Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December2006

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

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

Info created, uploaded and nominated by [[User:Tomascastelazo --Tomascastelazo 23:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 23:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Traditional sugar figures for Day of the Dead celebrations in Mexico. --Tomascastelazo 23:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject, but the composition and white balance are off. – flamurai 06:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack flamurai. Ss181292 11:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, good colors, good matter B.navez 09:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice skulls. Pretty scary ;-) --SvonHalenbach 16:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 22:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Evalutieambtenaar 10:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 00:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glass is Liquide.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by Don Bertone (new user on commons is: User:Mehran Moghtadai) - uploaded by Arad - nominated by Arad --Arad 01:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good example of dielectric 3D --Arad 01:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 05:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if you put this up alone this might be a support vote, but Image:Seduce Me by DonBertone.jpg is far superior. This image looks too much like a sample render. The angle is uninteresting and the colors are not as harmonious as Seduce Me. – flamurai 06:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 11:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC) - bubbles looks unnatural[reply]
Support Rendering is a quite new subject to me. Maybe there are far superior images of this type but I found this one quite attracting in aesthetycal terms. If it were a photo it would be a quite good one, no doubt about that. Alvesgaspar 11:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent Rendering and good composition -- Simonizer 13:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This may be an excellent rendering, but it is boring, because it is too real. (Nice colors though) When you have an idea what can be rendered what can't be shot with a camera than that would be a candidate for a featured picture nomination. greetings --SvonHalenbach 13:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snowwayout 23:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I totally agree with SvonHalenbach norro 10:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks unnatural :) K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 15:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, I don't see what the point of this is, either - MPF 19:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a reason to oppose. The point is clear, dielectric rendering. --66.36.154.211 04:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 12:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 22:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Javierme 22:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 13:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 07:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC) I thought it's weak photo ...[reply]
Support --I don't know if i can support my own job. Although this is not my favorite, I'll promise i'm working hard on something that will soon be released, in a week or two, which is far better than this one. I see it has gotten many supports. Arad wanted me to support the nomination because it's very close to success. But as i said before, this is not one of my favorite. --Mehran Moghtadai 22:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great. guillom 10:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 13 support, 6 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 02:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Seduce Me by DonBertone.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Don Bertone - uploaded by Arad - nominated by Arad --Arad 02:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing 3D model --Arad 02:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent rendering – flamurai 06:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent rendering - great illustration of the power of computers. Ss181292 11:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good rendering, but i dont like the composition. Object centered and space from object to border of picture is too big. So I would crop it. Simonizer 13:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, i find it just boring. --SvonHalenbach 13:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice rendering, nothing more norro 10:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - got to agree with SvonHalenbach, I don't see the point of it - MPF 19:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but do you really don't get the point? the point is to show the dielectric rendering. --66.36.154.211 04:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When this should be just a showcase for dielectric rendering, it doesn't need to be a featured picture. Featured pictures should be special not just documentary. --SvonHalenbach 12:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not much artistic value. FPs should be the best works available on commons. This can be created in ~~two~~ five minutes. --Dschwen 10:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 01:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PlaneWing.png - not featured[edit]

Info created by PioM - uploaded by PioM - nominated by Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez

I noticed this as the picture of the day on the Polish Wikipedia today and was suprised it was not a featured image here. --03:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Support as nom. --Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 03:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The decorative text on the wing is pointless and distracting, and the color palette could be more coherent. It also should be SVG. – flamurai 06:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would try making the picture a little more sober (colours, numbers, text in wing,...). I think decoration distracts from the information depicted. Also, the illustration would be more clear with a longer wing.Alvesgaspar 12:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Please remove the decorative text and convert it to SVG. The "Wiki Air" on the winglet has basically the same effect as a watermark crediting the Wikis. Zzyzx11 08:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support useful diagram. The text on the wing, engines, etc doesn't worry me, after all, real plane wings have it on too. And why should it be turned into svg? Just to make it inaccessible to those who don't have svg-compatible computers? - MPF 19:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every SVG is rendered to an PNG by the mediawiki software. If it's an SVG, it's scalable and can be accessed in two ways: as SVG or as rendered PNG. norro 20:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But only as the thumbnail - you can no longer "Download high resolution version (1024x968, 218 KB)" once it has been converted to svg - MPF 02:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it there is - you can make image with overscaled size, eg. [[image:Test.svg|10000px]] will give you image 10000px width :) --WarX 10:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as an "svg-compatible computer". – flamurai 09:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Should be SVG. /Daniel78 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. 1) should be SVG. 2) shouldn't have CC-BY-SA in the image. If you want to put that in metadata that is fine. The signing of the image is creative enough that I don't think I'd oppose for it :O I don't really mind the decorative text. There are various images with 'Wiki' things where a brand name might be. But, I suppose I can see why people might not want it. gren 18:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to create a vector version of this image. I used a more harmonic colour palette and removed the text. See thumb at the right. norro 22:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still wouldn't support that. I think illustrations, unless they are technically complex like the piano, should live up to the artistic standards set by Image:Personal computer, exploded 4.svg, especially if they are drawn in anything other than flat perspective. – flamurai 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good job, norro. Clearly you put some work into the drawing. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 14:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Would support SVG shown here.--HereToHelp (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent job, norro, much better now with a longer wing. But the wing should be rotated, the subject is partially hidden. Alvesgaspar 08:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's great to see the development here... I don't think the last picture (long wing seen from the front) should be turned - it would be enough to see it from a bit a higher point until the now hidden parts can also be seen --Anna reg 18:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's equivalent to rotate the wing along its longitudinal axis. Alvesgaspar 19:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- you are right - I somehow only thougt of one way of rotating... --Anna reg 20:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 00:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 7 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 02:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fly-Angel.jpg not featured[edit]

Info created by David Wilson Clarke - uploaded by User:Überraschungsbilder - nominated by Arad --Arad 14:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info An impressive photograph by Dwclarke of Anthony Gormley's most famous creation, the Angel of the North. I particularly like the primary coloured contrast created between the sculpture, the grass and the sky - it reminds me a little of the XP wallpaper "Bliss". The figure also illustrates the size of the sculpture well without being intrusive.
Support --Arad 14:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a bit low res. Other than that, it is a fantastic picture. --SvonHalenbach 16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice. Can someone please remove the person at the statue's feet? norro 16:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral No doubt it's a great shot, but it could benefit from a crop (the angel is facing left, which draws your focus in that direction... all that sky on the right side makes it back heavy), and I do find the person distracting. – flamurai 17:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. The subject is looking out of the picture, which draws the viewer's eye out as well.--MichaelMaggs 18:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Without the person at the statue's base, you would have no idea of the size of the thing. howcheng {chat} 19:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A crop is needed as explained above and a human is needed to give the scale. --Diligent 20:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overdone en:Velvia/Polarizer image --Ikiwaner 22:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition. Maybe a frontal shot, with a little more of grass showing, would be better. Also, the statue is tilted to the right. Alvesgaspar 13:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 15:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose can't support any pic of that hideous motorway gantry . . . MPF 18:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 12:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 22:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks oversaturated -- Lycaon 11:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 6 support, 2 neutral, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 16:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lindau-Hafen-Sonnenuntergang.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Axel Flumm - uploaded by Little Ani - nominated by Fabien1309
Support -- Fabien1309 17:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A nice picture except the tower is leaning to the right. I suggest you consider correcting that and re-posting. --MichaelMaggs 18:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good composition and colour. Also suggest a new version correcting the tilted tower and adjusting framing (if possible): the boats in the foreground are cut. Alvesgaspar 18:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i have severe difficulties with the white balance of that picture. Sth is wrong with it...either the camera did sth wrong or the pic was edited afterwards --AngMoKio 21:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marcin n^® ☼ 16:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The pic is edited (the page says so) - unfortunately, the light on the buildings is obviously shining in from the left, whereas the brightest area of edited sky is behind, leading to a bad conflict in shadowing. - MPF 18:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, the sun must be off to the left, but it's that which is producing the shadows, I think, not the brightest area of sky that's visible in the image. The sun is not where the 'brightest area' is. --MichaelMaggs 20:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That's the problem - the sky in the pic is pasted in from another photo (the image page says so), with not enough care on the angle of the light. Given the sun's position off to the left, the area of sky beyond the tower would not (and could not) be bright. - MPF 22:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MPF. --MichaelMaggs 18:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 10:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like a computer render /Daniel78 23:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 22:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 17:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ChateauCulan.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info French Chateu Culan created and uploaded by Touriste - nominated by --SvonHalenbach 23:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 23:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting, foreground, composition norro 16:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with norro. Alvesgaspar 22:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 13:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Searoad.PNG - not featured[edit]

M.V. Queenscliff Ferry

Info created by Ansett - uploaded by Ansett - nominated by Ansett --Ansett 12:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ansett 12:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very low resolution, average picture -- Fabien1309 14:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 18:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto Fabien -- Gorgo 20:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 22:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 12:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:San Diego Reflecting Pond.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by Rufustelestrat - uploaded by Rufustelestrat - nominated by Rufustelestrat --Ted "RUFUS" Ross 02:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ted "RUFUS" Ross 02:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportB.navez 09:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 11:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 13:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --Digon3 14:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 15:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 18:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - don't like nighttime streetlit pics - MPF 18:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I "don't like them" either, but I think this is an excellent photo. Just because I wouldn't hang it on my wall doesn't mean it's not a good photo. – flamurai 04:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacopo86 09:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I oppose very strongly! This image seems doctored, that light is not realistic. Mstroeck
Comment Since when does "doctored" disqualify an image for featured? Many of our images have been modified for color or had objects removed. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 19:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What a complement. I have a series of 40 or so shots, jpegs and the Nikon Raw the nef with which you could use authentication software to see that other than a slight adjustment in the exposure, and cropping the top and bottom off the photo, it is as it came out of the camera. I did straighten the horizon on the crop as it would look bad tilted. and it had a aircraft light in the back ground I cloned out. otherwise it is as it was. Here is a link to another one out of this series.I love when I take a shot out of the camera and someone does not understand a 30 second exposure will produce great reflections from the water. IN fact here is a link to the untouched original with the aircraft light streak and crooked horizon.http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g41/Rufustelestrat/SanDiegoNight/DSC_11060002.jpg?t=1164238147 Ted "RUFUS" Ross 23:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urban 13:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 19:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support guillom 10:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 12 support, 2 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 13:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lynx kitten.jpg - not delisted[edit]

Info nice but just a bigger thumbnail. Species not known. --Ikiwaner 00:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please link to the original FPC before delisting. This (and these votes) should be taken into consideration. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 15:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SvonHalenbach 18:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only problem with it is that it is low resolution (I'm sure someone will name the species). It is too nice of a picture to delist just because of one problem. It is not unfocused or blurry and it shows animal in enough detail for me. --Digon3 18:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~ See our resolution guidelines. Other pictures get rejected that have more than twice the resolution. We should follow the same criterias for all pictures --Ikiwaner 12:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - low res., species not identified, obvious zoo pic with withered cut foliage in surroundings. - MPF 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - ack MPF because of obvious flaws -- Lycaon 19:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Ss181292 23:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC) - ack MPF[reply]
Keep The size should not be the only reason to oppose. Perfect image otherwise. We can ask the creator to upload a bigger one but even if that's not possible, this deserves to stay FP. --Arad 01:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Lynx lynx. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 15:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two big baby eyes and reason is shut down :-( If this is Lynx lynx which is not unlikely the animal and the plant around don't fit together. --Ikiwaner 23:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way you can prove this is Lynx lynx 84.197.150.84 01:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --WarX 19:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)--WarX 19:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is wrong with a "zoo pic" anyway?--Nilfanion 19:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep guidelines are just that, guidelines, in this case I believe it's a good idea to put them aside. -- Drini 19:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because it's so damn cute =^^=. Darkoneko 21:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lestat 22:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uploaded a new version with better resolution and fixed whitebalance. Baerni 21:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that issue being resolved (thanks for that), opposition stands for being a fake (obvious zoo pic). Sorry. Lycaon 07:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I got a problem. I clean my cache but even then, when i click on the newer version of the file, i get the same old one. anyone else has the same issue? --66.36.159.46 12:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same problem here. Strange, because the thumbnail and the preview seem to be updated. Baerni 16:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sensationell, we got a bigger version! Unfortunately one cannot download it which is bad for a FP. Image has a green cast now but this can be fixed. Bärni, sag uns bitte, wo du das Bild geschossen hast, damit wir die Art bestimmen können. --Ikiwaner 17:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid nomination. Image at full resolution is not accessible. fixed Lycaon 10:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is weird. --Arad 11:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info I fixed this problem. We still need a colour correction. --Ikiwaner 11:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info Colours corrected, now Keep --Ikiwaner 16:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that all concerns were addressed. It's a really nice picture. -- Gorgo 16:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very good image. /Daniel78 23:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Vmenkov 04:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 13 keep, 3 delist >> not delisted Alvesgaspar 13:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full Moon view from earth[edit]

Info created by --Luc Viatour - uploaded by --Luc Viatour - nominated by --Luc Viatour 10:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original version (left) - featured[edit]

