Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2007

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.


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


Trigonoceps occipitalis

*  Neutral He might be a great photographer, but i have the feeling that this image isnt real. (concerning the whole background) --Makro Freak 21:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erysimum cheiri 

result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twin yellow Taraxacum officinalis 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cichorium intybus

  •  Info I was amazed by the beauty of this wild flower of common chicory when I took a walk this morning near my house. All three nominations of today are the result of that short walk. After every shot I'm more convinced that "recognizing beauty" is a major skill in photography, maybe more important than technique and good hardware. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 15:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhm, yeah, very profound. But while you walk around recognizing beauty it wouldn't hurt keeping the project scope in mind too. Flower pictures are more useful if the whole plant can be seen. This just as a side rant... --Dschwen 16:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not exactely so. The scientific approach to Nature is to not the only one and probably not the most important for people coming here looking for flowers. That is true in general and also in which the Commons' project is concerned. Besides, everyone serves the project according to his capacities and preferences (you seem to have forgotten the wisdom of honourable Dr. Marx about the subject). Just imagine someone claiming that your building pictures, to be complete, should also emphasize the engineering details. - Alvesgaspar 18:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if we assumed for a second that commons is based on a marxist philosophy, I still doubt that the honorable Dr. Marx would advocate tons of flower bud pictures among the FPs. Compared to their usefulness they are waaaaaay overrepresented. And as for the my building pictures, you got to give me some credit here, there is a little more variety in the pics I upload to commons than just building pictures. --Dschwen 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well tons of flower pictures among FPs is a function of picky reviewers, not Alvesgaspar as a photographer. This image failed with a glorious total of 6 votes and this failed miserably, despite being sharp and of high quality, mostly because they were "boring". Oh and don't forget these images which got a whole two support votes including the nominator (myself) and no opposition. This image is a landmark: it's not just a small flower head, but leaves as well and should become a featured picture. Amazing. I'm not convinced that many reviewers even care about usefulness. At most it is secondary to other aspects. Your comment is misplaced and should be geared at the reviewers, not this photogapher. -- Ram-Man 20:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Point taken, I partially agree about the reviewer thing. But the nominatior takes some responsibility as well, especially if it is a self-nom. The reviewers only review whats presented to them. Non-self noms are a rarity (only 4 in the first 35 on this page, even less if you discount mutual courtesy nominations). Anywho, I suspect the new Meet the photographers thingie is a big incentive for even more self-noms now. I'm not saying its a bad thing per se, but the nominator definitely bears responsibility on what he presents as his share of allegedly the best work on commons. --Dschwen 20:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're having side rants, I get criticized for citing project scope when I oppose low-resolution files. As for the point, trying to get a featured picture of a plant that doesn't have a flower is nearly impossible, even if it is technically flawless. Flower images like this *are* useful, because they show in detail the flower itself. A good encyclopedia article would have closeups of each important part (leaves, buds, flowers, stems, roots, etc...) while having another picture of the entire plant. As for featured pictures though, it's just not possible to get featured pictures of everything that a good article needs, due to current standards. A picture without some form of beauty (or anti-beauty on the other extreme) doesn't become a FP. -- Ram-Man 18:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Alvesgaspar 15:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- The angle of the stem, somehow makes the flower look crooked and off center. The the background is not in focus, it is distracting. Further (beauty is in the eye of the beholder) there is no "wow" effect for me. {Charlessauer 17:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC).}[reply]
  •  Support I can't agree more with bit on "recognizing beauty". This is a beautiful image, and I don't seem to mind that it has a centered composition. It certainly doesn't hurt though that your camera can reproduce these blues much better than saturated yellow and red. -- Ram-Man 15:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Thermos 20:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --MichaelMaggs 21:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Jina Lee 05:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Jon Harald Søby 20:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Vmenkov 04:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support /Daniel78 20:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Javier ME 16:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

