Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2008

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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


Image:Hiroshige - Evening Shower at Atake and the Great Bridge.jpg, not featured

[edit]

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 09:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose It's a great painting but what or who are we featuring ? Ichiyusai Hiroshige, the painter ? Uoya Eikichi, the publisher? visipix.com, the website ? For me, it makes no sense featuring pictures just picked off. Though, I feel opposed to the other oppositions : 1) it is a wood painting so low resolution is due to the painting process and 2) why the hell 2 megapixels would be a fatal barrier ("should" is not "must")--B.navez 14:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I admit that the picture hasn't a very high resolution quality but it's a woodcut of 1857, not a modern picture made with the last digital camera with 10 megapixels. And of course, I propose to vote for the painting itself, not Hiroshige or the publisher or visipix.com (what interest?). But maybe Commons doesn't feature old paintings, but just actual and original works ? As I am a french-speaker, I hope you'll understand my poor english. Kuxu76 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Diagrama bicicleta.svg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

 Result: 5 delist, 0 keep --> Delisted - Alvesgaspar 10:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hypselodoris bullocki.JPG, not delisted

[edit]

Short description

  •  Info Noisy, blurry image. The only bit in focus is part of the foreground. Obvious error of judgement. (Original nomination)
  •  Delist --Lycaon 23:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist Agree --Richard Bartz 11:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment opposers should try to take this kind of photo. The glass at public aquariums has the material with the worst optics you will ever encounter. Glass isn't that smooth and cover with slimy thing inside, auto-focus would be off, severe chromatic aberration from glass and salt water. --Lerdsuwa 05:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a fake argument. It is the result that counts, not the circumstances. If I take a picture of the moon with my 4 Mpx first generation digital camera, then I can't claim FP quality neither. Please be serious. Lycaon 20:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  KeepIt is a good underwater (not an aquarium) image of a small and very difficult subject, which IMO is in a perfect focus. It could be the only nudibranch image photographed in their natural habitat, which FP has.--Mbz1 15:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a good picture, it is not in focus and it is not a difficult object to take a picture of (it virtually doesn't move). Lycaon 20:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, Lycaon. May I please respond your remarks? IMO any subject, which was photographed under water is a difficult subject by the definition. An underwater subject does not have to be moving to make it difficult simply because the photographer and the water around him moves. Most of the time it is really hard to stay in one place wile under water and taking a picture. Nudibranchs are not so easy to find. Most of the time they are very, very small, which makes photography of them underwater macro. I've taken pictures of dozens of different nudibranchs myself and they never were an easy subject for me. Thank you.--Mbz1 21:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Mbz1 --Lerdsuwa 18:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As the original nominator, I'm not even sure if my vote counts, but for what it's worth I'd vote to keep it. Mbz1 has already described the difficulty of shooting under water, so I won't repeat what Mbz1 says. As for underwater photos in general, I can add that for every decent photo, I would throw out ten. Of those decent photos, you get an occasional great photo. This is one of them. I agree that there are some minor flaws, but the composition in this case is what makes this a good picture, although nudibranches are not fast moving, they are small macro subjects as mentioned by Mbz1 and they are not often found in such a fantastic pose. What it comes down to is the wow factor, and for me it's an image that peaks interest in the subject. I know for a fact that this image has prompted at least one kid to find out more about these mysterious creatures, and that is what makes it special. As it says in the Featured Picture guidelines; "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." Despite some minor flaws, this is a good picture of a difficult subject. On a separate matter, I am curious as to what the rules are on delist nomination. This image was featured in January. It hasn't even been a year yet and it's already up for delisting. Technical advancement has hardly improved that much, so the nomination isn't based on the image being outdated, but an opinion that it was promoted in error. I don't think nominating a delist based on "error of judgement" is a good basis to delist. Cheers! --Jnpet 15:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I often took razorsharp pictures in a public aquarium, where sometimes the light situation was good enough. It's not possible to make pictures at any cost, so i agree with Lycaon on the circumstances. The result is what counts and here it's really not the best --Richard Bartz 16:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be a perception that this image was taken at an aquarium. Allow me to correct this perception, this is taken under water at 25 meters depth wearing scuba gear and fighting water currents. At the same time, you need to be aware of the environment so you don't damage corals or accidentally put your knee on the spines of a scorpion fish. Keeping the camera still is not easy and then you have to consider that water filters out red and you frequently get images saturated blue. On top of this, noise from floating particles reflected by the flash ruins a number of shots. I think you need only look at all the featured pictures. I count only a total of six images that are under water pictures. Six out of hundreds of FP images in the animal category. I think that says it all. Cheers! --Jnpet 17:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep; Commons:Image_guidelines allow us to make allowances for the importance of the subject and the difficulty of the shot. I echo the comment of two of the initial reviewers, "keep because it is so weird" (Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hypselodoris bullocki.JPG). Note that the white band is intrinsically fuzzy; see Image:Hypselodoris bullocki 3.jpg for an image with sand grains and the white band. The former are much sharper than the latter. That said, I agree with those that argue that the image has technical flaws (subject motion and depth of field, I think); those do not outweigh its value, in my judgement. Walter Siegmund

(talk) 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The color of the tentacles is different, so could be different species/subspecies. Also the sample web photo you gave is small. Try finding one with 2MP or more and see if the pattern is sharp or not. --Lerdsuwa 15:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 Delist, 5 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 15:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Other votes too late)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