Support --Luc Viatour 10:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 12:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC) That is a good shot of the full moon. But please change the name.[reply]
Support Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great shot...but i would also appreciate a change of the file name.--AngMoKio 15:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is ok but which the problem? --Luc Viatour 15:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question Two questions to the author: (i) What are the tiny black dots? (ii) Why not a better resolution photo? Wouldn't be too hard to get. Alvesgaspar 15:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black dots: probably noise of the sensor (the full moon is very contrasted and very luminous, difficult for the sensor). Resolution: 1400x1400 it is the maximum with my Nikon D50 for this focal optical. the remainder of the surface of the sensor it is only black

--Luc Viatour 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Better resolution doesn't nessesarily mean better view of the moon, because of the atmosphere. This is one of the best shots you can get from earth with amateur material. It can be improved just by stacking of more pictures together to maximise the contrast. The name should be changed to "fullmoonfromearth.jpg" or something to be more descriptive.--SvonHalenbach 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice moon shot, however, ordinary. Too small, noise. --Tomascastelazo 17:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ breathaking amateur shot but I'm shure there are some higher resolution NASA/ESA images around. *dilemma* --Ikiwaner 21:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had a quick glance at NASA and couldn't find a better moon image. That's why this is really excellent --Ikiwaner 10:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel78 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice but also lowish resolution, there are similar ones with higher resolution e.g. Image:Full_moon.png (although this one seems to have some color errors). Since it's "just" a plain image of the moon it should be technically better. -- Gorgo 23:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise, small resolution. Alvesgaspar 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Olei 22:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, and it'll hopefully still be few months until 1400x1400 is considered small ;-) --Dschwen 19:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support verry nice!--فتاة الانمي (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 9 support, 3 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 12:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tinabella469

Image:Supernumerary rainbow04.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Fir0002 - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by --SvonHalenbach 12:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 12:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very difficult subject! --Luc Viatour 13:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks unnatural and needs other elements in the composition. Alvesgaspar 13:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Alvesgaspar norro 14:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rainbows are not that uncommon, it should be possible to take way more interesting pictures of that topic -- Gorgo 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar --Digon3 16:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 22:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lacen 07:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 13:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Black-headed Gull - St James 27s Park 2C London - Nov 2006 edit2.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Arad - nominated by SvonHalenbach --SvonHalenbach 13:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 13:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's beautiful norro 14:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 14:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow...impressive; btw are there dead pixels at the pecker of that gull? (not that it would make it any less impressive)--AngMoKio 14:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 16:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --MichaelMaggs 18:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, what else? Lycaon 19:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well balanced depth of field, nice light, impressive timing. Jastrow (Λέγετε)
Support ack Λέγετε + superb noise level at ISO 1600! --Ikiwaner 21:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 16:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice timing. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 15:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 21:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 22:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support i also applaude --Diligent 08:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 22:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ansett 13:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 17 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 13:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Octopus marginatus.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info Image of a veined or coconut octopus, Octopus marginatus, building a fortress using seashells. Taken at Lembeh straits, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jnpet --Jnpet 03:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 03:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Object not clear, overexposed. Lycaon 07:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not easy to understand, not clear, the upper right part is overexposed Cyril 11:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack opposers --Digon3 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Gordo 13:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Argentina 2005 Fitz Panorama.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Fitz Roy (El Chaltén) in Argentina - created, uploaded and nominated by MarcosLeal 00:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MarcosLeal 00:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --MarcosLeal - After browsing through some of the other candidates, I realize my composition is really poor. I'll leave it here for a couple of days and if nobody likes it (or have a cropping suggestion), I will withdraw my nomination.
Comment There is nothing wrong with your picture, whose technical quality is quite good (I think it is inevitable to have some blown highlights when photographing snow). As for the composition, let's wait for some more opinions before using my vote. Alvesgaspar 21:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject matter is striking but the photograph itself is not. This is just a straight record-shot with little photographic skill demonstrated (I'm not criticising the level of skill involved, simply saying it doesn't come across in the image). For a FP I'd expect a more interesting viewpoint and/or better lighting. A nice picture, yes, but not I think of FP quality. --MichaelMaggs 12:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good theme, great quality and resolution, but boring composition ( in this case: something in the foreground is mising to add a sense of depth and scale to the picture) -- Simonizer 15:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 12:59, 5 December 2006(UTC)

Image:Lisboa - Expo98 - Vista Geral.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Global view of the core of the "Parque das Nações" where took place the Expo'98, in Lisbon - created, uploaded and nominated by Barao78 09:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Barao78 11:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - pleasant enough a pic, and good for encyclopaedia use, but it doesn't stand out as stunning enough to be a featured pic - MPF 22:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto MPF. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Looks like normal city image, and normal is not enough. /Daniel78 22:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 12:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BrantaLeucopsisMigration.jpg[edit]

Info created by Thermos - uploaded by Thermos - nominated by Thermos --Thermos 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 17:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ss181292 23:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC) - too dark, but look on full size picture - extra sharp.[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 09:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sharp, but too dark and no composition norro 09:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you see, what i see? That can be made to a very nice animation of that species! Who wants to jump in? --SvonHalenbach 12:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 13:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it's a good picture... but I agree with norro and it's not FP material. gren 18:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a nice photo, but it is too dark and a better crop is needed --Digon3 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 23:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even though it was not featured, I appreciate the way opposing votes were provided. I think that this kind of opposing votes are what would be kind of ideal - i.e. even if they oppose, the oppose vote and reason for opposing are provided in kind manner. Thank you everyone for considering this image. --Thermos 16:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Thermos --Thermos 16:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Octopus marginatus2.JPG - not featured[edit]

InfoImage of a veined or coconut octopus, Octopus marginatus. Taken in the waters of Lembeh Straits. October 2006 created, uploaded and nominated by Jnpet --Jnpet 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unclear what this image is at 300 pixels wide --Gordo 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- this is not a good reason for opposing. Nominated ist not the 300pixels thumbnail, but the picture in full resolution -- Simonizer 14:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Object not clear, unfavorable angle norro 20:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose object not clear. --mh 12:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition -- Gorgo 01:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 15:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Giraffe08 - melbourne zoo.jpg - featured[edit]

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 22:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is on par with the rest of the animal feature pics – flamurai 06:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Tecnically correct photo of a girafe in a zoo, wouldn't hesitate to promote to quality image. But lacks the magic of this one Image:Pelican lakes entrance02.jpg. Alvesgaspar 08:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar. This is a quality image. Nice and sharp, but obviously a zoo shot. The griafe without any expression. --SvonHalenbach 11:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support What does everyone expect the Giraffe to be expressing? Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 15:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support How on earth is it obvious that this is a zoo shot?? Jon Harald Søby 17:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At least the giraffe can smile a bit. :) --:SvonHalenbach 17:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But only sarcastic smiles, I'm afraid. Alvesgaspar 18:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I love this picture of a giraffe♥ Yes it is in a zoo, so what? That doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to the quality of the picture (which is another good one from Fir0002)♥ In fact I wouldn't know this picture was taken in a zoo if we weren't told♥--Nilfanion♥21:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Being on a zoo doesn't preclude it being a very good picture, FP quality. MOreover, if it weren't for the filename, htere would be no way to know it was taken on a zoo, that's how good it is -- Drini 19:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose obvious zoo shot Lycaon 20:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what? What does being taken in a zoo have to do with anything?--Nilfanion 20:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not zoo but obvious is the key word. Lycaon 21:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First question why is it obviously a zoo pic? Second does it make a blind bit of difference, its not like the giraffe is obscured by bars or something...--Nilfanion 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 21:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar.--MichaelMaggs 10:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 15:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dori | Talk 20:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lacen 07:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Lycaon --Luc Viatour 15:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Vmenkov 10:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think a zoo shot precludes it from being FP. This picture is nice. --Wing-Chi 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 12 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 08:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Redrosedust wright f2000.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Xixtas - nominated by SvonHalenbach --SvonHalenbach 10:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 10:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 10:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 17:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 22:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can we have a better filename, please! - MPF 23:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? Red_Hart_of_rosetta_nebula.jpg, Skyonfire.jpg, rosetta_on_fire.jpg, rosetta_in_Halpha.jpg --SvonHalenbach 00:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it, but it needs a better name (like Red_Hart_of_rosetta_nebula.jpg) --Digon3 03:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 5 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 10:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eremitagesletten 03-05-06 02.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Broadbeer - uploaded by Broadbeer - nominated by Broadbeer --Broadbeer 13:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Broadbeer 13:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose green grass, a house and a tree. --SvonHalenbach 15:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeper Svon. Jon Harald Søby 17:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautifull Chure10
Oppose The colors are not that good. Just a lot of not very interesting green gras and a sky. Metoc 21:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know and like this building, but sorry, the photo isn't the best, slightly tilted, dull colours, and where are the deer? - MPF 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 22:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's grass, a house and some trees. Skies 10:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed Ansett 13:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 7 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 13:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Caerulea3 crop.jpg[edit]

Original version (left) - not featured[edit]

Info created by LiquidGhoul - uploaded by Maksim - nominated by Shizhao --Shizhao 13:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shizhao 13:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad light, distracting background. --SvonHalenbach 14:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with SvonHalenbach. I don't like the extreme crop either. Alvesgaspar 15:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic! Jon Harald Søby 17:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 22:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Romary 09:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tight crop Lycaon 17:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 5 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 14:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version (right) - not featured[edit]

Comment did a little workshop Lycaon 09:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The edges look clearly cut-out at high resolution. --MichaelMaggs 10:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They are ;-) This was just a little spielerei... Lycaon 11:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Romary 09:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 15:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panthera tigris sumatran subspecies.jpg - delisted[edit]

Info created and uploaded by Monika Betley - nominated by flamurai
Comment Please link to the original FPC before delisting. This (and these votes) should be taken into consideration. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 15:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2004 – flamurai 18:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Low resolution, blurry. – flamurai 06:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Low-res,blurry and obvious zoo pic. --SvonHalenbach 11:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --WarX 19:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Drini 19:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Resolution too low, blurry, distracting background.
Delist - ditto to SvonHalenbach - MPF 22:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Yep! resolution too low. Ss181292 20:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This is worse than Lynx kitten.jpg --Digon3 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per SvonHalenbach. --MichaelMaggs 12:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if originator can upload a higher-resolution version with a small amount of sharpening. Fg2 01:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment originator's last contribution was 11 Jan 2006. – flamurai 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Lycaon 15:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Gorgo 23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it was good enough for us just 2 years ago, why should we delist it now? Unless there are other featured tiger pictures that are a lot better than this one... —the preceding unsigned comment is by Vmenkov (talk • contribs) 10:10, 4 December 2006

"Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly 'good enough', this is no longer the case." The Technical quality of this picture is really bad. Besides, featured pictures is not about picking one picture that is better than some others, but it's about what we believe to be the best pictures on commons. -- Gorgo 20:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 4 keep, 9 delist >> delisted Alvesgaspar 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bryce Canyon Hoodoos 4 perspective.jpg[edit]

Original version (left) - not featured[edit]

Info Picture of the Bryce Canyon Hoodoos from below. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Digon3
Support --Digon3 18:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a nice picture, but it is blurry ~~and low-res.~~ Not special.--SvonHalenbach 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by low res? It is 1420x1893. --Digon3 20:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i meant if it would be 2000px × 3000px and sharp, i would have voted for it, not against. --SvonHalenbach 11:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is a crop, and my camera has a max resolution of 1704x2272. The original picture is here. --Digon3 17:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I wouldn't exactly call this low res (rather medium res, and that's just fine), but I agree that sharpness is lacking. Lycaon 08:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image is fantastic. I cannot see a sharpness problem. There's no resolution problem. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - spoilt by the metal cage / fence at the top right of the slope. Shame, as it is otherwise nice. - MPF 23:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New version (right) - not featured[edit]