* Oppose Its too small, and I don't think there are strong mitigating reasons for size. Could you upload a larger resolution? --Digon3 18:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

polychaete anatomy

'3D' vector rendering of the anatomy of a segment of a polychaete
 Info Looking at those that are FP: Highly detailed or photo realistic or animated, visually appealing, use colour well. Often of something familiar but showing detail not illustratable by a photograph. But there are about 20% that I think should be just QI, so what do I know? ;-) --Tony Wills 09:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominated image is not this thumbnail! I trust you evaluate all images at full size!! ;-) --Tony Wills
  •  Neutral Again a quality image. I expect that the general public will, like me, be ignorant of what it is of (the image page description didn't help, but the categories it belonged to did), and hence will be puzzled but not wow'ed. --Tony Wills 09:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Have to support my own. The work invested into this was substantial: both the research into the correctness of the image, and the drawing in pseudo 3D with all the different layers. Lycaon 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - The picture is not geometrically clear for me. I don't understand the smaller cut "window" and its relation with the septum between segments and the orange structure at right (parapod?). Also, colours could be better; for example, the interior of the intestinal lumen should be darker. - Alvesgaspar 14:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Ii is a pity that we have no guidlines for illustrations. So i have to compare with other FP illustrations. This one is informative, it has no flaws, its clearly arranged and its superior to some allready featured illustrations. So for me it is a FP --Simonizer 10:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vernier caliper 

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Decek s cutaro (1 - edit).jpg, not featured

Boy with flask Boy with flask

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by smihael

Left edited version

result:Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 07:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 07:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hawaii turtle.JPG

Green Turtle Green Turtle 

result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (other version has more support votes) Simonizer 06:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

. 

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 14:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#1 Circular paver blocks #2 Circular paver blocks

  •  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It's not any type of plant or animal, for sure. In case anyone asks, I didn't crop out the upper left corner because it adds interest through contrasting elements and scale. Also, I corrected for barrel distortion from the wide-angle lens used, but made no attempt to adjust the perspective distortion inherent to such wide angles of view, since that's the whole point of this image. -- Ram-Man 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Makes me dizzy... :) Jina Lee 16:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The angles of the paves seem red (may someone remember me the physical term ?) and the image does not have a so good "psychedelic" effect. Sorry --Alipho 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you probably mean the reddish color fringing, or chromatic abberation? I replaced the old image with a new one to try and combat the effect. I think it looks a bit better now. -- Ram-Man 19:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 14:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture #2 - not featured

 1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 20:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Trillium 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 14:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 14:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 14:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tete de libellule juste nee.jpg

Tête de Libellule

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. Images of less than 2Mpx are not normally approved here, even where they are of excellent quality. --Simonizer 19:17, 1 June 2007 (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:Amplexus de Bufo bufo.002.JPG

Amplexus of Bufo bufo

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. Images of less than 2Mpx are not normally approved here, even where they are of excellent quality. --MichaelMaggs 16:21, 1 June 2007 (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:Green carabidae-1.jpg

Oedemera lurida Oedemera lurida 

result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured Simonizer 06:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (other version has more support votes) Simonizer 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grus antigone 

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ange jardins fontaine nimes.jpg

Photo de l'ange de la nymphéa jardins de la fontaine à Nîmes*Edit

Picture #1 - not featured

 1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red billed gull (Larus scopulinus) in Wellington Harbour * Red billed gull (Larus scopulinus) in Wellington Harbour

Picture #1, featured
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Picture #2, not featured
Could you say what your edit does? --MichaelMaggs 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 14:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epitoke Alitta succinea 

result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

Sorry, what's your question? --MichaelMaggs 10:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flower with velvet mites 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lovell Telescope The Lovell Telescope 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Info created and uploaded by Jina Lee. Nominated by Ram-Man. 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info A flowering cherry tree in the Prunus genus with two different color blossoms due to grafting.
  •  Support This is a beautiful example of grafting for landscaping purposes. -- Ram-Man 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - This is a real difficult subject (I've tried it quite often) and the result shows it: the lighting of the flowers is not good (a fill-in flash might be a solution in these conditions), the picture is blurry and grainy, and some chromatic aberration /purple fringing) is clearly visible. - Alvesgaspar 17:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I knew someone would say that :) Except for the lighting, the major defects are only visible above 4MP. If you downsample the image to 1800x2400 (4MP), the noise and grain mostly disappear. Should I upload a downsampled version? 4MP is well above the 2MP base requirement and I think that the composition and beauty compensate for the lighting. Just my opinion. -- Ram-Man 18:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Its hard to do the splits. The white blossoms and the white clouds, a very difficult motif. More light on the blossoms and there is no more contrast to the clouds ... Remember the place and go there when you have a homogenious blue sky, that will be a burner! --Makro Freak 22:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