CA problem highlighted
  •  Oppose Quite severe chromatic aberration. Should be easy to remove with a suitable software. --Lerdsuwa 16:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Question For chromatic aberration I understand a color cast. Unfortunately I did not use a color chart (Macbeth) so it will be very hard to figure out the real color. The church is very dark and to the naked eye, it appears reddish anyway. What do you suggest? In any case, without the color chart reference it will be an interpretation anyway... I shot this in raw, so I can play with the color temperature. I will play with it, upload another version and ask for your opinion --Tomascastelazo 18:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Lerdsuwa, do you really mean chromatic aberration (CA) as a lens defect or colour cast as Tomas asks? If you really mean CA, could you give an example of where you see it? I fail to see noticeable CA in the photo. Tomas: If you click on the very general categories of Mexico and Religion in the image page I think you will find much more specific categories, which better match your photo. I suggest you only select the most specific categories to increase chances that other users can find your nice contributions in a valid context for Wikimedia projects. -- Slaunger 10:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean chromatic aberration, not color cast/white balance. See the photo on the right for example, from top-left crop. You can see there is a thin red line along the head of those people, quite thick at about 3-4 pixels. The same red lines are actually present in other area as well. It's still evident when view at 50% (about full screen width on my monitor). This can be corrected and I am happy to support the corrected version. --Lerdsuwa 15:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the enlightening zoom on the upper left corner. Yes, that does appear to be CA, and there is similar traces of fringing in the lower right corner. However, it only seems to be visible in the corners of the photo, and personally, I do not find it distracting.-- Slaunger 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment In this case, the photographer is just a medium who may/may not do justice to the work at hand. As far as the color cast, neither mine nor yours can be said to reflect the correct cast. The only way to do it correctly wold be to use a Macbeth color chart and adjust colors accordingly. What I did was to shoot in RAW format and then I adjusted the white balance according to the type of light, so as to get a what I wished for "correct color rendering". I used a long exposure and small aperture to get a good DOF due to the fact, as you may recall, that the painting is in a dome ceiling, not a flat surface. Also, it is a very, very dark church, so even if the painter mixed his colors outside, their cast would be altered by the low light conditions inside, at least to the human eye. As far as the panting being so-so, well, it is not the vatican, and a comparison would be an unfair comparison considering the Rennaissance techniques, budgets, artists, etc., etc. Its value resides in other variables, such as the rendering of the characters, their clothing, the instruments (of the entire works) that the artist used. Remember that this is a representation of an event 17 centuries later, by a person who may not have travelled more than a 100 miles from his town in his life, etc., etc. What the painting does say to us, from the documentary point of view, is the type of clothing, weapons, instruments used in the 18th century, for the people and artifacts of his time were his models. More than the quality or mastery of technique, this is a document that has many messages. And true, photographically speaking I may have screwed it up, but look beyond the photograph. --Tomascastelazo 18:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A cliff

The country is Bjørnøya
The country is Norway. ;) --Aqwis 10:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Last two votes after voting period)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Last two votes after voting period)[reply]
[edit]

This image holds good features in artistic and informational aspects 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Elephant seals

  •  Info Elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) on a beach near San Simeon, California, USA. April 21, 2007. Moulting season. Image created, uploaded and nominated by Filtv --Helen Filatova 16:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Helen Filatova 16:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - This would be more accurately described as an elephant seal harem--there's no apparent mating going on, and these seals are all female. (The males have huge noses.) Typically big males have a harem of females they tend to and impregnate, which is what I imagine is going on here. Calliopejen 17:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support they are so cute, but rectify : they are not mating, just moulting, loosing their fur in a collective mud bath. There is no sexual activity : it is not an orgy. These are only young ones. I am not completely sure but they look like being born in the year.--B.navez 17:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC) I just gave a look on the pictures of the same gallery : these are young seals born in the year, both sexes --B.navez 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment You are absolutely right. 'Moulting' much better describes the situation. Thank you for your comment! Helen Filatova 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Last two votes after voting period)[reply]
[edit]

Young cow of Salers breed 

result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Last two votes after voting period)[reply]

Image:Ansel Adams - Farm workers and Mt. Williamson.jpg, featured

[edit]

Short description 

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Last three votes after voting period)[reply]
[edit]

Coldstream Guards sentry outside the Jewel House in the Tower of London 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Last four votes after voting period)[reply]
[edit]

white throated Kingfisher 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

This is Commons, not Wikipedia. --Aqwis 17:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, «Thus it provides a central repository for freely licensed photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text, video clips, and media of all sorts that are useful for any Wikimedia project.» (from «What is the Wikimedia Commons?» on Commons:Welcome)--B.navez 17:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (other votes too late)[reply]


[edit]

A frosted rose

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 19:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose /Ö 17:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--WarX 07:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC) lookz great[reply]
  •  Oppose Good from far, but far from good. Lycaon 10:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Declaration: Quite interesting to find my picture here by chance. The picture wasn't made for any encyclopedic purpose. So far I don't see it. I made it for decoration and art and as a kind of Xmas-Greeting card, as you can see here. Btw. it's a real rose growing in my garden. No cut and freece! The ice is frozen fog. The background was already quite colorless, but I reduced it even more to get a better contrast between the red and the rest. And with ISO 800 I would expect noise — at least with a 20D. And believe me, if I would have the intention to nominate it here, it would be far better than this quick free snapshot. --Kuebi 15:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A warthog (Phacochoerus africanus) taking refuge from the hot sun

  • All arguments that concern the intrinsic value of a photograph are relevant. These arguments are amongst others, dependent on the nature of the image (e.g. historical, biological, astronomical, etc.). The place a picture is taken can have lots of relevance. This picture, e.g., is not advertised as an image of a bored, confined animal in a zoo, which as such paints a misleading picture. Lycaon 10:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (other votes too late)[reply]
[edit]

Original nomination

Alternative 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (other vote too late)[reply]


[edit]

result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Bald Eagle. 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Juncus compressus

  •  Info technically maybe one of the sharpest and best plant photos I did this (last) year. also a very good composition, still has a "wow"-effect on me. created, uploaded, and nominated by Fabelfroh 14:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Fabelfroh 14:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now, a bit more  Oppose then support. I like it but it's not excellent in my eyes. There could be more DOF on the buds on the back + the truncated stem is disturbing. Otherwise if taken with a smaller aperture the background wouldn't be that smooth. I have to let it sink 4 a while ;), position could be change --Richard Bartz 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I don't like the framing (should be a portrait framing imo) and the cropped stem. Also, for a simple subject like this one the sharpness and detail should be better - Alvesgaspar 09:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I could say the same of your picture as above with the white flower: very interesting botanically (and so are many of your contributions), but insufficient quality for FP. Apart from being quite small, the framing doesn't work and as such the effective use of space for this rush is less than 1 Mpx. As a biologist I very much appreciate your contributions though. Lycaon 08:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Good subject, but framing and sharpness could be improved, as pointed out by previous commenters. Samsara 10:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
[edit]

used italian moka express 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
[edit]