Info The second version does not have the metal cage or fence and is slightly sharpened--Digon3 17:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support edited version - MPF 00:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to Fir002's excessive nominations this was skipped over. I'll try it again in a month or two. --Digon3 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 08:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hoverflies mating midair.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by Fir0002 - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by Tarawneh --Tarawneh 23:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tarawneh 23:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice resolution, clarity. Cool! Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 00:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Support Very nice picture, excellent DOF. Looks like male on top. ~~Missing species name though (shouldn't be that difficult with a little bit of effort)~~ Lycaon 00:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did a little bit of effort myself (5 minutes on Google). The species is Melangyna viridiceps (Macquart, 1847). It is often referred to in Australia as the Common Hoverfly and belongs to the subfamily Syrphinae of the family Syrphidae. -- Lycaon 08:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow, how did you do that? --SvonHalenbach 00:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 05:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also want to know about the "how" :) --Diligent 06:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About 3 days of shooting and a lot of persistence. Taken at 150mm, ISO 400, f/13, 1/320 sec with flash --Fir0002 www 22:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice picture; nice resolution and colors --Rilou2000 08:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique shot, superb image. Alvesgaspar 08:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you post the exif information, please? --MichaelMaggs 10:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 08:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 21:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prevert^(talk) 12:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 16:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Thermos 20:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Chabacano 09:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 22:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! Fir0002: little enhancements are possible (reduced noise, sharpen), try neatimage this is a great tool. --Olei 19:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Barao78 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC) - Impressive!![reply]
Support. Awesome. guillom 11:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Vmenkov 03:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support what else?!--AngMoKio 13:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! In mid-air! That's hard to focus, yet this photo is perfectly focused! --Wing-Chi 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   21 support, 0 oppose (WoW) >> featured Alvesgaspar 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ostrich - melbourne zoo.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 00:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Anna reg 17:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)--[reply]
Oppose Overexpose fragments Lestat 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not exceptionnal --Luc Viatour 05:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lacen 07:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Luc -- Lycaon 10:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I cant decide,.... yes it looks good, but,... I don't know the but thats why it gets neutral :) Amada44 22:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Meerkat - melbourne zoo.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 00:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a quality image. --SvonHalenbach 01:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shry tales 03:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Javierme 22:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose over exposed Evalutieambtenaar 11:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tail cut Lycaon 08:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support By the way, I don't think the tail is cut. --Wing-Chi 21:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment maybe I did not express myself clearly: the tail is severed, the animal is injured, the poor thing has his distal part cut off, ... :-/ Lycaon 22:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Peacock front02 - melbourne zoo.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 00:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a quality image. not more. --SvonHalenbach 00:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have a FP of a peacock here IMO with a better composition. Alvesgaspar 08:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 15:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 17:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC) - too much cropped off.[reply]
Oppose – flamurai 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Ss181292. guillom 10:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sturts desert pea.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 00:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beatiful image. However the subject is not clear because of tight crop. Caption should mention scientific name of plant: Clianthus formosus. Alvesgaspar 10:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now Swainsona formosa. Added it to the page - MPF

Oppose for the reasons given by Alvesgaspar.--MichaelMaggs 10:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - ditto to Alvesgaspar on the tight cropping, would have been nicer with some more foliage. - MPF 21:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colors Evalutieambtenaar 11:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 2 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tiger - melbourne zoo.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 00:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Selfnomination should not be allowed here. --SvonHalenbach 00:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They should be allowed, just not excessively --Digon3 03:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Digon3, the F in FP stands for Featured, not for Fir0002. ;-) -- Lycaon 07:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol That was good. --66.36.143.72 13:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it Arad --Fir0002 www 22:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Image cluttered, crop too tight , distracting foreground and background. Quite far form FP standards, although the image of the tiger is clear and sharp. Alvesgaspar 08:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the composition of this image I tried to incorporate the surroundings as much as possible to make it look natural --Fir0002 www 10:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar.--MichaelMaggs 10:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the background is too bright and then, too disctractive. Cyril 10:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral actually i like the tiger with that background...it shows how well the tiger is hidden in such surroundings.--AngMoKio 13:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with AngMoKio -- Lerdsuwa 15:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop – flamurai 18:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I usually don't like zoo pics and vote against them, but in this one, there's nothing to indicate that it is in a zoo, no human artefacts, and the vegetation isn't visibly trampled by the cage inhabitant(s). This pic could have been in natural conditions, only the honesty of the photographer to show otherwise. - MPF 21:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Evalutieambtenaar 11:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack MPF --Ikiwaner 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too messy with all branches and leaves, even if that might be natural I would prefer a more clean image. /Daniel78 23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 17:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 18:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 1 neutral, 9 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PasserDomesticusTree.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Thermos --Thermos 18:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original version (left)[edit]

Support --Thermos 18:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no. sorry. --SvonHalenbach 18:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral only neutral bcs the white balance has to get fixed a bit. The composition is really good. Bird and the trunk are placed perfect in the photo and i like the atmosphere. Just one hint: Dont use the "auto white balance" in your camera...your 20D can do much better (white-balance-wise) --AngMoKio 19:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support natural color --Luc Viatour 05:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support simple albeit perfect. --Diligent 14:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support sharp and warm colours norro 16:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but rear part of bird and tail merges into the tree trunk. --MichaelMaggs 16:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really like the composition, although a little crop could be done. But the background doesn't contrast enough with the beautiful colours of the bird. Alvesgaspar 12:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 13:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. --Wing-Chi 21:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 5 support, 2 neutral, 3 oppose >>  not featured Alvesgaspar 23:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New version (right) - not featured[edit]

Comment added a new version with the white balance fixed --AngMoKio 13:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the right version --AngMoKio 15:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rear part of bird and tail still merges into the tree trunk.--MichaelMaggs 14:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 13:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >>  not featured Alvesgaspar 23:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:P8126516.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info Masjid Negara , Malaysia uploaded by Omar86 - nominated by Omar86 20:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Omar86 20:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Leaning, no description. --startaq 02:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a nice perspective, but not a good enough photo to be FP. No explanations, visible grain in full resolution, leaning and people showing. Alvesgaspar 12:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too plain --mh 15:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gordo 22:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 4 oppose >>  not featured Alvesgaspar 23:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sozopol-dinev-1.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Evgeni Dinev - uploaded by Martyr - nominated by Chabacano --Chabacano 15:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chabacano 15:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Isha 15:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good composition, but low resolution norro 18:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res -- Gorgo 20:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Davax 22:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although it is a nice composition. I may support a higher resolution version. Alvesgaspar 11:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would support at higher resolution.--MichaelMaggs 14:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too low res. --mh 15:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - colours look a bit unreal, artificial - MPF 17:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info Its a pity for this image that is excellent in any way but resolution is too low. A few lines further down on this page a majority thinks "guidelines are just guidelines" and votes for a picture that has even a lower resolution than this. We're doing a bad job in selecting the really best images sometimes. --Ikiwaner 18:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with MPF. I think those colours have been altered with software. --AngMoKio 08:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an HDR. The lightened sky above the water is consistant with Photomatrix (a HDR rendering software) --Digon3

Oppose Resolution is too low, otherwise a very nice image. /Daniel78 23:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution Ansett 13:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 9 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DTM car mercedes2006 Haekkinen racing.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 15:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the photo shows very well the high speed of such a racing car. It is a quite difficult shot where a good timing is helpful :)
Support --AngMoKio 15:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 20:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the lighting is very flat and the fg/bg contrast is not great enough... the image doesn't "pop" like I'd expect a car to; the crop is bad... it actually makes the car appear to be moving in reverse since it's in the back half of the frame. I know this is a tough subject to photograph, but that's not enough to make a FP. – flamurai 22:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - have to agree with Flamurai - MPF 18:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for your comments. I tried to improve the bg/fg-contrast a bit. Dont know if it is really better. What do you think? --AngMoKio 19:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Hi-tacks 17:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

could you elaborate what you dont like?--AngMoKio 20:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - (the right image) /Daniel78 23:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

could you elaborate what you dont like?--AngMoKio 15:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Technique is good, good panning action with appropiate shutter speed, however, the care is "leaving" the scene, just an instant too late. Timing is of essence in this type of pix. Car should have been perpendicular to camera or perhaps a bit to the right. --Tomascastelazo 02:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks better when it's not perpendicular as you get more depth feeling. /Daniel78 17:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gare de Xi'an - juillet 2002.png - not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Gloumouth1 17:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Gloumouth1 17:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice picture, but the quality is quite bad. It's very grainy, large part is overexposed and resolution is not that great either. -- Gorgo 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The charm of this photo is given by the composition and the expression of people. However I don't like the legs in the background, and the technical quality is quite poor Alvesgaspar 20:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The grainy look of that photo is no problem for me...it gives a b/w-photo character and often supports the atmosphere. The peoples expressions are nice captured.--AngMoKio 12:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mh 15:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not very attractive MPF 18:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know why but I like this photo. Lestat 22:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a great photo. Not everything has to be attractive. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low quality -- Lycaon 18:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support expression is nice Tatoute 09:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice expression, but the legs in the background are disturbing. The lower part of the picture is underexposed and framing could be better (centered caharacters, right shoe cut out). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vmenkov 03:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The charm of the picture is in the pose it captures. The technical deficits are minor in comparison. ~ trialsanderrors 10:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glacier2.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Cribananda - uploaded by Cribananda - nominated by Cribananda --Cribananda 23:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition -- Gorgo 01:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition, no context, no sense of scale. Alvesgaspar 12:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Composition -- Fabien1309 16:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Composition Again Ansett 12:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 19:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks like a negative --Digon3 17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 6 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 23:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:433px-Pope Pius VII.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Painting of Pius VII by Jacques-Louis David.

Support Of course! I like this painting. --Green Bonsai 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution is too low. --MichaelMaggs 20:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose res way too low -- Gorgo 01:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too low of a resolution. Zzyzx11 09:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quote: A resolution of at least 2 million pixel (e.g. 2000 x 1000) seems reasonable right now Lycaon 10:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 23:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Elferkogel Panorama.jpg[edit]

Info created by Günter Seggebäing - uploaded by Watzmann - nominated by Skies

--Skies 17:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old one (left) - not featured[edit]

Support --Skies 17:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AngMoKio 18:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I'd like it better without the right-hand-most frame, shadowed and with the sun glare - MPF 18:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very nice, but terrible stitching errors. The right quarter of the image looks completely seperated from the rest. norro 18:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone want to have a go at cropping off the right quarter and post it here as [Image:Elferkogel Panora.jpg] ? That might be voted more favourably - MPF 18:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sun glare Lestat 22:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 13:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New one (right) - not featured[edit]

Comment Any preferers? Skies 13:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not sufficently interesting for FP in my view.--MichaelMaggs 17:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with MichaelMaggs. Image needs more space around the main subject. Alvesgaspar 19:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 13:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yatadera-temple Kyoto.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info created an uploaded by Tomomarusan - nominated by --SvonHalenbach 17:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find the amosphere quite special. --SvonHalenbach 17:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support fine B.navez 17:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice; ditto to Svon. Wishing I could read Japanese! - MPF 17:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 20:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC) - perspective[reply]
Oppose The AWB can't cope with the yellow light. Suggest fixing the colour cast. --MichaelMaggs 22:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Oppose I also like the atmosphere. Support if perspective is corrected. Alvesgaspar 22:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice! --mh 13:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would appreciate more encyclopedic informations: what temple is it (bouddhist? shintoist? any special divinity worshiped there?) is it a special light celebration / pumpkin celebration or are the artifacts there all the time? --Diligent 13:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a Buddhist temple devoted to Jizo. A Google search for 矢田寺　京都寺町 gives some links with additional photos, some showing the lanterns. The lanterns appear to be permanent; the pumpkins and chrysanthemums seasonal. Fg2 05:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition. sorry: nice photo

 4 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dez06 079.jpg[edit]

Info created by Calauer - uploaded by [[User:calauer|Calauer] - nominated by [[User:calauer|Calauer] --Calauer 10:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original version (left) - not featured[edit]

Support --Calauer 10:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can the color and contrast be enhanced a bit ? --SvonHalenbach 13:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral great composition; especially those people are placed perfect in the photo and make it a very interesting photo. Though i agree that there should be done sth abt the contrast (there is no real black spot in the photo, thats mostly no good sign)..if this is fixed i support. --AngMoKio 13:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 neutral >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version (right)[edit]

Oppose Visible artifacts in the grass. Alvesgaspar 17:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, now the color is a bit better, but did you notice that the tree on the left side is really unsharp? It needs to be cut out with some of the foreground. But then it is not big enough to be a featured picure and the fog in the background is a bit too grainy. You should consider to buy a better camera, if you want to make good pictures. The overall quality looks like you did it with a camera of a mobilephone. --SvonHalenbach 18:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support FML ^hi 05:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too hazy on upper-left especially. Not of sufficient quality, though very beautiful. Stephen.job 08:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dez06 025.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Calauer - uploaded by Calauer - nominated by Calauer --Calauer 16:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Calauer 16:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed lake --Digon3 17:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind the overexposure because it contributes to the overall beauty and irreality of the image. What I don't like is the grain in full resolution, which seems excessive in the dark zones. Alvesgaspar 16:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad filename, fuzzy and I don't like the overxposure. /Daniel78 18:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{comment}} That's no lake, that's fog. Sorry about the stupid name Calauer 09:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose White balance, overexposure/contrast in general. Nice shot though; must have been beautiful to see. Stephen.job 09:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Milkmaid-and-Moose-Cow-hp4080.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Alexander Minaev - uploaded and nominated by Vmenkov --Vmenkov 21:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The resolution is unfortunately fairly low, but I really liked the content --Vmenkov 21:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quote: A resolution of at least 2 million pixel (e.g. 2000 x 1000) seems reasonable right now. This is less than half that. Lycaon 07:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to EXIF data, the picture was taken in 2003. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is funny. The Moose has a nice look and it is unusual (for me) to see a moose on a string like a cow. but, I think that the image is not exceptional. But it is a nice snap-shot. Amada44 11:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ditto Amada44. Framing is too tight and composition is too static. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great photo; poor quality. Stephen.job 09:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kongespeilet.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by unknown - uploaded by Haabet - nominated by Jon Harald Søby Jon Harald Søby 09:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 09:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not that I have anything against paleography atlases, but it would be useful to provide more of a context as to the significance of this particular document, or even better a link to a relevant Wiki article (even if it is in Swedish or Norwegian). Vmenkov 09:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted, top is cut off. – flamurai 12:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Vmenkov. Also, I don't see why a copy of an old written document should be considered a FP. Alvesgaspar 15:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info Could you tell me about this photo through my talk page? Thank you. LaleenaWiki 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the description page of the image should tell more about what document this is. /Daniel78 18:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Alvesgaspar. Stephen.job 09:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 14:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panteon Asuncion Paraguay.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Ilosuna - uploaded by Ilosuna - nominated by Mauricio Maluff 3M 図 15:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 3M 図 15:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too hard contrast between light-in and shadow-in partsB.navez 09:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the same grounds. --MichaelMaggs 14:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong shadow, and also a cable going across the lower part. Noebu 16:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose obvious. Stephen.job 08:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PicoParana2006-3.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Sergiolfr - uploaded by Sergiolfr - nominated by João Felipe C.S 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC) --João Felipe C.S 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --João Felipe C.S 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cause of composition. Would be nicer to see more of the foreground instead of the sky -- Simonizer 07:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a good quality picture technically speaking. But I agree with Simonizer, the compostion is poor for lack of a better foreground. Alvesgaspar 10:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition could be better,... Amada44 22:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition. Stephen.job 09:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Life Saint-Austremoine Issoire bottom.jpg[edit]