Could you fix the tilt? --Digon3 14:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is a higher resolution image available? For such a highly textured landscape the extra resolution is much desired. -- Ram-Man 16:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Info Sea Anemone is in process of consuming a jellyfish. Sea Anemones look as plants, but they are animals and they are predators.
  •  Info created by Mbz1- uploaded by Mbz1- nominated by Mbz1--Mbz1 05:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mbz1 05:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Confusing composition, low quality and above all no identification. Lycaon 05:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a composition. It is a real life drama and a rare shot. Those are not preserved specimens, but real underwater amazing wildlife in their natural habitat. -- Mbz1 05:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose The composition is unclear (and all photographs involve composition). The quality is not high enough. Some of the elements are blurred and there are overexposed spectral highlights. This may be educational (if identified), but it's not of high enough quality for a FP. -- Ram-Man 17:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I knew that the picture will be opposed. The idea of nominating the picture was not to make it a featured picture, but to have more people to look at it and maybe learn something new. I'm a strong believer that Wikipedia should be l a learning tool and not a photo contest of high quality pictures. The thing is that some subjects are easier to see and to photograph than others, but does it mean that we should future dozens of sharp butterflies at sharp flowers pictures and no single and unique anemone picture?--Mbz1 18:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose as above, too confusing and unclear composition. --Digon3 17:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it unclear is all the rocks and shells on the side. --Digon3 20:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just any rocks and shells. These rocks and shells were placed there by the anemone itself to camouflage its adhesive foot. Looks like the anemone did its job very well. If everybody is confused, it means that all predators and prey will be confused too and the anemone will do just fine. --21:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tiger on a tree 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NYC_Public_Library_Research_Room_Jan_2006.jpg

#1NYC public library research room #2NYC public library research room 

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Info I uploaded an edited version,trying to suppress stitching errors.I think it was a very fine picture anyway.Vassil 

result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pulteney Bridge, Bath.jpg

Pulteney Bridge, Bath, UK Pulteney Bridge, Bath, UK 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the advertsiment text fits the bird scene somehow. Blue tits hunt insects that otherwise would damage trees (thought the tit itself may damage the tree as well in its search of prey). Humans who hunt herbivores might somehow identify themselves with an insectivorous bird. Anyway, I agree the message is controversial. Would you support to feature this pic if the advert was blurred or if the lower part was cropped out? --Javier ME 16:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four-spotted chaser 

result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swan (cygnus olor) 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cygnus olor flirt.jpg

Short description Short description 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I fail to see any deceit here, one out of focus foreground element was removed (like perhaps removing a distracting grass stem from a photo of a blackbird). The picture appears to be showing courtship behaviour (together with other versions on its image page), quite encyclopaedic and the heart shape between them adds interest. --Tony Wills 12:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ussikeel.jpg

Viper's Bugloss Echium vulgare. Picture has been named "Ussikeel" (Estonian translation for Viper's Bugloss) as the reason this image is taken in Estonia, in a little island called Osmussaar. 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 10:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Northen Beijing Church.JPG, delisted

Short description 

result: 0 Keep, 5 Delist, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 10:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pennsylvania Winter Sunset.jpg, delisted

Sunset Harleysville, Pennsylvania 

result: 0 Keep, 5 Delist, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer 07:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Works of the Carnegie Steel Co. 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers of Styrax obassia 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USAF firefighters 

result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description Edit 

result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Edit. The edit is crap (sorry) it blows a lot of detail for a superficially sexy look. I also resized the thumbnails for fairness (before the resizing the original had an old unsharpened thumbnail and the edit had a thumbnail generated with the new settings which sharpen the thumbnails). --Dschwen 08:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Vote of Dschwen splitted between the two versions - Alvesgaspar 09:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Same as above, but worse... Benh 11:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of th 5th day) Simonizer 07:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palais Longchamp, Marseille