Street performers 

result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Two periodical cicadas on daylily leaves, from the United States.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of bad composition; everyday image. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Example of a neighborhood complex, showing the "Strawberry Farms" logo.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too busy, noisy, and low-quality. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Short description

Its a shame. After that this went into the other one the 'message' at the top of my web browser said that the fund raising donations were going to san francisco. What would be nice to see here is evidence that the people who are actually working on things and capable continue and the software or people who emulate software cease for a while just to see if there is anyone with actual flawed, easily hurt, and perhaps too put down emotions and intelligence who is still able to contribute here. In 1982, I was enrolled in a community college where there was a teacher who had this beautiful vision of what the connected computers could do in the future. The vision was about sharing, not about forcing either lifestyle choices or turning everyone into the same psychological profiler and keeping people from owning their own computer. Dislocating them without reason. Is there any real person who can demonstrate an understanding of that as well as the difference between grain and noise? -- carol 20:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Happy baby 

result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

* Support --Karelj 20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC) after 9 days -- Colin (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Image of a flamingo at the Columbus Zoo. 

result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
[edit]

Solado de Errores de Wikipedia 

result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 18 support, 1 oppose, x neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Argynnis adippe 2 Richard Bartz.jpg

[edit]

Short description

  • This is a lens effect displaying a play of light on leaves in a forrest glade which you can see here, too. Through color/contrast tweaking you can strengthen this effect which causes interesting and sometimes abstract results. Shurely a matter of taste because its experimental--Richard Bartz 09:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Small White November 2007.jpg

[edit]

Pieris rapae

Image:Pale Grass Blue October 2007.jpg

[edit]

Pseudozizeeria maha

[edit]

Short description 

result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Goalkeeper makes a save

This is grass and not white marks --startaq 10:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like grass to me. It isn't on the ground, but it can easily be removed. Majorly (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's grass that's been kicked up from his studs as he dived, have a look around his feet at hi-res. Foxhill 00:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, grass it is. Then I'll  Support. --MichaelMaggs 07:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it wasn't a goal - The keeper got a hold of it in the end. If I remember rightly, it was in the dying minutes of a 1-1 game, so it would have been a key goal, had it actually been a goal. Nwiebe 20:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An artificial pacemaker with electrode shown in my hand to get an idea of size.

No, it wasn't. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good suggestion actually, I'll consider creating one where I put it on my chest.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A neutral background would be even better. --AM 15:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Image:St Jude Medical pacemaker with ruler.jpg. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, harsh shadows, not excellent. Maybe try a dark background? --TM 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that a sleeve is the traditional background for this sort of mechanical device. -- carol 11:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]

Image:Pseudorasbora parva(edited version).jpg

[edit]
[edit]

Pseudorasbora parva

  • I'd want to believe that too, but the upload history and quality stages of that image, IMO tell a different story... And yet I can be mistaken... But for sure you could've done a better job on the background ;-). Lycaon 06:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks as if the resolution was genuine, but the editing was a bit, let's call it unfortunate. I did a new edit from the original. It can be found after this nomination. The potential was there. Lycaon 19:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 16 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lycaon's edit

[edit]

Pseudorasbora parva

 I withdraw my nominationLycaon 21:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:First United Methodist Church in Huntington WV.jpg

[edit]

Short description

 I withdraw my nomination Lycaon 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Short description

 Question I see sausages, pig heads and ribs; is the stuff on the table intended for pozole, menudo or other? -- carol 07:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Carol, most likely pozole. Menudo uses pork parts, but mainly cow insides. Pozole uses pork meat cuts and pork heads... either way, it is all good! --Tomascastelazo 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]

Image:Twenty pounds sterling banknote holograms.jpg

[edit]

300px|he latest UK 20 pound note includes some fun holograms. 20 GBP is the equivalent of about 2 million dollars

[2]. --MichaelMaggs 21:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Flickr user has since been notified of the criminal offence. Arria Belli | parlami 21:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know all! But the image is good. Vini175 22:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  InfoHang on. Why are you quoting a UK law, when the Wikimedia Foundation operates under the laws of Florida? The only people who could be affected by the 1981 act are uploaders located in the UK, but even so it is arguable whether or not reproducing images in light on a screen is a "substance" within the meaning of the Act anyway, as that implies a tangible form. -- Arwel 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. "Choose your weapon?" -- carol 12:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was also a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 23:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I had uploaded two Flickr images of British banknotes. Since I notified both Flickr users of the criminal offence I think one of them has deleted their £ image from their photostream (I cannot see my comment anymore in my comment log, so I assume that's what happened). Arria Belli | parlami 13:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Antidorcas marsupialis 1.jpg

[edit]

Sprinkbok

  •  Info Springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis) in Etosha, Namibia, created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Lycaon 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Reasons: 1. Body position: the animal seems to be walking away. 2. Camera angle: shooting from an up to down position makes the contour of the body (top) blend in with background. A larger aperture would have separated the body from the background. 3. Light direction: it feels as if the light is pushing the animal away and it creates disturbing shadows. 4. As in people, vision is drawn to the face, and in this case, it is difficult to see the face. 5. My memory reference for this type of animal is that they are agile and alert and dynamic, a sensation that I do not get here. --Tomascastelazo 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nominationLycaon 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Light Dragoons Crimea

