low too. Lycaon 21:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not as special when enlarged. Agree about object, but cropping it out wouldn't save it. --— Erin (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As stated above, spoiled by the low reolution, but also a bit too grainy. Looks good as tn, though. /Dcastor 22:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would require cropping to remove that object on bottom right, and to put the left tree more on the left, but the resolution is too low for cropping. I like the colors and the shapes of the background, though. CyrilB 12:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cerise 10:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The digitalization left noise in the picture, seems too low JPEG quality was used, as I see visible artifacts (especially visible on the tree trunk) and resolution is low. Composition is nice, except that object in corner, but technical quality is low. --Leclerc 16:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark, too grainy, object in corner ruins it. --Sunshade1 15:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GT750.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Liftarn - uploaded by Liftarn - nominated by Liftarn
Support -- a bit more arty car photo to round it off with. The raindrops actually turned out quite good. // Liftarn 11:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition,Colors, nothing special --Luc Viatour 11:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aggree with Luc Viatour--Joel McLendon14:26, 24 August 2006
Oppose Not a bad photo, but nothing spectacular. --Leclerc 16:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its just a close-up of a car. --Digon3 19:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - as opposed to the previous 4 this is about something. Still, nothing special and the background doesn't quite help. Not sure if the reflection of the photographer is intended or a mistake. DirkvdM 17:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Reflection of photographer reminds me of ebay naked kettle man... -- Pluke 09:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - uninteresting subject (to me at least) --Lhademmor 15:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - to me too --Queryzo 12:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 days: 1 support (nominator), 8 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 17:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SAAB-Sonett-mk3.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Liftarn - uploaded by Liftarn - nominated by Liftarn
Support -- A car shot in a bit of "promo style". // Liftarn 11:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition,Colors, nothing special --Luc Viatour 11:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose User:jmclendon
Oppose Although the car is nice, the building in background is disruptive and spoils the composition --Leclerc 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its just a car, nothing special --Digon3 19:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing Special--Know Nothing 08:15, 25 August 2006
Oppose DirkvdM 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - pr. Leclerc Lhademmor 15:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -Queryzo 12:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 days: 1 support (nominator), 8 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 17:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1966-Sonett2.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Liftarn - uploaded by Liftarn - nominated by Liftarn
Support -- There was some complaints that there was a lack of nominated car pictures. Liftarn 10:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition,Colors, nothing special --Luc Viatour 11:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Joel McLendon
Strong oppose Its just a close-up of a really ugly car. --Digon3 19:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just a car. --Know Nothing 08:22, 25 August 2006
Oppose - wouldn't even be good anough for a car magazine. DirkvdM 17:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Luc Viatour - MPF 01:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - just a car. Background is distruptive .--Lhademmor 15:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- sorry, I was just happy for having a different subject in here; your car pictures are taken in a very lame setting and they are - without saying anything against your car - no FP material -- Boereck 21:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing special --Queryzo 12:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 days: 1 support (nominator), 9 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 17:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]