  •  Info created by Jan Drewes - uploaded by JDrewes - nominated by JDrewes --Jan Drewes (www.jandrewes.de) 21:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Jan Drewes (www.jandrewes.de) 21:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice. --Atoma 11:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very good! SeaSide 15:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Good. --Karelj 19:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- MJJR 19:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Vassil 27 May 2007
  •  Oppose I think this would be better taken during the day, or at least taken without the pond. The weird lighting on the plants is really disturbing. --Digon3 20:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Too much distortion, doesn't look natural - Alvesgaspar 22:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose For a wide angle shot, some distortion is acceptable. This distortion is ok because it is well balanced/symmetrical. However, to quote the guidelines: "nightshots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime". I realize a pretty picture like this has a "wow", but I'd rather have useful and with a nice daytime sky or even a sunset. The lighting here is unnatural. -- Ram-Man 00:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per other opposers -- Lycaon 10:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Distortion. Is there not a tool to revome distortions ? --Makro Freak 12:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am pretty sure that you can remove distortions only on single frames. This is a stitched panorama, and while it would be mathematically possible to remove the distortion, it would warp the outline of the image requiring severe cropping. If someone knows a free/OSS tool that can do this without manually measuring all the parameters, please give me a hint, thx! --Jan Drewes (www.jandrewes.de) 15:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  •  Info When you look at the image in full size, and you scroll from left to right, you can see the landscape as if you were there instead of the camera. Modifying perspective would make the image look unnatural when seen in the above conditions. --Atoma 11:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm sure that the left and right images were tilted to make them fit with the central image, and the result is an image that looks as if the camera was not only rotating horizontally, but also vertically at the same time. The circle effect that affects the horizontals comes from the making up of the panorama, not from the original photos. Also, it's clear that color saturation was increased by manual edit (this edit of color saturation was excessive here!) The image is no more illustrative, but looks too much like an articial studio paint for a movie of the 1950's or the kind of colors that were initially added to old black and white films: too much artificial. So the articifial circular distortion of forms (sort of fish-eye effect) must be canceled, as well as the oversaturation of colors. Verdy p 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gardens of the Palácio de Estoi, Portugal 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gardens of the Palácio de Estoi, Portugal 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked version of Skyline_Frankfurt_am_Main.jpg by -jha-

It is the same image, but 'improved' - see the  Info lines above! :-) --Tony Wills 21:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eta Carinae nebula in infrared by Spitzer Telescope 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Orion Nebula in visible light by HST 

result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Galactic Center The Galactic Center

* Support --Imaninjapirate 20:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*  Comment The two images are displaying the same thing, but in very different ways. In the current featured picture, the core is the main focus of the picture, not really too much else. This picture does exemplify the core very well, but it could also exemplify interstellar gas, nebulas, and, of course, stars. This picture shows a lot more than just the core, and should be judged upon as so. Imaninjapirate 15:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Hmmm... on a second look of the other one I suppose the other does show all the things I mentioned. Never mind.
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chemnitz-Marx-Monument.jpg

Original: Edited:

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: seriously overexposed. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 21:29, 4 June 2007 (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.

PICT2037.JPG White Iris 2037.jpg

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: normally expected that images showing plants are fully identified, and also that they have a descriptive file name. --MichaelMaggs 21:25, 4 June 2007 (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:Gruuthusehof 02.jpg

Bruges (Belgium): garden of the Gruuthusemuseum and St Boniface bridge in the morning light

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: overexposed, and the composition doesn't really bring out the subject. --MichaelMaggs 21:20, 4 June 2007 (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:Aurora australis panorama.jpg, delisted

Short description NR version

  •  Info Vey seldom I propose an image to be delisted, but this one seems to be a clear error of judjement. The compression was so extreme that the sky looks like a mosaic of artifacts. This picture is a bad publicity to its author, one of our best creators. Initial nomination is here Alvesgaspar 20:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist --Alvesgaspar 20:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist As above. --Digon3 20:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it was selected almost two years ago. And it still is a pretty impressive picture. I don't know if I had the nerve to create a pano of a sight this stunning. Anyways it was probably pushing the limits of his equipment so I wouldn't really call it bad publicity. The resolution (with respect to sharpness) is fairly low though. So I guess I'll go with a reluctant  Delist . I'd like to hear fir's stand on the delist though. Was he notified? --Dschwen 20:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist the original ack Dschwen.  Keep: Replace with the new version.-- Ram-Man 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong  Keep. Thanks first off to Dschwen for notifying me. And yes you're right it was really pushing my equipment and myself to get the images and I still rank this is one my best photographs! Far from bad publicity!! I've uploaded an edit with NR (I didn't have any noise reduction software back when I first uploaded the image) which should address issues of "extreme compression" aka noise. Personally I would really be sad to see this as being unworthy of FP status - this is the aurora! The holy grail of photography! --Fir0002 www 00:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist the original, re-enter new version for FP selection -- Lycaon 08:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question - I find it a bit too noisy for ISO 400 of a Canon 20D. Canon has a very little noise on ISO 400. Anyway, I think it's a good photo but because I'm not sure if that's the best possible, I prefer not to vote. --Arad 01:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 Delist, 1 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 07:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hallgrímskirkja.jpeg, delisted