  •  Info uploaded by Old Moonraker - nominated by Old Moonraker --Old Moonraker 16:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This early example of the war photograph is frequently reproduced, but at a resolution which does not permit the faces of the subjects to be seen clearly. In this high-resolution version the facial expressions can be seen and they offer a valuable new insight into the photographer's work and the characters of the soldiers, veterans of the Charge of the Light Brigade and a winter of service in a punishing climate. --Old Moonraker 16:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment bad source given. Lycaon 17:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Please explain "bad source" and I will try to correct it. --Old Moonraker 17:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done External link now fixed—thanks for pointing this out. --Old Moonraker 17:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done Must be a session time-out or something. Now linked through the {{LOC-image}} tag.--Old Moonraker 06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Would you like me to try some cropping and cleanup? Durova 00:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, thanks. This is an historic photograph, like a "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" of its day, and IMO deserves to be seen in its original state. I submitted it in response to a comment here that specifically discussed the unimproved version.--Old Moonraker 06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --MichaelMaggs 07:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Jon Harald Søby 12:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't see why this picture should be featured, quality and compisition are really bad and I don't see that much historical value (some random officiers of the Crimean War). While the age might be a mitigating reason for the bad quality that's not an excuse for the bad composition and the lack of "wow". -- Gorgo 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not only the quality of the photograph is bad, even the scan was not properly done: it's tilted. Lycaon 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As for the quality, yes it is abysmal. However, considering that the image illustrates veterans of the en: Charge of the Light Brigade and it is a photograph, I think it merits support due to historical value. --Thermos 05:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Here we go again... To keep on judging photographs based solely on the "wow" factor, which is totally subjective and to expect photographs to conform to the quality of the latest technology does a disservice to the discipline of photography itself and to the larger scope of Wikipedia. The technology of photography has evolved and while we may get better rendition of subjects, color, resolution, etc., etc., it does not necessarily mean that we end up with "better" photography. On the contrary, I think that we get more "bad" photography as a result of technology, judging from a wide perpective on photography appreciation. In this particular case, yes, compared to today´s standards the image, as a rendition of subjects and technical quality, is lacking if we compare to what is obtainable with today´s photography. But that is not the case. The point is that the Crimean War was probably the first war covered photographically, and there were political considerations while doing so (read about it). Technically speaking, it is almost a miracle to even have these images, as the photographic process was extremely difficult. Therefore, the value of this photograph, and the reason it should be featured, is because of its inmense historical value. This photograph (and the series of the Crimean war) should be looked upon as a window into the past. This is the only visual record that we have of that conflict. It is an honest record, not an idealized rendition given by paintings of previous wars. Please visit this site so you get an idea of what Roger fenton and the Crimean War was all about #REDIRECT[3] The fact that one ignores the historical value of a photograph is no reason to deprive the larger scope of Wikipedia of building a knowledge base, and featuring images is a vehicle consisntent with the encyclopedic effort. We must learn to look beyond the paper (or screen) where the image appears, the paper is nothing but a window. So the glass is dirty, so what? It is the landscape that lies beyond that matters. I can imagine knocking down the Mona Lisa beacuse the paint is cracking! --Tomascastelazo 23:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mortar batteries in front of Picquet house Light Division, Crimean War.
After 20 minutes of retouching the sky only. At 300x magnification the streak in the center appears to be genuine artillery fire.
  •  Oppose Tough choice. With due respect for Tomascastelazo's eloquent opinion, the Library of Congress website hosts 264 Roger Fenton photographs of the Crimean War. I've uploaded one of them for comparison. Compositionally it's superior, and the team in the foreground is actively loading a cannon. At 300x magnification a particular streak in the sky appears to be genuine artillery fire. This is genuine battle photography, perhaps the earliest ever done. Whether you prefer the edited version or the original, this appears to be a superior shot. It isn't necessarily the best of Fenton's work; so far I've viewed 20% of that archive. Yet if we want to feature a Roger Fenton photo from this war I think it's important to select the best available. Durova 05:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the nominator I appreciate that you have provided reasoned comment to explain your "oppose" vote. May I just draw to your attention my first point about the facial expressions of the people portrayed? This is where I believe the image excels, and this is absent from the admittedly better-composed artillery picture. --Old Moonraker 13:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that's a good element. Fenton also shot a lot of portraits and small groups where the faces are easier to see and quite a few of those were of members of the divisions that took part in the charge of the light brigade. This nomination is part landscape, part people. I'd love to see some Fenton work get featured; we can do better than this particular example. Durova 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is only picture of Fenton's that I have seen at high resolution and I was so impressed by the faces that I made the nomination. All his pictures in Library of Congress are available at this resolution so if there's a better one that similarly shows faces in detail that should certainly be a featured image candidate if this one fails. --Old Moonraker 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Old Moonraker 07:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Macro shot of a brown anole (Anolis sagrei)

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Latin cross 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Border river 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote doesnt count anymore)[reply]
[edit]

Coat of Arms Trzaska of Polish noble families 

result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 14:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote doesnt count anymore)[reply]

Image:Beheadingchina1.jpg

[edit]

Short description

  •  Info Japanese executioner prepares to behead a condemned Chinese man kneeling before his own grave, Tientsin China. (probably during the Boxer Rebellion). A dramatic moment even after 107 years. What really makes this work for me is the fellow at right leaning to get a better view. Good historic photographs on non-Western subjects are rare at Commons. I hope those factors outweigh the soft focus. Created by Underwood & Underwood, 1901 - original Image:Beheadingchina.jpg uploaded by Madmax32 - cropped, cleaned up artifacts, adjusted histogram, sharpened, and nominated by Username --Durova 20:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Durova 20:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 22:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: [4]. ZooFari 02:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Ice formation on Shrub 

result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Texas panorama.jpg

[edit]

Texas Panorama

[edit]

Heinrich Emanuel Merck

Pencils Need Graphite? -- carol 12:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
[edit]

Werner von Siemens 

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]

Image:Bald Eagle, Kodiak, Alaska.jpg

[edit]

Bald Eagle on post in Kodiak, Alaska, USA

  •  Oppose Even though this is not an animal especially easy to photograph, I still feel that the composition is substandard. It would have been much better if the eagle could fill more of the frame. How far away were you from the bird? Freedom to share 07:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, I just nom'd it, I was not the photographer and she doesn't have an account. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bald Eagle, Kodiak, Alaska.jpg

[edit]

Bald Eagle on post in Kodiak, Alaska, USA

Can you include more of the background and get the size requirement up? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I don't have to understand how a picture gets "better" by adding some "rubbish" :) but here it is. --Plenz 08:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 21:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ranunculus acris niittyleinikki.jpg

[edit]

Ranunculus acris

  •  Info created by Alinja - uploaded by Alinja - nominated by Alinja 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral A full plant for identification of species - showing different leaf types, flowers and buds in natural environment and light. Not many good pictures for identification are available, but is it otherwise good enough to be featured? --Alinja 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The depth of field is way to narrow, it would be much better if both flowers were in focus. Freedom to share 18:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sharpness... -- MJJR 20:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I agree that not many good pictures of full plants for species identification are currently available. Most pictures concentrate on the flowers. Therefore I really appreciate your work. However, there are a few things that can be improved in this picture. Besides from the sharpness issues mentioned above, I find the lighting unfavorable. The plant is in the shadow, but in the background bright light spots are distracting the attention from the flower. Chmehl 07:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: low quality, bad lighting etc. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brandenburg Gate Quadriga at Night.jpg