Info created by Jastrow - uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by Javierme --Javierme 19:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Javierme 19:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Alvesgaspar 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is a bit too tight. Snowwayout 22:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very easy to provide a larger framing. The picture was taken with a prime lens, with my back on the wall. If I choose to correct perspective, I cannot keep the whole black circle. This is the best I can do (see on the right). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new version is better and should be nominated. Snowwayout 22:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good, do keep up the good work. LaleenaWiki 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 07:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Romary 11:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support its really good!!!!! It would be even better with less croping as Snowwayout said allready! Amada44 22:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 22:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment new version is better than original. Should substitute. Alvesgaspar 12:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I should understand this. Do you suggest I should overwrite the older picture with this new one? (btw, this was a quick-and-dirty re-crop to show a slightly larger framing, the perspective transformation is not very good). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ack Alvesgaspar. The new version should be nominated. I will support it, if it is nominated.--Thermos 19:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because a better alternative exists. I will nominateStephen.job 08:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New image has been nominated as per suggestions here. See above. Admin/judge/anyone: can this image be taken off the list in light of the new one? Submitter has submitted the new version.Stephen.job 09:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Nomination withdrawn. Please considerer new version nominated in 11 December Alvesgaspar 09:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trombone.svg - featured[edit]

Try reading the numbers on this! (default 190px thumbnail)

Info Drawn and uploaded by Orem, inspired and nominated by WarX
Support --WarX 11:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MesserWoland Dyskusja 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Almost excellent image but the stair like diagonal lines bother me. Shouldn't be hard to fix. Once that is done consider this a support vote. --Cat out 16:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Support I guess it isn't fixable and not too important since a rendering issue. Wouldn't look bad on an article. I would suggest rottaing the image by 45 degrees so the object is diagonal. That would give it more room for length. --Cat out 14:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I looks like error in rendering. It's not because wrong control points, nor line properties. I've checked SVG source and it looks OK, maybe someone have any ideas? --WarX 18:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 17:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support if the blocky diagonals could be fixed.--MichaelMaggs 17:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack cool cat -- Lycaon 17:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Herr Kriss 22:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ proportions are off, which makes it look cartoonish. See [1] for a photo from a similar perspective. (another photo) The tube is too thick, the slide is too short, and the curve at the front of the slide is not right... it's not just a simple single-radius curve (should look like [2]). Looks more like an alto trombone than a tenor trombone (as the description says). I understand that these are things non-musicians might not pick up on, but I strongly believe inaccurate images should not be featured. I would support this with modifications, because artistically it's well executed. The artist needs to look at a few more source images instead of just trying to copy an old engraving. – flamurai 22:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for your opinion and examples - I tried to fix the problems with front curve and tube. About the length of instrument - of course it was too short. After my expiriences with piano, I think that very wide pictures somtimes doesn't look good in articles, and in general there must by very large size of picture used, to show all details and numbering (please, see below) - so I "cutted" the main slide of trombone, and place the smaller picture of instrument in real proportions. Maybe that will be better? Orem 00:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think the changes help a lot. – flamurai 00:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The diagonals still look blocky, though, especially where the tubing starts to open out towards the bell. --MichaelMaggs 13:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as not fixed. Would reconsider if this were done.--MichaelMaggs 12:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --MichaelMaggs 16:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't comment on Flamurai's points, but also the numbering is too small, it won't be readable on a 190px width thumb (the default size) in a wiki article (see above right) - MPF 23:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thumb default size can be changed in preferences and as far as I know (especially on pl.wiki) nobody uses default settings, but tunes them to get desired effect! Rotating 90 degrees ccw crashes your smallnes argument :P --WarX 00:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's a rather bold statement! Have you asked everyone, including those who don't have a member page but just log on from an IP number? Rotating the image 90° would indeed solve the problem, but it hasn't been done, and if done, would need further editing so that the numbers weren't sideways - MPF 14:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see no reason why the number size shouldn't be increased to the size (relative to the trombone) shown in the edited version right. There is space for it, or for even larger numbering. If that's done, then I could support. - MPF 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I considered the enlargment of numbers, but I don't think it's very good idea - numbers on image page would be too big. I know, that you probably won't be satisfied - but please note that schemes like this in general have to be used in larger size - because in the default size, smaller elements of picture are hard to see. So, it should be used in articles as wide, as is needed to see the small elements. That's why I "cutted" the instrument, to make the picture not so wide, and why IMO larger numbers are not necessary. Please, look at article about piano on pl-wiki, there are examples (also with small numbers). Orem 16:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support change my vote to support based on new image. (I'd still like to see the front of the slide tweaked if possible... I think you need to use a custom path to get it perfect.) – flamurai 09:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After small correction of shape, I think, the front of main slide looks better. Orem 16:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 21:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support but i notice imperfections in perspective. Transverse parts like 6 & 7, but also smaller ones looks like in the plane of the image Tatoute 09:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support quite useful. --mh 12:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks useful. feydey ^(talk) 17:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lacen 07:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AM 12:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution and wuality. Not exceptional vector work. Stephen.job 08:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 14 support, 3 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 13:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Macropodus opercularis - front (aka).jpg - featured[edit]

Info Macropodus operculari - created and uploaded by Aka, nominated by Fabien1309
Support -- Fabien1309 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support – flamurai 18:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colors. --SvonHalenbach 11:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing. Jon Harald Søby 11:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 15:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 16:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 17:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose half of the pic is blur--Hi-tacks 17:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great --AngMoKio 20:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose could be so much better with more depth of field - as Hi-tacks says, the rear half of the fish is very blurred - MPF 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the position of the fish and the colouring. I don't like the noise at full resolution. Alvesgaspar 23:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not good at editing but I wonder if something can be done even if we have to sacrifice some resolution. Alvesgaspar 12:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 22:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vmenkov 03:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 16:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the back of the fish being blurred. Isn't it an artistic effect to have a clear head emerging from a blurry background? --Wing-Chi 21:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support FML ^hi 05:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fish looks great! I like what other people don't like: that the fish becomes quite blured. Its nice!!. What don't like at all is the background. It is to sterile. to much aquarium. sorry :( Amada44 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very good. -- Pjotr 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very beautiful, but poor DOF and noise at high-res. Great photo! Stephen.job 08:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF Lycaon 19:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 14 support, 6 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 23:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Supreme pizza.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info A supreme pizza - created by U.S Agricultural Research Service, uploaded by BLueFiSH.as and nominated by Fabien1309
Support -- Fabien1309 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad cut ;-) -- Lycaon 06:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is there a better way of making a shot of pizza? norro 16:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop --Digon3 17:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too "stock photo" – flamurai 03:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hmmm, delicious! I get hungry when i see this. --SvonHalenbach 10:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop, bad cut, not very inviting. -- AM 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like AM, there is also to much pepperoni and olives on the pizza ;) --Jacopo86 21:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad crop, a better way is too have the entire pizza in the shot. Zzyzx11 22:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gordo 17:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but the style for this food photography is in my opinion not contemporary. The arragement of the tomatoes, mushrooms and olive oil are too obvious, too much -arranged-. What comes good in food photographs is to have the background a bit blurred. The Pizza looks fantastic though. Would love to have it in front of me :-) Amada44 10:3, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Nice picture, and thanks for making me hungry ;), but DoF is dubious on the upper crust. Sorry! Stephen.job 09:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jeses 18:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Im getting hungry. Tomatoes and stuff in the background is nice...[reply]

 5 support, 9 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Footprints in sand.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Footprints in sand. Created and uploaded by Tintazul, nominated by Fabien1309
Support -- Fabien1309 18:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose clichéd, and not technically excellent enough to overcome it. – flamurai 18:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Flamurai. Even though it's a nice picture, the subject is tired and overdone. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing picture, both tecnically and aestheticaly. Maybe the subject is tired, but not in Commons, as far as I know. Alvesgaspar 21:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I think it would be better if the person was unshod when walking there… Jon Harald Søby 11:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but I just don't get what is special about this picture. --Digon3 17:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same Ansett 12:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wing-Chi 21:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Beautiful subject matter; unexceptional photograph. Stephen.job 08:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tschierva glacier 1.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Tschierva glacier in the Engadin, Swizerland, as seen from Piz Corvatsch. The high peak dominating the center left of the image is Piz Bernina decorated with the Biancograt a distinct ice ridge. Piz Bernina is the only mountain exceeding 4000m in Engadin. The peak on the right is Piz Roseg. The Tschierva hut is visible above the left glacier moraine. Check out the full-size image. created, uploaded, and nominated by --Dschwen 19:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 20:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is a very good picture technically speaking. I like the presence of people, because it gives a scale to the montains. But I'm not sure about the interest of the composition. As I said about the other mountain panorama below, let's wait for other opinions. Alvesgaspar 21:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bit noisy (high iso?) and stitching/cropping error on the right top side. -- Lycaon 10:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not high iso, but blue sky tends to look a bit noisy in my camera. The rest of the pic has a very low noise level. And yes there is a cropping error. I cannot believe I didn't see it. I'll address both concerns with an edit soon. --Dschwen 11:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject matter is striking but the photograph itself is not. This is just a straight record-shot with little photographic skill demonstrated (I'm not criticising the level of skill involved, simply saying it doesn't come across in the image). For a FP I'd expect a more interesting viewpoint and/or better lighting. A nice picture, yes, but not I think of FP quality. --MichaelMaggs 12:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have to agree with MichaelMaggs -- Simonizer 15:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info. Ah well, forget it then, don't wait for the edit. --Dschwen 20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stephen.job 08:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 00:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bizkaiko zubia behelainorekin.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Bizkaia Bridge with fog, created by PabloFausto - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Javierme --Javierme 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support As expected in a foggy day, some parts are blurry, but it's quite evocative. Not the clearest view of the bridge, but it reminds me of today's picture of the day --Javierme 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just a snapshot of some roofs, with no information about what or where... Lycaon 20:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is no real composition visible. Those antennas at the left upper corner are also a bit disturbing. --AngMoKio 08:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with opposers: common snapshot, not an interesting composition. Alvesgaspar 08:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry :( Amada44 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A better composition could be possible B.navez 09:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 08:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carps in the pond of Agdal palace in Marrakech - not featured[edit]

Info created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by Simonizer 08:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice if Luc adds a description of the picture and someone can name the species

afflicted I do not know the species --Luc Viatour 12:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it is a carp, typical pond fish (see: Image:Carp.jpg and Cyprinus carpio but the context? were you feeding them? are they agonizing in a drought? Diligent

They eat; -) I changed description, if you can check my bad English? --Luc Viatour 08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Diligent