300px|Short description 

result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 16:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ixobrychus minutus 2 (Marek Szczepanek).jpg, delisted

Ixobrychus minutus 

result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 16:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Japan Tottori MitokuSan Nageiredo DSC01248.jpg, delisted

Short description 

result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 16:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LilacBreastedRollerCropped.jpg, not delisted

Lilac Breasted Roller

It was cropped from this version. There are other picture of this type of bird here --Digon3 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral =>not delisted. Simonizer 16:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Keys.jpg, delisted

result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 16:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kings cross tunnel.jpg (new edited version Image:Kings cross tunnel edit.jpg), not delisted

Kings cross tunnel
Kings cross tunnel edit

Original image (left)

result: 2 Delist, 3 Keep, 0 neutral => , not delisted. Simonizer 16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit version (right)

  •  Comment You may compare with a new edited version on the right (denoised and lighter, and rectangle completely filled without the small bright triangles; I make it visible by adding a thin black border around the two images). It's difficult to denoise it due to low contrasting lines. I had to keep the person in the center and the display panels. Please override this new version if you can do something better. Verdy p 02:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Raspberries (Rubus Idaeus).jpg, delisted

Raspberries 

result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Primula aka.jpg, not delisted

Primula 

result: 1 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 16:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch Butterfly Monarch Buttefly

Version #1
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Version #2

 Oppose Maybe its not blurred anymore but it look very unnatural, like cutted off --Makro Freak 15:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trifolium repens (inflorescense).jpg

Trifolium repens*Edit 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 14:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:eikel.jpg

300px|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: missing the necessary licence template and full subject information. The image needs to be propely classified, too. --MichaelMaggs 15:00, 5 June 2007 (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:slakkenhuis.JPG

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 of poor photographic quality and no category or information about the species is given - Alvesgaspar 08:21, 5 June 2007 (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.

Short description 

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Ben Aveling 13:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This one's a bit of a punt. I think the individual images are nice, and that putting them together like this 'tells a story'. I'm aware that the resulting image is large, and for once, I'm not sure if that's a good thing. I'm open to suggestions on cropping, and downsampling, or anything else. There are two other images I could swap in instead, in Image:Turtle preparing to lay 6481.JPG and Image:Turtle preparing to lay 6483.JPG. However, I don't think 6481 forms such a good composition, and 6483 would require a bit of editing to repair the unfortunate cropping at the back of the turtle. --Ben Aveling 13:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not fit for FP. The images are too similar, there is no eyecatcher. This might be good for a smaller GIF animation if you have a more or less continuous series. -- Lycaon 21:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A rare sight! --Mbz1 05:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Comment. It's not Caretta caretta but Lepidochelys olivacea, no ? 86.66.199.58 11:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment
      The photo was taken at en:Heron Island, Australia, which normally gets Loggerheads and Greens. Now, I'm not sure I personally could tell the difference but the photo was taken during the day, which pretty much rules out the Greens, as far I understand it's almost unheard of them to lay during the day. While the Loggerheads prefer to lay at night, they do also sometimes lay during the day. And she wasn't small. Here's a more close up picture of the poor lady. Why do you think she's an Olive Ridley? Regards, Ben Aveling 13:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  CommentCarapax dont look like Caretta's (color, form of the head) and it's taken during the day. If it's not an olivacea, it's perhaps a natator depressus, this kid of hole for nesting is typic and north of Gladstone is a nesting site for them. If you have -even bad quality- of prefrontals depressus, olivacea and caretta (NC french says "big head" for Caretta) 86.76.216.74, thanks 14:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Comment You're right that she's not a loggerhead. She has "4 paires d'ecailes costales, la premier paire n'est pas en contact avec l'ecaile nucale" which describes 'natator depressus' but also describes greens (Image:Chelonia.svg). As per the pages you list, Olivacea and Caretta each have at least 5 pairs of scales down the side, the front pair of which touch the scale above the neck. So she's neither of those. I guess I can't rule out 'natator depressus' but given that the location is known for greens, I'm pretty sure she's a green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Thanks, Ben Aveling 23:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pussy Willow 

result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messier 81 (M81, NGC 3031) bared-spiral galaxy by HST