[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is allready featured --Simonizer 08:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:SunriseJanuary8.08.Buffalo.NY.jpg

[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: much 2 small, please read the guidelines first :-) Regards --Richard Bartz 12:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Simi_1.jpg

[edit]

port Sími on Sími island, Dodekanese, Greece

Quality Images has size limitations, as well. I suggest submitting it to English Wikipedia. They don't mind small size so much there. -- carol 01:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 21:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Army.mil-2007-02-22-083216.jpg

[edit]

An Iraqi and American soldier conducting a raid in Baghdad. The graffiti on the wall reads "God is great" in Arabic.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 22:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Short description

No need to say sorry, just take your time and decide :-) --Richard Bartz 06:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The landscape version was great already. This one is better because it's more suitable for an encyclopaedic article.
     Question What flower is that? (Add this to the description.) Where was the photo taken? (Add coordinates.) --TM 13:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Pelopidas mathias 

result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 11:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote does not count anymore)[reply]
[edit]

Mirounga leonina (female)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Quality stunted by aforementioned lighting problems Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Mirounga leonina (female), slight color tweak by --Richard Bartz 21:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 03:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Notre-Dame basilica at Boulogne-sur-Mer, France 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yeager supersonic flight 1947.ogg

[edit]

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: not a still image (this is still FP and not Featured media, we don't have rules/guidelines to assess ogg files yet) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 06:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Istanbul, Turkey: The Crossroads of Europe and Asia 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote doesnt count anymore)[reply]
[edit]

Hagia Sophia and Blue Mosque 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote doesnt count anymore)[reply]
[edit]

Jet Engine 

1   2   3    4

 ===IMAGE===

  5   6   7
 8      9
      • And I would like to see
1   2   3    4

 ===IMAGE===

   8     7   5
9          6

OK, done. Jeff Dahl 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Intercession of Charles Borromeo supported by the Virgin Mary - Detail Rottmayr Fresco - Karlskirche - Vienna.JPG, featured

[edit]

Short description 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Palestinian women grinding coffee beans.jpg

[edit]

A specimen of Gouldian Finch (Chloebia gouldiae)


Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 16:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

National Grand Theatre, Beijing 

result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured.--Mywood 08:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Marine life and ocean floor in front of ice wall in McMurdo Sound 

result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => featured.--Mywood 08:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

beautiful Peyto Lake in Banff NP 

result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured.--Mywood 08:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grant Glacier 1902a.jpg

[edit]

Short description

Withdrawn: [5]. ZooFari 02:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Short description 

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured.--Mywood 15:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

"Single" bloom form of a Dahlia 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Mywood 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote doesnt count anymore)[reply]
[edit]

Piano soundboard

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 21:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Mywood 20:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Haytor, Dartmoor 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Mywood 20:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured.--Mywood 15:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Mywood 20:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:F-15 vertical deploy.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

F-15 showing off

Another thing, different uploader. -- carol 10:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Making FP look like idiots (which might not be such a big task):

-- carol 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep It met criteria when nominated, still does. A working weblink source is not required, the image has an appropriate source (USAF magazine), caption and author. --Dual Freq 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Perhaps a larger scan then and yet another uploader? -- carol 04:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 Delist, 8 Keep, 0 neutral => featured. --Mywood 20:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote doesnt count anymore)[reply]

Image:Central African Republic - Boy in Birao.jpg, featured

[edit]

Short description

"It doesn't matter what you say, they laugh at everything." Huey, at the Garden Party, circa 2005 -- carol 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

I am certain that this should geocoded. -- carol 01:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 28 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Dianthus hyssopifolius 1.jpg

[edit]

Short description

No its not --Simonizer 11:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC) See Image:Waterfrog head.jpg, Image:Goana lace monitor.jpg or your own Image:MC Timberwolf.jpg for example. I guess some user think, that if you dont show the whole animal its less useable for wikipedia. But we are here at commons wikimedia, so that doesnt really matter. --Simonizer 11:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought, thanks. Chmehl 11:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Original

[edit]

Short description

Cropped

[edit]

Short description

Is this better? DragonFire1024 21:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so too, but to the right is where the fire department is hosing down the debris as it falls. I wanted to try and get as much of that stream in the image as possible without cutting too much off otherwise it would be like 'where/what is that?'. DragonFire1024 06:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are two to choose from. And the crop is actually not small. DragonFire1024 09:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Detail? You cannot get anymore detailed than this. This is perfect timing. DragonFire1024 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Detail is seeing the light bars in the hospital. Details is seeing the blasting, the debris, the tilting and the timing. DragonFire1024 05:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - Perhaps Beyond silence means that the quality of the detail is not good enough. The photo looks a tad blurred overall, to me. --typhoonchaser 15:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it was blurred, IMHO, then why so much detail as I stated above? DragonFire1024 19:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Heliconius comprise a colorful and widespread butterfly genus distributed throughout the tropical and subtropical regions of the New World. As shown Helioconius sp. 

result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

  •  Info
    English:
The Dolomites (a section of the Alps) near Cortina d'Ampezzo, a popular winter sport resort in the province of Belluno, Veneto, northern Italy.
Italiano: Una sezione delle Dolomiti a ridosso di Cortina d'Ampezzo