Support Great photo. A good capture of a moment -- Simonizer 08:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would like to see it closer, so that you can better see and feel the action and the panic of those fishes norro 16:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportB.navez 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unlike norro, I would like to see it further away. I prefer this one , here we have a context and a sense of scale. Alvesgaspar 23:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good capture of movement --Jacopo86 11:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --mh 13:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 13:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit chaotic ;-) as thumb though. -- Lycaon 19:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really an ordinary image of carps in pond, missing context, lack of adequate visual attraction, color, etc. --Tomascastelazo 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto Tomascastelazo -- Gorgo 01:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice capture; good quality--AngMoKio 13:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 19:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the picture - Vmenkov 10:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: great subject matter, but really just an ordinary picture. sorry Stephen.job 09:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 8 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 08:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ribnisko jezero.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by Lacen - uploaded by Lacen - nominated by Tone --Tone 18:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tone 18:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mihael Simonič 19:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support - very nice photo, ~~but the resolution, at 170kB, is too low even for me~~ . . . change to support with hi res now - MPF ~~22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)~~MPF 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - nice, common photo ~~with poor resolution.~~ Neutral Alvesgaspar 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Too low resolution ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 11:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've added the original picture. --Lacen 17:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info Note, that the resolution is now over 2000×3000px ! And real sharp.
Support Now it is kind of special. --SvonHalenbach 17:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not that extraordinary -- Gorgo 01:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrejj 11:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unextraordinary; dubious focus. Stephen.job 08:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--No-w-ay 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Passerella iliaca-001.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Mdf - uploaded by Factumquintus - nominated by Arad --Arad 02:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arad 02:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting! Not more resolution? --Luc Viatour 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool! --mh 12:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small, otherwise certain support. Lycaon 15:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment quote: A resolution of at least 2 million pixel (e.g. 2000 x 1000) seems reasonable right now Lycaon 19:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support extraordinarly fine for this size.B.navez 16:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gordo 22:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Green Bonsai 16:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very nice, but resolution is < 1 mp -- Gorgo 01:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lacen 07:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice picture, but not exceptional due to small size and branch in foreground. Mdf can do better. Alvesgaspar 12:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar --SvonHalenbach 09:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - would support but for that twig across its legs. Comment "Not more resolution?" - not easy to get with a wild bird. I'd assume this is likely cropped from the middle of a much larger pic. - MPF 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Small size and distracting branch. --MichaelMaggs 22:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very very beautiful, and a damned shame about the branch pointed out by Alvesgaspar.Stephen.job 08:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 1 neutral, 7 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Door of the Bahia palace in Marrakech - not featured[edit]

File:Maroc Marrakech Bahia tilt.jpg

Info created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by Remi Diligent --Diligent 13:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 13:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please correct the tilt! Alvesgaspar 14:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

corrected --Luc Viatour 14:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not enough. I really like the composition and the delicacy of the colouring. But the camera was not horizontal and the shot was not perfectly centered with the doors. The resulting tilt is disturbing (our sight is very sensitive to small tilts). I believe a small correction is still possible. Alvesgaspar 15:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still improved, I aligned on a grid, thank --Luc Viatour 06:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lycaon 15:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Somehow surreal --Thermos 16:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
~~Support~~ I think that the building is not perfectly centered nor horizontal, and not the photo. Follow the lines on the pavements.B.navez 16:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Oppose Please remove this gray wall, it was far better before ;the frame making the value of the picture. B.navez 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilt, outer wall unnaceptably over exposed, it almost seems as if the image was cut out. --Tomascastelazo 20:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cause of the overexposed white wall -- Simonizer 07:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To me this is giving the impression felt so many times of being "blinded" by the extreem whiteness of outer walls in the sun in arab countries, Greece and south of Spain. I wouldn't talk of photographic overexposition but of natural light effect. --Diligent 11:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. How can pure white (RGB 255,255,255) be overexposed when it is lit by bright sunlight ??? Lycaon 11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment cause there is no pure white in nature or outside enviroment -- Simonizer 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Representing white in photography is where technical mastery of the medium is shown. The texture of the white could have been shown by making an exposure reading on the white and then adjust exposure to place it in Zone VIII or Zone IX. The shadow areas then would have fallen below the current luminosity range but could have been dodged in order to reduce the range within the image. This is easily resolved when done from the moment the picture is taken. As it stands, the white falls outside the gray scale range. Now, as far as thinking that the wall in reality is represented by RGB 255, 255, 255 is a wrong assumption, if texture can be seen, then it is not pure white. One thing is for our brain to represent something as white, and another thing is for it to be white. Photographically speaking, the wall should be represented as a shade of gray. The wall will never be as white as the sun. Now, that is white!--Tomascastelazo 18:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentTomás, this time I must admit you are correct, and I made a silly mistake. I remeasured the colour values of the wall: they are RGB 251, 251, 251 ... a shade of... gray!! Isn't that masterful? ;-) -- Lycaon 20:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lycaon, there is no trick in measuring image values after-the-fact. The real trick is to measure them in situ, adjust exposure and place them in a luminosity value (zone) one wants, that is to say that if converted to a gray scale, the area would show in a particular shade of gray by choice, not where the camera wants. But of course, it is a futile discussion now that technology has replaced old knowledge. Who needs drivers? ;o) --Tomascastelazo 02:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Due to composition and colouring and despite slight tilt. Alvesgaspar 13:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Olegivvit 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because it is tilt (easy to change). The overexposed walls are a perfect frame, pointing to the glaring sunlight of the region. -- AM 14:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral composition is ok; could be a bit sharper (maybe a higher aperture number would make the lense perfrom better?!); some noise. --AngMoKio 13:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I detect no tilt (presumably it has been corrected as I see the pic has been re-uploaded) - MPF 22:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a slight counterclockwise tilt of the doors and step, as we can see in the image at right. Alvesgaspar 10:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is that a tilt in the camera, or a real tilt in the building? The front doorstep (at the very bottom of the main pic) is level, so is therefore not at perfectly 90° to the interior doorstep and the door frame. How long till someone posts a pic of the Leaning Tower of Pisa for FPC, and it gets rejected for tilt?? :-) - MPF 12:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose White balance and DoF Stephen.job 08:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 5 support, 1 neutral, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 13:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Desinsertion du muscle CO.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by en:Bticho as en:Image:Disinserting the muscle.JPG - uploaded on Commons by Pedro38 - nominated by B.navez --B.navez 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- technical, precise and impressive B.navez 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose far to small for FP. size issues resolved -- Lycaon 18:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re-uploaded full size B.navez 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I think its size is perfectly reasonable, and is a very informative image. ~Masquatto 06:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 06:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 06:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I, personally, want more of informative pictures like this one! --Diligent 08:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Olegivvit 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. We need more of such pics. -- AM 14:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zzyzx11 09:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 10:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 13:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good surgery photo. Noebu 18:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 13:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a quite encyclopedic image. 195.182.156.71 20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC) please log in to vote. Lycaon 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ack Diligent. --Wing-Chi 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 11:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It isn't pleasure to look for pictures like that, but... :) Borkowicz 17:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very illustrative, interesting image, but dubious shade and quality in the left third. Stephen.job 08:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 14 support, 2 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 21:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ingres, Napoleon on his Imperial throne.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Napoleon on his Imperial throne by Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres (1780–1867), painted 1806

Support I think that's a great painting. --Green Bonsai 15:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's a nice picture, but resolution is quite low -- Gorgo 01:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quote: A resolution of at least 2 million pixel (e.g. 2000 x 1000) seems reasonable right now Lycaon 10:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: the res. is low, but the picture is not standard ratio, and is instead long and narrow. the quality is doubtful (look at the knees), but the picture is very nice. Stephen.job 08:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 16:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Treehaifa.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Grandmaster - uploaded by Grandmaster - nominated by Grandmaster --Grandmaster 11:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Grandmaster 11:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no identification - MPF 12:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose subject centered, disturbing background Simonizer 13:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- subject (flower cluster) does not fill frame, not clear if background foliage is same plant, species not identified. Wsiegmund 18:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very special, and I agree about the disturbing background. /Daniel78 20:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, not for featured picture. I have added identification and latin name. Can someone reformat the names I have added to "how it should be done"? I would like to see it as an example! thanxs. Amada44 13:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 13:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sketch chasmosaurus.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by and self-nominated by Tbc.

This image depicts a en:Chasmosaurus. It is a grayscale sketch because colors are always fanciful with dinosaurs. It is anatomically correct and was reviewed here.

Oppose it has a watermark. gren 04:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi gren, what do you mean? norro 10:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means the small signature in the right bottom corner (which imo is not bothering) Lycaon 19:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I'm sure the head is right (as per the above review), but I find the leg posture looks a bit odd, particularly the left hind leg which looks as though the knee sticks out at an odd angle (should it not be more forward-pointing?). Also what's the latest thinking on tail stiffness? Should the tail be straighter? - MPF 00:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose artistic quality and watermarkStephen.job 08:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 oppose, 1 neutral >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 12:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Saab 91C 01.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Towpilot - uploaded by Towpilot - nominated by Liftarn --Liftarn 19:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lovley image. Good quality and the subject is difficult to find and I especially like that it's a photo of the plane in the air rather than in a museum. //Liftarn 19:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Green Bonsai 20:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose colours, noise, size -- Lycaon 10:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Correct, non-exceptional picture. Small size. Documental value is not affected for not being FP.Alvesgaspar 12:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good picture but not FP for me because of its resolution and of its noise -- Fabien1309 14:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ansett 12:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 12:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose non-exceptional, but nice Stephen.job 08:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportB.navez 11:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 20:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dez06_026.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Calauer - uploaded by Calauer - nominated by Calauer --Calauer 16:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Calauer 16:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you might want to start using more descriptive filenames. --Dschwen 13:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is something weird on the top right 2/3. Bad editing? --Digon3 17:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - slightly tilted (see trees and fire tower), needs rotating a degree or so ccw. Ditto to Dschwen on filename, but can't see Digon3's problem. - MPF 22:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the sky above the clouds at 4/5. It goes from light to dark very quickly --Digon3 16:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats no sky on the top, thats a mountain uprising from the clouds which are actually fog on about 1000m sea level. Sorry about the file name, it's stupid I see Calauer 09:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support There is some magic in this picture. I like the tower emerging from the sea of clouds and the faint grades of gray in the background. Alvesgaspar 15:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nope. cant see it :( Amada44 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose darkness on lower trees Stephen.job 08:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 17:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Siberischer tiger de edit02.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by S. Taheri - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by Arad --Arad 20:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm amazed how come this is not FP yet. I don't need to explain why i like it. So here it is --Arad 20:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, it is not FP because nobody nominated it before! Great picture. Alvesgaspar 20:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why i nominated it. ;-) --Arad 21:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jacopo86 21:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zzyzx11 22:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tarawneh 08:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ansett 13:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 13:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened, prefer original. Dori | Talk 18:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M_loewen8:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 22:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wing-Chi 21:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 12:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maire 00:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Borkowicz 17:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus is off around the outside of face, tips of ears, and neck! This is not obvious, but the DOF prevents a real sharpness and perfect technical value. Sorry! Beautiful Shot.Stephen.job 08:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sometimes the tiger has to move his ear. I don't want to ask him to stay absolutley still. --SvonHalenbach 15:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 16 support, 2 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 19:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Knockarea sligo.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Giuseppe - uploaded by Giuseppe - nominated by Giuseppe --Perbeppo 16:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Perbeppo 16:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition and horizon balance (ground-heavy). DOF is universal... not quite technically excellent. Beautiful place though; must have been lovely. Stephen.job 14:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky is too uninteresting, The stones should be brighter and sharper. Did you see the crane on the left? --SvonHalenbach 15:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - that JCB over at the left, and the huge artificial mound of rock beyond it. Is it the edge of a big roadstone quarry? - MPF 22:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 17:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AmanitaMuscaria.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Noblesteed 02:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Noblesteed 02:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For this mushroom, best pictures are available for example this one : B.navez 03:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition — Lycaon 08:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There is too much stuff (i.e. grass and shadow) obscuring the mushroom. Stephen.job 08:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of th 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Charles Bridge and Moon.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info created by stephen.job - uploaded by stephen.job - nominated by stephen.job
Support and Comment Please feel free to edit this photo and to re-submit a new one for evaluation. I think some editing may be good for any photo, and this is the raw deal. I just don't know how to edit at all! CheersStephen.job 07:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A minimalist picture like this one should be technically perfect. And it isn't. There is a bluish fringe around Minervas's face and the pointing finger is blurred. Alvesgaspar 11:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ivy JM01.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Jmabel - uploaded by Jmabel - nominated by Jmabel --en:Jmabel | talk 08:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A self-nom, so it would be unseemly for me to vote on it as well. But I think it's a gorgeous shot. BTW, it looks much better higher-res (if you click through, you can see for yourself), I'm a little disappointed to see how it looks this scaled down. --en:Jmabel | talk 08:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad lighting, wrong id. — Lycaon 08:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you mean by "wrong id". As for bad lighting: ivy doesn't grow like this in well lit spaces. - en:Jmabel | talk 22:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ivy is Hedera helix, and that's a different plant (see here). Lycaon 23:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose uncertain subject, lack of scale. not outstanding, though very pretty. Stephen.job 08:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beatiful composition and colours. But I'm not sure yet it deserves FP status. Alvesgaspar 11:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Lycaon; wrong title, species not identified (it is probably a species in the family Vitaceae, but what, I'm not sure). Image re-catted to Cat:Unidentified plants. - MPF 01:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting, unidentified plants --Digon3 17:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:World Map 1689.JPG - featured[edit]