  •  InfoMessier 81 (M81, NGC 3031) bared-spiral galaxy created by NASA (HST) - uploaded & nominated by Winiar --Winiar✉ 14:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Winiar✉ 14:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral This one doesn't wow me like other NASA pictures. The only other spiral galaxy FP is Image:NGC 1672 HST.jpg, which has more of a "wow factor", but has an unfortunate lower resolution. -- Ram-Man 14:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mbz1 18:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Support--Luc Viatour 09:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose There are better ones Metoc 18:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The technical quality of space images is given in its resolution and number of colors or shades it supports. The image CAN'T be impressive by composition, because it would result in FALSE (non-scientific) information. So even colors can't be changed without scientific justification. There are still no illustration for this spiral galaxy, and we need such images for Wikimedia projects. Verdy p 21:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Anyway, recoloring using warmer colors would not be too detrimental to the scientific value of the image, if done correctly (but be careful when saving with digital artefacts because this is a lossy JPEG format; edits should be performed in lossless PNG formats for tests at various resolutions, only to prepare illustrations e.g. for an article!). Don't add any artistic effects when editing such high-quality images (the original is ALWAYS the best to keep, even if it does not look impressive). Verdy p 21:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

File:The Bavaria statue errors.jpg
edit that shows up all the stitching errors
  •  Info created by Makro Freak & Digitaldreamer, nominated by --Makro Freak 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info The Bavaria statue (German just 'Bavaria') is a bronze-cast statue of a female figure representing Bavaria's "secular patron saint", the Tellus (Mater) Bavarica ("goddess of the land of Bavaria"), located at the border of the Theresienwiese in Munich, Bavaria, Germany, where the Oktoberfest takes place each September.
  •  Support --Makro Freak 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Watch the upside down 'Augustiner' beerbottle in the foreground :)) --Makro Freak 21:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Why not during daylight? Lycaon 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Its not illuminated, plus there are plenty pictures during daylight. I like it the most at night. Its somewhat crowded during the day because its one of the main attractions in munich. --Makro Freak 21:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This picture would be much better in daylight. IMO night pictures should only be used for cityscapes. --Digon3 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It's purely a matter of taste. <-- Have a look :) During Daytimes its not possible to see the detailed sculptures in the building because the roof casts a shadow to the hallway. There was a complex planning, before taking this very detailed picture--Makro Freak 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - This time I don't agree with the opposers and think that the guidelines can't be applied blindly. The iluminated statue and building are a subject by itself and the picture has an excellent quality and a nice composition. Alvesgaspar 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The example daylight image isn't very good, but that's also no reason to support this one. This shot, like so many others, would likely be better taken either around dawn or dusk for less contrasty lighting. It would be a good tradeoff between a nighttime and daytime shot. Maybe if this was a shot of just the statue I'd be more inclined to support. -- Ram-Man 00:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I fully agree with Alvesgaspar. Romary 06:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I also agree with Alvesgaspar. F.H.B. 11:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think it's technically good, but too dark, and there's a hard to miss stitching error on right part of the building. Benh 09:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Which one were you refering to? I have found about 15 hard to miss stitching errors which I have highlighted in my upload. I was unsure what info and licensing to put on the image so I just left it blank, it will be deleted soon and I don't suppose it matters since it has no use beyond this discussion?--Benjamint444 10:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC) (I am not against the image, just the errors.)[reply]
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iris 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting Tiger Edit 1 - Sharpened - Contrast corrected and noise reduced 

result: Nomination withdrawn=> not featured. Simonizer 08:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Sharpened - Contrast corrected and Noise reduced.
  •  Support - I like the position of the tiger. --Arad 20:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Quality is still too low and like Mbz1 would say: i can see No VALUE in this picture cause there are allready better tiger pictures available at wikimedia (second part of comment is meant to be ironical) --Simonizer 13:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian Iris*Cropped version

EXAMPLE: The flowers and leaves are tilting left and right.