Created & nominated by --Laziale93 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Laziale93 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It's a mountain... I have established that fact. The problem is that there are huge amounts of mountain pics, right? What about this one makes it stand out to such an extent that it is worthy of an FP? Make the weather look dramatic, wake up early and do a sunrise pic, but in order to make this into an FP you would have to impress me and other reviewers, a task you have failed at. Freedom to share 22:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Please Freedom to share try to be a little more soft when you oppose. He is 14 y.o. and this one is not so bad as a first try. Can we suggest to try Quality Image first?. Here some advice for him:
    Ciao Laziale, non farti scoraggiare da questo tipo di commenti poco gentili e ben poco costruttivi. L'immagine non è affatto male ma devi tenere presente che qui si cerca di "eleggere" le migliori foto in assoluto tra le migliaia che vengono caricate ogni giorno. Prima di provare una candidatura come Feature Picture ti consiglio di provare a candidare le tue immagini come Quality Image dove viene giudicata soprattutto la qualità tecnica. Per le Feature Pictures, oltre alla qualità tecnica deve esistere quello che qui chiamano "WOW factor" che vuol dire che l'immagine deve lasciare a bocca aperta. Per questa tua foto in particolare devo dire che dal punto di vista tecnico è presente molto rumore digitale che la penalizza e manca un po' di contrasto. Ti consiglio anche di aggiungere sempre un commento in inglese alla tue foto per renderle più facilmente utilizzabile dai progetti internazionali. Se hai bisono di aiuto chiedi pure. Ciao LucaG 00:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. grazie mille ;) --Laziale93 12:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right. Sorry for shooting down the image so quickly and not making my arguments heard first. Look, Laziale93, I am not disputing that I like this mountain. This could be an excellent photo, but you need something to really make it stand out. Look at this image, for example. Image:Mexico-Popocatepetl.jpg. A normal volcano, it seemed, but what made it special was the lighting and the sunset. Without the light: a normal volcano that would probably not make it. This one I especially love. Image:Engelberg 01.JPG. A normal mountain, like yours? Yes, but it was the fog that helped make the WOW effect and create the picture. What I recommend is: buy yourself a tripod (and get in the habit of using it. It will allow you to expose for longer and help you with composition) if you don't already have one and experiment with many different lighting conditions as well. My first FPC was shot down (lost the nomination) too. But this didn't discourage me and I am still taking photos. So, if this one is not passed, don't worry. Try again, hopefully, if you can, the same mountain, at sunrise, sunset, fog or twilight (period between night and sunrise or sunset) and you will see that your results improve a lot. If you need any more help, ask LucaG, for he is probably the best landscape photographer we have here at the moment. (Luca, would you mind translating this if his English is not that good?) Freedom to share 09:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hai ragione. Mi spiace di aver scartato la tua foto tanto in fretta senza prima spiegarne le ragioni. Guarda, Laziale93, che non dico che non mi piaccia questa montagna. Questa potrebbe essere un'eccellente fotografia ma ti serve qualcosa che la renda veramente notevole. Guarda questa immagine, per esempio: Image:Mexico-Popocatepetl.jpg. Sembrerebbe un normale vulcano ma quello che lo rende speciale è la luce particolare del tramonto. Senza questa luce sarebbe un comune vulcano senza niente di eccezionale. Guarda anche quest'altra fotografia che mi piace in particolar modo: Image:Engelberg 01.JPG. Una normale montagna come la tua? Certo, ma l'effetto della nebbia la rende eccezionale. Quello che ti consiglio io è: se non lo hai già, comprati un cavalletto (e abituati ad usarlo sempre, ti consentirà tempi di esposizione più lunghi e ti aiuterà nella composizione dell'immagine) e fai esperimenti con diverse esposizioni e con differenti condizioni di luce. Anche la prima foto che ho candidato io non fu accettata ma questo non mi ha scoraggiato e continuo a scattare fotografie. Quindi se questa tua foto non passa, non ti preoccupare, prova ancora, magari con la stessa montagna, all'alba, al tramonto, con la nebbia o al crepuscolo e ti accorgerai di come miglioreranno i tuoi risultati. (Freedom to share comment, transated to IT by LucaG 22:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  •  Support--B.navez 04:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Incredible for 14 years old. I like the cloud shadow in the valley. Nice mountain shape. DragonFire1024 07:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Fine composition but poor photographic quality: little detail and artifacts -- Alvesgaspar 11:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar Tbc 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose sharpness --Beyond silence 21:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Sunrise with a shooting star.

The focus is not the foreground/houses. Those are not the primary elements of the picture. To photoshop this would destroy the picture's natural setting. Should it really matter that much if you cannot see the tops of houses? DragonFire1024 23:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise with a shooting star.

I modified the foreground. I admit, it does look better. DragonFire1024 00:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? I mean lets be realistic here. I simply cannot take a hammer ans straighten the chimney. DragonFire1024 17:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for saying picture is tilted for we can see it from the chimneys. But it wouldn't change anything for me even if they were straight : fine scenery but no enough for FP in my POV. Sorry.--B.navez 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]

Image:Tattered Israeli flag in Jerusalem by David Shankbone.jpg

[edit]

Short description

I find it disturbing tht you would even criticize the fact that the tip of the pole is missing. Ridiculous. DragonFire1024 17:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find disturbing your lack of knowledge of the basic guidelines --Orlovic (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Quality issues Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Quadriga above Brandenburger Tor in Berlin, Germany 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
[edit]

Bee on sunflower 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:The Soviet Union 1958 CPA 2116 stamp (Qi Baishi) cancelled.jpg

[edit]

White peacock 

result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]

Image:MacBook Air 1.jpg

[edit]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: having copyrighted images and has already been requested for deletion for that. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 07:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Victoriabeckhamlv.jpg

[edit]

Short description

  • cropped version of this photo
    cropped version of this photo
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small following the guidelines, has a lot of digital noise and is unsharp - Sting 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Can someone reduce the noise with Photoshop? I don't have photoshop. Also, I don't think this picture is too small. We are voting for the first photo only. miranda 01:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture size is only 1.65Mpx large which is insufficient for this kind of photo depicting a non-exceptional subject. Photoshop allows to make many things, still not miracles : this picture is unrecoverable. Sting 14:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just  I withdraw my nomination miranda 06:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to oppose if it's been withdrawn. And who says Victoria Beckham is non-exceptional? The photo's just low-quality and not very flattering. Rocket000 12:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aedes albopictus on human skin.jpg

[edit]

Mosquito on skin

 Durova 19:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Osmanli-devleti-nisani-yeni.png

[edit]

Coat of arms of Ottoman Empire

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small, wrongly coloured an not in SVG format Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 15:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Jade Knife Handle 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

As that one is not detailed as this one ? They all have different aspects. P.S I am wondering that you dont opposed for my nametag in the imagename as you do normaly ;-) --Richard Bartz 18:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ! So now you think I'm taking it personal ?!
Btw, I liked the « as you do normaly » rofl
For this photo you're right : it might be more a question of sharpness, as half of the right wing is out of focus. Sting 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 08:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Great Fountain Geyser at Yellowstone National Park at sunset 

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Mywood 08:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Michal Malak at Tour de Ski 

result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 08:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hugo Chavéz, President of Venezuela, votes in the December 2, 2007 referendum.