Info Assembled from smaller images by Tarawneh - uploaded by Tarawneh - nominated by Tarawneh --Tarawneh 04:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tarawneh 04:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 08:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Outstanding[reply]
Support wonderfull work. I'm all for it to be a featured picture but can it be "whitened" a bit (although that might come as a sinful suggestion to some purists)? --Diligent 09:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had the same idea, but then I thought it feels more authentic this way, after all it is almost 320 years old. --Tarawneh 15:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Gorgeous map! Alvesgaspar 10:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big, wonderfull, Yeah! Lestat 11:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 13:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of those cases where the high resolution is really important! Vmenkov 22:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great!!! --Tomascastelazo 02:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support yep! Lycaon 07:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --Digon3 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support woowww K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 22:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose should be SVG Just kidding, but the resolution could be even higher. Some labels are very hard to read. --Dschwen 09:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid we hit wikilimits, remeber the 20GB, I have a few others, almost 35MB, but I am too lazy to email Erik Moeller, he can arrange for an FTP connection or something. --Tarawneh 15:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy fix: increase resolution and compression level. The pic is overcompressed anyways, and you would make better use of the 20mb with more pixels. --Dschwen 08:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support A great job! We need more works like this one. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 07:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing!!! I had to laught at Dschwen comment ;) Amada44 22:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should the colours be vivified a little bit? I am not sure about how to approach this, as it is an historic image. LOL at Dschwen :). Support if consensus is that editing should not occur (judge, judge this!). Stephen.job 08:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Tarawneh FTW (for the world)! Thats Tarawneh for you with exceptional work (not her work but still). I dare anyone to SVGify it. >:D --Cat out 14:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree --Prevert^(talk) 19:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 17 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 09:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VerkehrsnetzMuenchen2006.png - featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Chumwa 08:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Alvesgaspar 11:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see anything excellent in it. Thats a plain map and not even in SVG. --SvonHalenbach 13:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is excellent for the purpose it was designed for, to depict the transport system in Munich. It is clear, informative and nice to look at. As for the svg, I believe it has become almost a religion here. My opinion is that the format is not the best choice for cartography, since every map is designed with a specific scale and to alter that scale for producing a different map is not always a trivial task Alvesgaspar 13:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentYes, sadly, SVG has become a matter of faith rather than reason. SVG is good, but it is not always better. In particular, SVG files cannot be read by most browsers (they crash mine, for example), the files tend to be very large, and the SVG converter here in Wikipedia is buggy. It's sad, really, that so many good diagrams are rejected not for content but for format. Madman2001 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Hear, hear! Well said! - MPF 13:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs to be SVG. Also, there is something wrong with the font anti-aliasing, it looks awful at full resolution. --startaq 15:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Content and design: Just great, I was just in Munich two weeks ago as a tourist, and that's the kind of map I would have liked to have (I got only two separate maps for tram and subway system). Therefore, support... BUT: could you please additionally upload it in vector format (SVG)? There's not more work for you, but vector format is just much better for this kind of content (for example, also good for hi-res printer) Noebu 20:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lot better than many a commercially produced map. - Vmenkov 21:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 16:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Change my vote to Support when it is SVG --Digon3 17:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tbc 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great map, but should be svg (printing, easy editing, translating, ...) and svg-images do have a specific scale, the difference is the possibility to resize them without loss and the possibility to edit them easily. -- Gorgo 21:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as to quality of picture, and particularly ditto to Alvesgaspar's comment against the ridiculous svg-worship at this place. But Comment - what is the true copyright status of the pic? Surely those transport logos (DB, MVV, etc) will be copyrighted by the relevant transport companies? - MPF 22:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not SVG. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 10:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really think svg is becoming a cult in Wikipedia. Because I love maps and have been dedicating a considerable time of my life studying, thinking and writing about them, please let me explain why I think the use of svg format in Cartography should be most careful:

A map is conceived and designed with a specific scale, whose choice is determined by the purpose of the representation and conditioned by the availability of accurate data. Traditionally, the positional accuracy of a map is linked to visual resolution. If we take a typical value of 0,2 mm (which is the thickness of a thin line), the corresponding distance on the surface of the Earth depends obviously on the scale of the map: 2m for a scale of 1:10 000, 20m for a scale of 1:100 000, 200m for a scale of 1:1 000 000, etc. The general rule is that the maximum positional error of any object on a map should be, at most, equal to that reference value. This obviously means that for larger scale maps we need more accurate geographic positions. And when we enlarge a map which was designed for a certain scale, say to twice its normal size, we are transmitting a wrong idea about the accuracy of its information.
Another problem is that when we alter the scale of a representation by a factor of “s” we are also altering the available area of that representation by a factor of “s x s”. If we enlarge it, we may end up with too much empty space and/or symbols too large; if we reduce it, the cartographic image may become too small to be readable or, alternatively, cluttered with too much information. The task of adapting the available geographical data to a certain scale (and to a certain purpose) is not a trivial task and it is known as cartographic generalization.
To defend that all maps in Wikipedia should be scalable just because this kind of format is better for editing and printing is to condition a fundamental issue (the cartographic quality) to a secondary one. It is not enough that a svg image has some “nominal” scale, because nothing forces the user to print the map in that scale. In my opinion, scale bars are not enough: the principal scale of all maps designed to be printed should be part of the written cartographic information.

This is, of course, "preaching in the desert". If I'm lucky maybe the next reviewer will think better before just repeating "oppose, should be svg". Alvesgaspar 12:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - In the presente case using a scalable repreentation wouldn't be a serious mistake, provided the lettering and symbols were readable. The reason is in this type of map (a cartogram) the property to be conserved is the topoloy of the objects, not their absolute (geographic) or relative positions. Alvesgaspar 14:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose should be SVG. And your last scentence comes across pretty arrogantly Alves. --Dschwen 14:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case it would be nice if a vector-version could be provided. --Dschwen 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I'm very much an SVG supporter, I can see reason in Alvesgaspar's arguments: maps may prove an exception to the rule (there may be others with decent arguments). I also firmly believe that SVG is not a fad, worship or fashion but a real technical advance in representation and scalability. Lycaon 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very helpful, accurate and nice to look at. Don't care for the format. -- AM 11:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with AM --AngMoKio 14:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support me2 --Grombo 12:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not SVG. Point taken about maps and SVG. However if you want to say, print out a copy of this map twice as big as the file, it's going to be pixelated. As display devices get better and better, older png and jpg diagrams are going to get smaller and smaller. Alvesgaspar may have a point as for high-quality maps, to a certain extent, but here it doesn't matter if say, "line G" is exactlly properly placed. It's a schema after all.. what matters is how the lines connect. So until this wonderful image is converted into an SVG, I'm going to have to oppose. --Zantastik 23:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would support it, but i´m not sure about the copyright. There are several logos on the map, wich belong to transportation firms (e.g. Deutsche Bahn (DB) and MVV). On the SVG issue i agree with Alves. Simonizer 10:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 12:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as per disagreement above. great, useful, well-done image though. Stephen.job 08:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Perhaps a separate svg version can be produced. --Fang Aili 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with above. PNG is okay, but an SVG is also welcome to compliment it.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support can you do one for my city too? :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 15 support, 3 neutral, 6 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 09:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Krauskopfpelikan Daehlhoelzli Pelecanus crispus 18.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info created by Noebu - uploaded by Noebu - nominated by Noebu --Noebu 17:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Noebu 17:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks good, but not special. --SvonHalenbach 18:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vmenkov 21:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the photo would be great if you moved the camera a little lower. The space for this empty upper part is missing at the lower part (maybe when you crop that upper part away it might improve a bit - or maybe you even have another shot of that bird?). Colour and sharpness are perfect. --AngMoKio 10:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting (shadow) and point of view are not that good -- Gorgo 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ugly un-natural zoo background - MPF 22:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is so unnatural and zoo-like about a rocky beach at a river or lake? I am also not the biggest fan of zoo pics but here i can't see the zoo--AngMoKio 08:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support João Felipe C.S 02:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose okay but not really good. esp. composition - Amada44 21:7, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
CommentAgree with AngMoKio. Can't see neither the zoo nor the unnatural background. I don't like the bird's look, and know this is not the best pic to show the anatomy of the pelecan (not even the whole beak can be seen) but we need a pic of this typical position of the with its beak on its chest. Image:White Pelican, Pelecanus onocrotalus 4, JBP, Nov 06.JPG has a fuller view but the angle in this picture is better. --Javierme 18:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThanks for your comments, I find most of them really valuable. For Javierme: I have just uploaded some more photos of the same day, I hope you see some typical positions. Please check the last five photos on this page: Pelecanus_crispus , for example Image:Krauskopfpelikan_Daehlhoelzli_22_Pelecanus_crispus.JPG But I don't see them as candidates for a "featured picture". Noebu 17:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This would have been a nice image if the photographer had pointed the camera down a little further. --Dschwen 21:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. Stephen.job 08:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 1 neutral, 6 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 18:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hapalochlaena lunulata2.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info Image of Greater blue-ringed octopus. Hapalochlaena lunulata. Taken at Tasik Ria, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Created, uploaded & nominated by Jnpet --Jnpet 15:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 15:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Object not clear --Chabacano 20:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't seperate the octopus from the background. norro 22:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- InfoCan't do much about its natural camoflage. I was certainly not going to provoke it to move to a better back ground. This tiny fellow is incredibly venomous. A bite would normally kill a human being. Jnpet 08:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I wouldn't stir it neither. Just a pity the background is so 'busy', H. lunulata is not the easiest of 'models'. You ideally have to catch it out over sand, but they don't like that. The picture is however certainly good enough to illustrate relevant articles. Lycaon 16:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good stuff!!! nice fotograph. balanced colors. I like it! background is noisy but hey, its underwater photography and thats not all that easy!! and as Jnpet said: its it natural camoflage. Would look silly in sand I think. full support from me!!! Amada44 22:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't show the subject clearly. MichaelMaggs 08:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF and composition. Too bad, great subject matter. Stephen.job 09:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 16:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Baboons2.jpg

Image:Eduard Ritter Der Holzfaeller.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Painted by Eduard Ritter - edited, uploaded & nominated by --SvonHalenbach 17:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 17:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Just a piece of beautiful art; nothing featurable. Down below we had a stained glass window, and an old map, which demonstrate the kind of art that should make it through FP. I think that this is great art, but not a worth picture to be FP.Stephen.job 18:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is a regular pattern, more visible in the background, suggesting this is a copy of a printing rather than a photo of the original. Also, the focus is not perfect. It is an interesting painting though. I'm not sure what kind of tool the man is handling (a hammer?) but it looks quite heavy and menacing... Alvesgaspar 09:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The name, Der Holzfaeller, means the lumberjack; so, this is probably a tool of that trade. Perhaps an axe, though it seems not... I am thinking this might be a large, levred plane, used to cut the logs into roughly rectilinear shapes, like a giant Draw Knife? Menacing and heavy indeed.. Stephen.job 04:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The other tool looks like a wedge used to split wood. Alvesgaspar 16:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The tool over his shoulder is probably an adze - MPF 00:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of th 7th day) Alvesgaspar 21:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:danish window.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Perbeppo 18:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Perbeppo 18:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: A beautiful shot, but I'm unsold on the composition. I might vote either way depending on other opinions, so please explain your vote. Stephen.job 19:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure either. But one thing is certain: this photo should be appreciated by its aesthetical value not by any encyclopedic interest. Wait and see... Alvesgaspar 23:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Amateurish composition, blurry, contrast/saturation isn't where it should be. Seems like a inferior imitation of a photo series by some famous photographer (can't remember who... I see posters of the photos every so often). If we're judging a photo solely on aesthetics, I feel it needs to be on the professional level, not just a great snapshot. – flamurai 00:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of th 7th day) Alvesgaspar 21:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Asuncion Palacio Lopez.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info created by Jan Pešula - uploaded by Jan Pešula - nominated by Mauricio Maluff -- 3M 図 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 3M 図 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Something is wrong with the colors, looks like the result of a wild editing... Alvesgaspar 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shadow on building, colour balance (magenta cast) and sharpness. Lycaon 06:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Lycaon. Lestat 13:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of th 7th day) Alvesgaspar 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aftertherain.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info created by Lambdalix - uploaded by Lambdalix - nominated by Lambdalix --Lambdalix 21:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lambdalix 21:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too unsharp and grainy /Daniel78 22:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lots of noise and tilted. Lycaon 06:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It could be a nice picture if it were cleaned up and given some foreground to bring depth to the subject. Alvesgaspar 09:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of th 7th day) Alvesgaspar 21:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Medio ambiente - Itaipú.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Itaipú Binacional - uploaded by Mauricio Maluff - nominated by Mauricio Maluff -- 3M 図 23:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 3M 図 23:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The theme and composition are nice. But the quality is poor, it looks like a scanned image of an old paper copy, with all those scratches. Alvesgaspar 23:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very noisy. Lycaon 06:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Alvesgaspar, also no information on it, nor is the pic indexed anywhere (the only info I can find is that it may be in Brazil, as it is from a Brazilian website) - MPF 12:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of th 7th day) Alvesgaspar 23:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oil well scheme.svg - featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded, nominated by WarX
Support --WarX 12:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 12:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC) - at last I know how this something works :)[reply]
Support well done norro 15:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 16:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 16:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. /Daniel78 18:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite useful. Orem 18:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 13:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MesserWoland Dyskusja 14:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Javierme 18:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 22:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 12:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good clear numbering, readable even on 200px thumbnail - MPF 12:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special Omar86 21:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maire 00:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the gradients in the rig don't make sense (where's the light source?). – flamurai 16:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the brown is supposed to be the oil . . . crude oil is dark brown ;-) MPF 17:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And so it is written in description... :P --WarX 17:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm talking about the gradients in the pump, not the well. – flamurai 02:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sofixit I don't have enought imagination to do this correctly using gradients :(:(--WarX 08:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not execptional, though good. Stephen.job 08:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 20:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 17 support, 3 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 11:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pieni 2 0622.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info 29 different birds of Finland, from a 1925-1928 encyclopedia, "Pieni Tietosanakirja", now in the public domain. Resolution is 3427x2552.
Support Nice picture, I think it can be featured. --Green Bonsai 14:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Borders and quality, as well as centre fold. Stephen.job 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality scan Lycaon 20:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Lycaon, also woefully unrealistic pics of the birds while not old enough to be of significant historical interest - MPF 12:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info as far as I know it can be better for recognising an animal if its characteristics are well-shown in a drawing than if the picture is very realistic (or a photo) --Anna reg 13:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not when they're this bad quality! The individual bird paintings are also very much NOT to scale. - MPF 22:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 16:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Finlandia Wiki.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Finlandia Hall in Finland. Architect is Alvar Aalto.