Original Version (left)

Then could you find one that doesn't have as much of a tilt? --Digon3 16:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about this or this? -- Ram-Man 18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Lestat 14:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support In fact, this is an excellent picture: good lighting, great DoF, perfect colors, and with encyclopedic relevance. It's tilted: so what? A lot of flowers in nature are just tilted. And what do you mean with 'unoriginal composition'? There are no many different manners to make a good picture of a flower! I agree with Digon3 and propose to crop the left side of the picture, although by doing so, it will be more 'classic' and even more 'unoriginal' in composition... -- MJJR 19:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This picture was intended to solve the problems of this nomination where the flower was pointed to the outside of the picture, rather than the inside. In this picture the orientation of the cone was criticized because it didn't match reality. As for composition, there are many ways to show off an iris. No one way is correct since you can't show the entire flower in one picture. Cropping the picture (which is fine) will make it less compliant with the Rule of Thirds, making it, as you say, "unoriginal". -- Ram-Man 19:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Not only the flower is tilted but also the leaves, which gives a clear sensation of tilt. I really don't understand why the picture cannot be rotated, since it is such a beautiful colour composition. Alvesgaspar 21:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the example of the entire plant. The flowers (and leaves) tilt in all directions. You can see in the nominated picture that the leaves on the left are leaning left and the ones on the right are leaning right. Rotating would be possible, but there shouldn't be any reason to require it, since it naturally tilts. Some of the "tilt" isn't tilt at all, but the angle that the picture was taken at. I have iris pictures from different angles, but I like this particular one. -- Ram-Man 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is ultra-sharp, colors are perfect, and this looks more like an iris flower than the iris flowers in my garden! What else can we ask for? Berrucomons 21:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose All Versions Very unnatural looking as a result of the gaussian blur - the flower head is just floating there with no visible stem --Fir0002 www 02:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stem was barely visible in the original, due to the angle that the image was taken at. It blends right into the background. You might as well say any photo is unnatural because it doesn't show infinite DoF. I took a version of this picture at f/2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, and 16. The background (including the stem) looks almost exactly like it does in the f/5.6 or f/8 image. The only difference between this image and the f/5.6 image is that all the petals are sharp. Would the f/5.6 image be acceptable as a FP? I doubt it. It's a photograph, it can't reproduce reality exactly. This picture is about the flower, not the stem. Its an f/16 foreground with a f/5.6 - f/8 background. I could reprocess the picture to keep the stem just a little bit less blurred, but it wouldn't really make much difference in the overall effect and it likely wouldn't change the outcome of a FP nom. -- Ram-Man 03:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Couldn't you just upload an original unblurred image? I'm sorry but it looks very unnatural. And that's certainly not saying that a lack of infinite DOF is unrealistic, because for starters the eye doesn't have infinite DOF, and a picture taken at f/5.6 etc (not an aperture for macro) will have a natural gradation between in focus and out of focuse. This does not. --Fir0002 www 09:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Despite this being of high technical quality and beautiful, this version has no chance of success. -- Ram-Man 03:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: Nomination withdrawn=> not featured. Simonizer 08:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped Version (right)