I read it well. But propaganda can be indirect, that is the modern way of instrumentalisation of the media, no matter the kind of régime. And that is what makes all the value of this picture, all the scene arrangement with red and green shirts. That is why I support the picture. Technical features are enough for a professional press agency, is it enough for the luxurious standards of FP ? Some below think not.--B.navez 08:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

New York City steam explosion, July 18, 2007. Photo taken in front of the New York City Public Library. 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Panorama photograph of the Perth foreshore taken on a Saturday afternoon. 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Uljanik shipyard in Pula

see now, exact year is hard to confirm. --Orlovic (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no way, sorry. Access to the cranes is restricted--Orlovic (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Aletschgletscher seen from Eggishorn (Switzerland) 

 result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral =>  featured. Mywood 09:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Escalators in Copenhagen metro station 

result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. Mywood 09:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Sile river in Casier

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: unsharp and noisy, and it is not categorized. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 InfoCategorized, deleted the noise and some more sharped.--Lissen 21:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Image shows female lips with a piercing 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: not sharp and underexposed Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 12:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Short description

 Question I think, there is to much information in the picture. What you wanted to say via thisone?--Juan de Vojníkov 01:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much information?? We like information here! The more, the better. :) Rocket000 22:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who "we"? I thought Wikimedia Commons is a repository shared by other Wikimedia projects. So the information is usually there in written form. Thats why I am also a neutral in here.--Juan de Vojníkov 08:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes one image gets used at four or five different articles. Different parts of a long description could be useful to each article. Durova 10:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 17:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Your imaginations are exorbitant. We should assume that most of this pictures here are done by photography amateurs. Who without professional Photoshop skills + DSLR gear (and a umbrella flash --- laughting out very loud!) should ever fulfil the FP qualifications ? This isnt Tony Stone agency here, sorry ,-) --Richard Bartz 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are studio pictures which aren't very difficult to reproduce. I completed my vote with what imo could help better them, as advice if you want. I could also have voted without any further comment, if you prefer. You proposed the image so I hope you are ready to accept the opinion of each voter, even if it isn't the same as yours. The quality level required for featured articles goes up in the different WPs, so does it here regarding the number of candidates. Sting 20:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 17:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC) (Last oppose vote after voting period)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Not all flowers can be focused. But the main flower is perfect. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 05:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 oppose, 1 support (nominator), 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the fifth day). Lycaon 06:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Fields near Żelechów, Poland. 

result: 2 oppose, 0 support, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the fifth day). Lycaon 06:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Es considerado el rey de los Carnavales en numerosas festividades de América Latina, principalmente en Brasil y Colombia. Su aparición significa el comienzo de las fiestas de Carnaval. Cada carnaval tiene su propio Rey Momo, a quién se le suele dar la llave de la ciudad. Tradicionalmente, un hombre alto y gordo es elegido para interpretar dicho papel.3D Versión:Es considerado el rey de los Carnavales en numerosas festividades de América Latina, principalmente en Brasil y Colombia. Su aparición significa el comienzo de las fiestas de Carnaval. Cada carnaval tiene su propio Rey Momo, a quién se le suele dar la llave de la ciudad. Tradicionalmente, un hombre alto y gordo es elegido para interpretar dicho papel.

Thanks --libertad0 ॐ 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, why is this even here?? It's listed for removal. Rocket000 10:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 oppose, 1 support (nominator), 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the fifth day). Lycaon 06:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pet Rock-2003.jpg

[edit]

Joke? You might offend me and my adoptee.... -- carol 08:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The pet rock phenomena occurred before the much more thoroughly documented cabbage patch dolls. I think (or assume) that they learned some lessons from problems (like this one where you are in need of id papers) in between these adoptive feats. Things/life were/was not fun in the cold war, btw. We feared for our lives every waking minute and some of the sleeping ones as well. -- carol 10:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course both--B.navez 15:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to argue for the integrity of the image, but here is something that you might think about. Your assumption is that Alves has the real photograph and mine isn't even though the exif information says otherwise? Some additional background might be good to think about also. I have been -- to the best of my ability, understanding and knowledge, 100% honest and mostly respectful of FPC before this image; yet the 'nod' of honesty goes to Alves, even when the exif information says otherwise? Another thing to think about, is it good to have a new participant/observer take that slide from respect and honesty to 'whatever'? Unless I missed something important.
Also, editing exif information is not easy and potentially very dangerous. Do not try this at home or even in a light-industrial office space or less. It is safer to go play in the road. -- carol 04:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't change the color at all -- there are two white hairs on it though, perhaps they should go? I grew quite fond of this rock, so my opinion might be kind of unreliable. -- carol 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination  Comment I don't want to stand in the way of progress. -- carol 15:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Scoria Macro Digon3.jpg

[edit]

Short description

Image:Härlen3.jpg

[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 12:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Night Scene of Pier 9, Central Piers, Hongkong 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 22:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC) (Last Support vote after voting period)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 oppose, 0 support, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the fifth day).--Mywood 22:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CMOC Treasures of Ancient China exhibit - bronze gui.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support (nominator), 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the fifth day). --Mywood 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Patti Smith in concert 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. The Watusi 06:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Minard chart 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A panoramic view of the Mont-Tremblant Quebec Canada 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Map of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia during the 13th century

I have finished this map last sunday. The french version is already in used, the english version not yet. Sémhur 16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The SVG files are easily translatable. At the bottom of the description of the map, you can read this template: "This SVG file uses embedded text that can be easily translated into your language. Learn more." If you click on the link, you will see methods to translate an SVG file. (Regardless, if you still have a problem to translate, tell me on my talk page and I will help you.) Sémhur 09:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upst, I am stupid. Yes, so we can say its perfect:-)--Juan de Vojníkov 13:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 OpposeOppose--Uannis 15:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Double O Arch in Arches National Park/Utah 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 10:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Romanesco Brassica oleracea Richard Bartz.jpg

[edit]