Will you please include information about the creator, uploader and nominator? Alvesgaspar 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Support --Green Bonsai 14:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition. Stephen.job 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the composition. But there is still a slight perspective correction to make... Alvesgaspar 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the idea of the composition is nice. But sth is missing for me....maybe the missing lower part of that building. I guess you croped that away? --AngMoKio 19:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much cropped - MPF 12:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 16:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LutheranCathedral-ofHelsinki.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Lutheran Cathedral of Helsinki in Finland. Finnish it is Helsingin tuomiokirkko. --Green Bonsai 14:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please include information about the creator and uploader Alvesgaspar 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Support --Green Bonsai 14:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop on top, slant to the left, and vantage point from which the photo was taken. Unexceptional. Stephen.job 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems to be made by a kid. For this it is a good picture.. but perspective is bad. it looks like the cathedral is hanging to the left. --Jeses 17:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 19:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilt --Digon3 19:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 16:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006-10-16-Salvia9.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Salvia. Uploaded bu Wildfeur. --Green Bonsai 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please include information about the creator Alvesgaspar 15:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Support --Green Bonsai 15:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice at thumbnail size but very low image quality norro 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with norro --Jeses 17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed as per the two above. Nice, though. Stephen.job 17:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low quality, unfortunate composition, poor lighting, no proper id. Lycaon 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - only identified to genus, not species; also spoilt by intrusive background in bottom quarter of pic - MPF 13:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oonagh 22:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 16:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nyponros1.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info Swedish Glaucous Dog Rose - created, uploaded and nominated by Lambdalix 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Lambdalix 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ... I'm not sure. Stephen.job 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadow and bizarre DOF issues. There should be more contrast between fore and background. This photo seems too busy, and although it is technically good, it looks somewhat like a snapshot. Stephen.job 16:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is a cultivar of Rosa rugosa - MPF 12:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral maybe a crop to reduce the leaf area, but I think the shadows may still be to deep Gnangarra 01:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Intrusive shadows due to harsh lighting. Flowers are generally best shot in bright shade. --MichaelMaggs 19:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 2 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 16:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:San Francisco at Sunset.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Digon3
Support --Digon3 17:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tilt, contrast (esp. color saturation) – flamurai 18:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alvesgaspar thought increased saturation was better. The original is --Digon3 19:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amada44 what about some color correction? 50px

Oppose Color...--Tomascastelazo 01:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition and the unusual colouring of the buildings. Unfortunately the image too noisy and blurred for a FP. Alvesgaspar 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Color... --Andrejj 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tilt and colour. --MichaelMaggs 20:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 12:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stephen.job 08:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 17:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Longhorn Beetle Whitespotted Sawyer USA.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by Mosmas - uploaded by Mosmas - nominated by Amada44 --Amada44 10:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! looks like the beetle wants to fly into the valley. shame it has no wings ;) --Amada44 10:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Javierme 16:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral there's something about the color/contrast that bothers me, but I'm sure it can be fixed. – flamurai 16:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Could the black diagonal line at bottom right be toned down a bit? --MichaelMaggs 18:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Depth of Focus (esp. bottom left) and black line on right. Stephen.job 08:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with flamurai, but it's a very special shot. norro 00:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 17:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 08:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support whoa... pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 6 support, 2 neutral, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 11:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:10 33PS 1958.jpg

Image:Trainera Transbordador Vizcaya.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Javierme - uploaded by Javierme - nominated by Javierme --Javierme 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It remarks the contrast between the XIX century designed structure and the XXI century cabin. --Javierme 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 12:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it looks good, but,.... I wouldn't call it a featured picture. In my opinion it lacks dynamics. Maybe with a more fisheyed lens you would be able to make it more dynamic,... ??? Amada44 22:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition, very interesting topic (is it a tranborder built by F. Arnodin?) B.navez 09:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see what makes this image stand out. /Daniel78 20:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF: Depth of Field issues, and unexceptional. Stephen.job 08:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jeses 15:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per opposers. — Lycaon 07:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 22:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Venice Lagoon December 9 2001.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by NASA - uploaded and nominated by AlMare --AM 16:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AM 16:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amada44 18:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very useful norro 06:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support B.navez 09:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 13:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course! But I somehow dislike the unatural intense blue for rivers and lagoon. We know contrast is needed but this is on the verge of overdoing it. --Diligent 13:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Always like a good satellite image. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 14:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maire 00:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 18:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Not a beautiful, exceptional picture, though very useful. Stephen.job 08:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent satelite image. Alvesgaspar 23:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose fake colours. Neutral Apparently supposed to be fake colours, but this should be stated in the image info. Support info issue addressed -- Lycaon 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added that information. -- AM 12:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 11 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gent.standbeeld02.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by JoJan - uploaded by JoJan - nominated by JoJan --JoJan 18:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --JoJan 18:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the statue is cropped. Also, I don't like the angle and the deep shadows. Alvesgaspar 14:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack alves. --Dschwen 09:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is cropped off on the bottom --Digon3 19:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stephen.job 00:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vulpes vulpes laying in snow.jpg - delisted[edit]

Red fox Vulpes vulpes in the snow by User:Conti. Nominated for delisting by Lycaon 21:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info Original nomination by Infrogmation 23:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC).
Delist resolution (<170,000 pixels!!) Lycaon 21:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - ditto to Lycaon - MPF 00:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist it's a damned shame it's so low res, though. – flamurai 16:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agreed. --MichaelMaggs 08:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as per above. Stephen.job 08:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist ditto -- Gorgo 23:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0 keep, 6 delist >> delisted Alvesgaspar 10:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lightmatter wild cow.jpg - delisted[edit]

Nominated for delisting by Lycaon 21:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info Original nomination by WεFt 13:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delist low resolution (0.35 Mpx!!), no species id. Lycaon 21:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist norro 23:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - ditto to Lycaon - MPF 00:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist low res, photo's not exceptional enough to overcome it. – flamurai 16:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Composition is cluttered. --MichaelMaggs 08:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist resolution. Stephen.job 08:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Olegivvit 10:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist low res -- Gorgo 23:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 keep, 7 delist >> delisted Alvesgaspar 10:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Slovenska zastava.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info Created Andrejj --Andrejj 09:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrejj 09:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Correct, good quality picture, but not exceptional. Alvesgaspar 09:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A flag is a flag, is a flag, is a flag. -- AM 23:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above, as well as the heavy shadow on the left of the flag. Nice, though. Stephen.job 00:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 10:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GorskaKapliczka.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info created by Borkowicz - uploaded by Borkowicz - nominated by Borkowicz

--Borkowicz 17:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Borkowicz 17:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a good snapshot, but not polished enough for FP. Try COM:QI. – flamurai 02:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not of particular artistic merit, but a very well-composed and fine shot of an interesting, clear subject matter. Stephen.job 09:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is not well separated from the background. Try another viewpoint, eg with sky behond the subject. --MichaelMaggs 19:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 2 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 18:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Life Saint-Austremoine Issoire bottom n2.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by Jastrow - uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by Username --Stephen.job 09:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Note that this is NOT the same as Image:Life Saint-Austremoine Issoire bottom.jpg as listed below Stephen.job 09:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support As before. Alvesgaspar 09:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luc Viatour 14:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 19:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neuceu 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. Snowwayout 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 11:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 10:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Newtons cradle animation book.gif - featured[edit]

Info created by Dominique Toussaint - uploaded by Dominique Toussaint - nominated by norro
Support norro 15:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice animation best job! --Luc Viatour 16:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks a bit unnatural for me - if I good remember center balls wiggle a bit during hit? --WarX 16:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you reduce this machine to the physical basics and assume an elastic collision (in fact, steal is not 100% elastic), the three center balls don't move. norro 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course yes, but then: what shows this animation: principles from course of general physics or real life? (assumption about elastic collision is not enough to have no wiggles - it must be ideally central too)--WarX 11:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love this animation even if it is not perfect (seems that a couple of frames are missing just before the hit). The detail of Newton's "Principia" under the apparatus is a touch of sophistication. Alvesgaspar 16:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't seem to be a problem in fullsize. Perhaps a bug of the mediawiki software. norro 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly, the Principia Mathematica underneath, though very cool, detracts from the usability of this picture. And As Luc Viatour and Alvesgaspar said, there something is a little unnatural-- perhaps the few missing frames that Alvesgaspar suggested. But too bad. Stephen.job 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support it could move a bit smoother but still it is great --AngMoKio 18:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 19:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice. Jkelly 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support True, it looks a bit artificial, but it is certainly very well made.--SvonHalenbach 14:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the center balls should move a tiny amount to look more realistic. Also the two end balls seem to magically snap themselves in place. /Daniel78 22:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The best animation I remember seeing here at commons. I don't mind the non-moving middle balls; the animation shows the principle at work (that's why I like the Principia Mathematica underneath). --Tsui 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it appears as if the stationary ball moves before the opposite ball hits the column, and then the opposite ball snaps into position quicker than it was initially moving. Though it's well rendered, the animation just isn't natural. – flamurai 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me this is just optical illusion. For me it depends on how my look move along the balls, if I folow the hitting ball, its ok. If I look at one end and than switch, it looks as you described. I suppose if it was a film, it would look the same. --Wikimol 18:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack flamurai. — Lycaon 07:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice animation ! It seems to me that there might be one missing frame when all balls are in equilibrium position. No-w-ay 17:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Wikimol 18:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support : Hypnotic ! Many optical illusions. Very good work. Stephane8888 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 20:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 22:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 16:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 15 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 15:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa canina - not featured[edit]

Info created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by --Luc Viatour 14:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Luc Viatour 14:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jeses 15:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Nice pic[reply]
Oppose: See for an image this sort that should be an FP. Stephen.job 17:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of colour saturation in petals and intrusive shadows, both due to harsh lighting. Flowers are generally best shot in bright shade. --MichaelMaggs 19:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF could be smaller. Why did you use f/20? Your lense perfoms much better with lower F-Numbers (btw f/4.5 and maybe f/11) and you would have a better DOF. The crop is also a bit too tight--AngMoKio 20:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I close too much, I will pay attention --Luc Viatour 07:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Olegivvit 10:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Stephen.job. Amada44 20:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 15:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PortoCovoWinter1.jpg - featured[edit]

Info Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal during Winter. The picture was taken near midday, almost in countre-jour, to stress the contrast bewteen the surf foam and the dark cliffs. (Henry the Navigator seated in that bench, to observe his fleet departing to Africa... ;-) ) Created, uploaded and nominated by Joaquim Alves Gaspar
Support --Alvesgaspar 13:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's really beautiful, well-composed, and with excellent lighting, which must have been difficult. I wonder: is the middle section of rocks fuzzier because of mist in the way? Stephen.job 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Two reasons: the (incomplete) contre-jour effect and the mist caused by the surf. Wind was blowing strong from NW (the islet is at S, more or less). Alvesgaspar 15:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Jeses 19:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Nice picture, but i think the saturation and contrast are a little bit too low.[reply]
Support Simonizer 09:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --MichaelMaggs 22:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 22:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Jeses. Alvesgaspar should buy himself a polarisation filter. --SvonHalenbach 16:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 5 support, 2 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 14:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hobo stove convection - featured[edit]

Info created by Dontpanic - uploaded by Dontpanic - nominated by norro
Support Professional and clean illustration norro 13:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 14:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Yes, I agree it is a very good looking illustration. But what does it illustrate exactly? I know what heat convenction is, but what is a Hobo stove and what is its use? I think that a more informative caption would help to promote the image. Alvesgaspar 14:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome. Stephen.job 14:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, but it need a more informative caption explaining what it is. --Digon3 17:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support – flamurai 00:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 07:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 17:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 20:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info --The picture shows the assembly of a 'hobo-style' wood stove as well as the chimney effect fanning the fire. I did it particularly for the German Hobokocher article that deals more in detail with the physics involved than the English version does. --Dontpanic 12:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alvesgaspar 14:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 18:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 22:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 13:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The handle and it's shadow is clearly pixelated, some anti-aliasing would probably help. _→AzaToth 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dylan Lake 06:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good looking, very useful --Halved sandwich 21:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   14 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 14:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pi-unrolled-720.gif[edit]

Original version - not featured[edit]

Info created by John Reid - uploaded by Eleassar - nominated by norro
Support This is a perfect illustration of Pi norro 12:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some of us have turned off image animation so the first image shouldn't be blank. Dori | Talk 13:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think more than >98% of the wikimedia users display animations. The other <2% know what they did. Therefore voting against this animation due to your personal browser configuration is not fair IMHO. norro 13:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you know you have animations off doesn't mean that you can know when a blank space is part of an animation. There is no good reason to have the first animation blank for any animation, let alone featured ones. I think it's a good enough reason, and I rarely oppose candidates. Dori | Talk 14:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not move the blank frame to the end of the sequence? The result would look the same, but without the problem Dori notes - MPF 13:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it is clear and illustrative of the concept, although I found the wheel somehow kitsch... Alvesgaspar 14:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- I think, John Reid, that this could be a very heplful illustration. It took me two cycles through to figure out what was going on because it moves so quickly. The design of the wheel is a little kitsch and distracting. I reccomend making it slower and simpler. But great work. Stephen.job 14:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just another thing I notice that is confusing: At the beginning of the animation, when the four circles appear from left to right, it is very quick and confusing. Stephen.job 14:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Agree with norro --SvonHalenbach 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too quick. If you slow the animation i'll support --Jacopo86 18:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that it's too quick, but otherwise very nice. /Daniel78 22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose doesn't have a professional look (unlike the one just above for instance) and runs too fast. Lycaon 07:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good explanation of the concept even if it can be improved (I agree that is a bit too fast). Romary 08:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Ziga 20:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Jacopo86 - MPF 13:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Too fast? Watch it several times if needed ;) Scoo 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support either pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 15:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New version (right) - not featured[edit]

Comment I made a slower version, without white first picture. -- Arpad Horvath 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can hardly see any difference, how much slower is it ? /Daniel78 14:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the new one is actually very slightly (by about maybe a quarter of a second) faster than the old - just watched them together over several cycles and the right-hand one slowly overtook the left-hand one - MPF 22:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As I can't see that it's slower my oppose stands. /Daniel78 19:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Nice idea but execution suffers from excess of colors – I counted seven hues – and somewhat cluttered layout. Needs a cleanup. -- Dontpanic 15:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work!!! Amada44 20:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alvesgaspar 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry; the animation is still not clear to me. The symbol for pi appears only after the entire thing is unrolled, at which point the animation has to be watched again to figure out exactly what's going on. And with 7 hues, as noted above, this is rather clutered. Stephen.job 14:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 15:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very clear demonstration of what pi is. --MichaelMaggs 19:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support either pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 16:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support moralist 12:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC) - Nice![reply]

 6 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 15:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Calliphora augur whitebackground.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by Fir0002 - uploaded by Melburnian - nominated by norro
Support norro 12:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversharpened and major DOF issues. Lycaon 13:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Lycaon. --Stephen.job 14:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support After some thought and examination of other pics. Too bad about DOF.Stephen.job 18:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing picture. Poor DOF is inevitable and a small price to pay in this case. Alvesgaspar 23:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that picture. --Green Bonsai 14:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like too --No-w-ay 17:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 18:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great studio shot! maybe a bit to much sharpend but still fantastic! Amada44 20:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 19:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree --Prevert^(talk) 19:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, despite DOF. -- AM 10:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 11 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 14:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winter sea in Porto Covo - not featured[edit]

Info West coast of Portugal, village of Porto Covo during Winter. The sun is at right, very near the horizon. The rose colour of the water is caused by the bottom mud brought to surface by the surf. Created, uploaded and nominated by Joaquim Alves Gaspar
Support --Alvesgaspar 12:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This picture has certainly something because of the waves on the rocks, but it may be much better in reality than can be captured on film. --SvonHalenbach 13:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Beautiful shot, but not particularly special (featurable). The water is neat, but as SvonHalenbach said, the dynamic movement is lacking in a still shot. White balance as well. Stephen.job 14:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The white balance seems a little off, otherwise I like it --Digon3 17:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it - MPF 13:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose okay but,... a bit to,.. ahhhm normal. sorry :( Amada44 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Urban 16:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 15:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lewis Hine Power house mechanic working on steam pump edit.jpg - featured[edit]

Info created by Lewis Hine 1920 - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by --SvonHalenbach 11:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 11:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 12:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 13:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great picture --Luc Viatour 14:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alvesgaspar 14:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stephen.job 14:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 22:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support – flamurai 00:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 07:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 09:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XN 12:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 20:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 13:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Classic. -- AM 08:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 18:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 22:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 22:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 18 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 14:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lauffen Panorama 1.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by -donald- - uploaded by -donald- - nominated by -donald- ---donald- 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---donald- 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Panoramas have become quite common in the last times and this one is not, IMO, good or relevant enough to become featured. Alvesgaspar 18:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice, but I don't see that it's so much better than other panoramas that it should be featured. /Daniel78 20:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the focus seems to be on the leaves in the foreground. _→AzaToth 20:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 10:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sunrise over the North Pacific.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by Werdna - uploaded by Werdna - nominated by Werdna --Werdna 12:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Werdna 12:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Value as per above ("almost all sunsets are pretty, and most such pictures are not essence different from others") Stephen.job 13:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read the guidelines before submiting your works and take some time looking at the existing featured pictures. This photo does not meet the minimum criteria for FP: trivial composition (no foreground to give depth), very noisy image. If you want some feedback and advice for your pictures, quality image candidates and Photography critiques are good places to start with. Alvesgaspar 13:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Hi-tacks 18:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 oppose, 1 support >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 16:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Osteospermum ecklonis.jpg[edit]

Original version (left) - not featured[edit]

Info created by Alvesgaspar - uploaded by Alvesgaspar - nominated by stephen.job --Stephen.job 15:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is an awesome shot. --Stephen.job 15:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ this is a very nice picture, but a tiny bit too blurry to be FP. Maybe with sacrifying some of the Resolution to make it special? I love the coloring. --SvonHalenbach 15:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are quite right, here is a downsampled version, very slightly adjusted. Do you think I should substitute the old one? Alvesgaspar 15:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 15:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New version (right) - featured[edit]

Nominate and Support edited version Alvesgaspar 17:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The right one. --SvonHalenbach 17:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support let me on the bandwagon! Stephen.job 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jeses 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Great pic. I also thought about nominating it, when i first saw it.[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 05:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is not perfect/special enough for a still object. Admittedly, the colours are very good, but there is still noise and the focus is not up to FP standards. Lycaon 07:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. ack. lycaon, noise, focus, and unthrilling subject. --Dschwen 13:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Will you please tell me where, in the foreground, is the noise so I can try to correct it? Alvesgaspar 14:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yopu are asking the wrong question. Its in the bg, and its annoying. --Dschwen 10:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean like in this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one, just to mention a few flower FP? Wow, I feel much better now! Alvesgaspar 15:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think your sarcasm is helping in any way. --Dschwen 09:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 17:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 19:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I'd like to see the identification confirmed as O. ecklonis (or any other species) before supporting - MPF 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really not sure about the species (the genus is no doubt Osteospermum), it might be a hybrid cultivar. This is called in my country an "African Daisy". Alvesgaspar 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the opposers have against this pic. It is perfectly nice enough to be nominated as a FP. The colors are just wonderful. What do you expect from a flower? --SvonHalenbach 23:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 19:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Saint Petersburg ~1734 map LOC g7064s hl000005.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info created by ?? - nominated by --SvonHalenbach 20:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 20:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question How was this image obtained? The focus in the upper and lower parts are unequal, suggesting that a camera was used. What about the colours, are they like the original or were slightly adjusted (they seem weird)? Also, there is a tilt in the upper part which is not apparent in the lower part. I'm asking all these questions because I like this map very much ("New and much rigorous(?) city of S. Petersburg in Russia... Wow !). Alvesgaspar 21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not disturbed by the colours which can reflect cartography usage of the time. Not disturbed either by "tilt" or "focus" defects which again, can stem from the original print itself (the lines on carts could be hand drawn and ink could spill out (we say in French that the ink "drools"). --Diligent 09:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Urban 16:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 13:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dragonfly Chrysalis 2006 06 26.JPG - not featured[edit]

Info Chrysalis of a dragonfly by the coast of Bothnian Bay between the cities of Kemi and Oulu in Finland. --Green Bonsai 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please include information about the creator and uploader Alvesgaspar 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Support --Green Bonsai 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting (background overexposed and hard shadow) and unnatural background norro 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack norro. Lycaon 19:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, illustrative photo. Dark shadow is unfortunate, but clarity is outstanding. I think the background is simply light, rather than overexposed. I have seen this wood before. Stephen.job 00:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sipoo old church.jpg - not featured[edit]

Info Old churc of Sipoo in Finland.--Green Bonsai 14:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please include information about the creator and uploader? Alvesgaspar 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Support --Green Bonsai 14:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~composition, especially~~ only composition problem is the tree in top-right. otherwise, great. Stephen.job 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support i like it. --Jeses 17:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special, blown out sky, tree in corner. Lycaon 19:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice pic. Isn't some foliage in a top corner supposed to be a good composition feature? Lots of pics strive to include it! Or does it have to be the top left corner? - MPF 12:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i also think the tree is disturbing and the sky is blown out. Parts of the building are cropped away. The pic is nice but not FP.--AngMoKio 19:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sky and tree as mentioned. /Daniel78 15:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 01:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ScarpeBagnate.JPG, not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mattia Luigi Nappi --151.42.65.127 21:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --151.42.65.127 21:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no anonymous votes. Please log in before voting. Alvesgaspar 14:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know Italian, so I would like to ask for an translation of the description of the image. _→AzaToth 21:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means "Shoes thrown over next to a sidewalk in Naples while it was raining" --Perbeppo 14:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but I can't see any beauty, or particular message, in this picture (even being a pair Italian shoes...). As a photo, there are extensive parts blown by excessive light. Alvesgaspar 22:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No relevance. -- AM 23:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Alvesgaspar. Stephen.job 00:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice shot --Perbeppo 14:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The plastic with the CE sign discerns this good and story-telling image from an excellent one. --Ikiwaner 22:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose => not featured. --Diligent 17:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Italy Anguillara 2006.jpg[edit]

left version - not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 20:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 20:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the image orientation doesnt compliment the subject, Gnangarra 01:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info Can anyone figure out what is up with those clouds? Is it just my imagination, or is something funky going on? Otherwise I really like this. Stephen.job 02:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the crop. Too much water, too much sky. -- AM 08:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with AM. Landscape format would have been better. --MichaelMaggs 12:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is something neutral in this picture, I can't explain. -- AM 22:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 22:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

right version[edit]

Comment I also have this shot of the village. It is another shot not a different crop. --AngMoKio 21:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it lacks sharpness and the colors are abit bleak. /Daniel78 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There is nothing wrong with the photo. IMO, composition and colours are correct. What I don't like is the village itself. The non-painted houses are ugly. Alvesgaspar 23:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, looks bland. --Dschwen 09:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice picture. Though the subject matter can be seen as "bland", this is an illustrative picture that may be of some use. Indeed, some parts of the world are bland. This illustrates a bland village very well. Stephen.job 00:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is something neutral in this picture, I can't explain. -- AM 22:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Diligent 17:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hawk eating prey.jpg, featured[edit]

Info created by Steve Jurvetson - uploaded by TheBernFiles - nominated by AzaToth --AzaToth 04:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AzaToth 04:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW. I have a few focus concerns, but I throw them out the window. Awesome+++ Stephen.job 08:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support exceptionnal! --Luc Viatour 09:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support It is an exceptionnal picture ~~but it is not fully captioned (the bird looks more like an eagle than a hawk : so what species is it ?)~~ Though I think competition is not completely fair, picture being already featured on Flickr B.navez 11:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)(changing vote: B.navez 17:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Support Exceptional. There is nothing against flickr in the featured pictures guidelines. --Diligent 14:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacopo86 16:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exceptional and shocking picture, the eyes of the mouse express surprise and horror. I can't show this to my children... Alvesgaspar 16:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jeses 17:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC) The mouse could be a little bit sharper, but does not matter. great picture anyway.[reply]
Support, the subject trumps the minor technical concerns. --Dschwen 09:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shocking, the law of the jungle. Taken at the right moment. -- AM 10:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with Dschwen Romary 13:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no id Lycaon 13:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can you explain what you mean by "no id"? AzaToth 13:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lycaon wants a identification of the species we are looking at. -- Simonizer 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. sorry for the shortcut. The bird's species is not fully identified (though it's a good pic otherwise). Lycaon 16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the image's author here, it's "a juvenile red-tailed hawk dining on a California meadow vole (Microtis californicus)". I'll add this info to the image page. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 16:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support good picture with properly identified subject -- Lycaon 16:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 17:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 20:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 00:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent timing. --Nmadhubala 16:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info is now featured picture on the English wikipedia. _→AzaToth 16:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Support- Arad 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC) after 14 days -- Colin (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Diligent 13:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]