Short description

  •  Info created , uploaded & nominated by --Richard Bartz 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Do you like space vegetables ? -- You should see this in 100% size ;-)
  •  Info Romanesco broccoli or fractal broccoli is an edible flower of the species Brassica oleracea and a variant form of cauliflower.
  •  Support Nice details --Richard Bartz 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Dust spots throughout, and possibly a clone job gone bad at the top. They should be fixed as it doesn't take much effort to do so. Dori - Talk 18:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It lacks something but I can't quite put my finger on it. The lighting bothers me, perhaps not enough front lighting. The tips at the top are too white maybe. It's valuable, but it seems to lack some of that undefinable wow. Maybe others will disagree. -- Ram-Man 01:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is lacking in quality perhaps? -- carol 08:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 10:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HMS Belfast - Boiler diagram.svg, featured

[edit]

Short description 

result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Paviljoentje, Hoogstraat 28, Brugge.jpg

Image:Grad_Kamen_obzidje.JPG

[edit]

Grad Kamen

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: overexposed in the background. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 13:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rooma 2006 044.jpg

[edit]

Sculpture from the wall of Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano in Rome depicting evangelist Matthew.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: noisy and inconsistently lit. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 13:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lac St André granier.jpg

[edit]

Beautiful scenery of the French countryside

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: much too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Short description 

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 14:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 14:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cervus nippon 002.jpg

[edit]

Benasque valley 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 14:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 14:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 14:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Feral cat 

result: 1 support(nominator), 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured.(rule of the fifth day) Mywood 14:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Playing (nude).jpg

[edit]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: not sharp Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TauTropfenGerbera1.JPG

[edit]

Short description

* Support --84.190.192.182 21:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Please log in to vote. --MichaelMaggs 22:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: not sharp Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Windmills in the Netherlands.

{{FPX|too small, 1600px * 1200px is below the 2Mpx limit}} --Freedom to share 07:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC) You can't use FPX if two people have already supported. --MichaelMaggs 07:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC) [reply] 

result:  Edited version is already featured. => not featured. Lycaon 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description Short description

[edit]
result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  •  Info - Please consider this alternative, where the twelve flowers are of different families and there are only three inflorescences (contrarily to the original, where most of the flowers are from the Asteraceae family). I know that the quality of some pictures is not as good but the poster is more illustrative of the subject and thus more encyclopaedic -- Alvesgaspar 19:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Alvesgaspar 19:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. Mywood 21:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Created by Ralf Reinecke - uploaded by Flominator - nominated by --Beyond silence 23:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  •  Info Companion nomination to Image:USSArizonaSurvivor.jpg: The USS Arizona afire and sinking during the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. Restored version of Image:USS Arizona sinking 2.jpg with scratches, fibers, stains, and other artifacts removed. Levels adjusted. Created by unknown (official U.S. Navy file - public domain) - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. --Durova 00:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Durova 00:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral It's definitly an important historical event, I'm just not sure if this photo captures it best . It might, so I'm not opposing. Great restoration work. Rocket000 11:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was by far the best quality shot I could access online: a high resolution scan done on clean equipment from the Library of Congress. This provided a 12 meg source image at 1000 dpi rather than the small, heavily streaked, and often lossy material from other locations. After reviewing different source files from Wikipedia, Commons, the National Archives, and the Defense Virtual Information Center I decided this was the only one really worth restoring. I think policy is to replace existing FPs with better ones, so if a superior file ever becomes available we can make the adjustment. Durova 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Extremely poor quality, even taking age into account. Lycaon 07:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  •  Info The last poster of the series, with bees and wasps. These are among the most difficult insects to photograph due to being usually fast and restless. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 00:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Alvesgaspar 00:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Fg2 08:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Its a great idea to make a poster with bees and wasps. I think this poster is lacking a bit of educational relevance and illustrative perfection and a whole order would be better, why not Hymenoptera of Portugal ?.
    I would decribe it as a Alvesgaspar - Supercompilation. Although i love a lot of your pictures i wouldn't do a print out of this and for online use it's not handy because it's overcrowded, so i would prefer the seperated pictures. How should someone, who is not a insect freak understand this poster and could extract useful, educational informations ? As a example: Kids in School. To show what i mean you should see this. You see this poster has a title and a nice layout which describes things very well. All i want to say is that this poster isn't elaborated very well but it could when applying a good/better concept. P.S Printing. Auplopus carbonarius and some other parts spread all around would be look unfortune if printed because it has 100% white in the overexposed parts. Maybe do 5-15% gray over it as you should do for the typo, too. It's a technical thing for printing. --Richard Bartz 10:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Johney (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Mainly due to vespula germanica being out of focus. --Dori - Talk 16:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support From my point of view is this very good idea. --Karelj 23:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment If it is just a poster and not a PEXESO, it should be in the frame. Anoter problem comes with legend.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC) And there should be more background information e.g. in summary template.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Huh, I see its in the frame, so I was wrong.--Juan de Vojníkov 08:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose some of the images are jast bad. Noy 16:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody will do that again in a hurry. ;-) --Richard Bartz 00:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Ruins of St. Paul's in Macau which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site now. 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Olympic Stadium of Montreal 

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bombus Bumblebee (Bestoevning).jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 2 Delist, 2 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opening delist nomination: 

result: 6 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Mywood 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An image of the Pena Palace, Sintra, Portugal 

result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

"Prohibido especular" (You must not speculate) Green Zone, ecologist protest. Canovelles, Barcelona, Spain

 Comment "Prohibido especular" (You must not speculate) Green Zone, ecologist protest. Canovelles, Barcelona, Spain 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Oh! I found some related in Eriophyidae, maybe could be a good idea put some information in the file summary.
result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 Info Squares A and B are exactly the same shade of gray. english wikipadia's FA. amazing. Noy 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I did it right? Noy 14:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
becouse I'm new here :-). Noy 16:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Itws simple- try to cut A and B at printer. Noy 08:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to do that on the computer in almost the same way that you would with a printed version. And it seems to me that when I have seen these optical illusions online, an animation which compares the colors is very helpful for representing the information. -- carol 16:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grey square optical illusion.PNG

[edit]

O.K, convention is convention. Noy 16:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Evstafiev-bosnia-sarajevo-shattered-mirror.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Shattered mirror.

It is when you're talking about "mitigating reasons", which I believe this lacks. Rocket000 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 Delist, 1 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Mywood 11:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/January_2008&oldid=156658296"