  •  Info I've cropped the original. I didn't correct the tilt, because these flowers naturally tilt this way and that. 21:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ram-Man 21:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose  Neutral- The reason of the tilt is well explained in the picture of the whole plant, at right. But not in either of the nominated versions, which look unnatural. Alvesgaspar 00:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean? The tilt of the flower matches the tilt of the leaves, which is shown in the whole plant as well. The only difference is the closeup view. -- Ram-Man 00:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is precisely the problem, if the leaves were straight then people would realize that the flower was indeed not vertical. This way it looks as if the camera was tilted. Alvesgaspar 01:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why should a picture not be a FP because people make assumptions about it? There are two conclusions one can make: the camera was titled or the subject matter was tilted. Obviously the flower was tilted, but people making the wrong assumption out of ignorance is no reason to oppose. If it was rotated, they would make the wrong conclusion the flower wasn't tilted. Which is the bigger crime? Also, on the uncropped version you can see that while most leaves tilt to the right (since this was the right side of the plant), some of the leaves tilt to the left. It's only confusing if you don't pay close enough attention to detail. -- Ram-Man 03:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I've changed my vote to neutral (for now, still waiting for common sense to prevail) because of the exquisite colour and texture of the flower, and despite the unfortunate tilt. Looking at a photo of a beautiful flower is not an intelectual exercise, either we get "wowed" or we don't. - Alvesgaspar 09:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose all. I see no VALUE in the images --Mbz1 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
    •  Comment - An explanation about the lack of VALUE of this (and other) pictures is welcome. This is certainly one the best Commons pictures of this particular species (BTW, there are hundered of thousand of vegetal species in nature) Alvesgaspar 18:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I believe that Wikipedia is not a botanical encyclopedia and I believe it would be too specific, if Wikipedia dispayed "hundered of thousand of vegetal species in nature" on its pages. This particulal image shows a very, very common flower and that's why I see no VALUE in the image.--19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
        • This picture is currently nominated as a featured picture on the Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. The two projects have different guidelines as to what qualifies as a FP. Anrie 14:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd say before you write about guidelines, Anrie, it would be nice, if you go to the top of that very page and read them, but, if you cannot, here they are:"Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that: "almost all sunsets are pretty, and most such pictures are not essence different from others, nightshots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,beautiful does not always mean valuable." --Mbz1 22:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Support - Anrie 14:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  There seems to be no chance of success here either, at 2 - 2. I may resubmit a later version that erases the problems that Fir0002 has with it. -- Ram-Man 11:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 08:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description Short description

Version 1 (left)

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2 (right)

  •  Info Some secounds later. Mihael Simonic 13:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Winiar✉ 16:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the technical quality is still low and this picture is a bit overexposed and doesn't have as good of composition. I liked the other one a lot better. --16:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed and denaturated colors in #2. Just cropping #1 (with more correct placement of the subject) would have been better. But note that what makes #1 beautiful is the clouds in the blue sky, and what makes it awful is the dark grass area at bottom. But the subject still lacks details. Verdy p 20:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:British Columbia Parliament Buildings - Pano - HDR.jpg, not featured

British Columbia Parliament Buildings are home to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

Fix alternating bands in the sky and I'll support, the stitching errors are not very noticable. --Digon3 16:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you folks look at the full sized version? If the sky is that big of a deal I will just retake it another time, but the sky is not really the subject of photo. I am confused as to what makes a FP here, I see some very poor images passing and some very good ones failing. HighInBC 16:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked very carefully at full size before I voted and it is an amazing picture. I suspect no one is voting only because of the bands in the sky. For me the bands are really distracting and unnatural. As for poor images passing and some very good ones failing, well, no one understands that (but it probably has to do with new voters not reading the guidelines well enough and thinking this is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, oh well). Definitely fix the bands in the sky or retake the picture (if you have to) and I am sure this will get lots of support votes. --Digon3 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helianthemum apenninum 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tragopogon pratensis (Meadow Salsify) 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BrickWall.jpg

300px|a brick wall

I don't know why Matanya hasn't uploaded the bigger version. I find the bigger version of it in the english Wikipedia - see en:Image:BrickWall.jpg. I asked Chris 73 if he wants to upload this picture (because he is the author) --D-Kuru 01:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a bigger version --D-Kuru 12:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's still too small and still just a brick wall. A brick wall is rediculously easy to shoot, so it should be very high resolution as part of its requirements. -- Ram-Man 12:32, 5 June 2007 (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: is not large enough and there are no mitigating reasons for it being smaller than 2Mpx. --MichaelMaggs 05:28, 6 June 2007 (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.

Short description 

result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 00:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hoverfly on flower.jpg

Hoverfly on a flower Hoverfly on a flower 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 11:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 12:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Monarch Butterfly Purple Flower 3000px.jpg

Monarch Butterfly*Edit Monarch Butterfly 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 08:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hoverfly on leave.jpg

Hoerfly on a leaf Hoerfly on a leaf

Original (left)

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => Waiting for the result of the second version. Simonizer 00:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Olesko - Zamek 01.JPG, not featured

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tettigoniidae and Ranunculaceae 

result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Navy seaman J.D. Estes

 Neutral --Makro Freak 21:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only use neutral when its really close technically and in wow factor. Other people do it when its technically good but lacking a wow factor. --Digon3 19:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Presumably the way the gun is held to look like a guitar is intentional? Homage to Elvis? --MichaelMaggs 15:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I presume that the pose is staged, otherwise his eyes wouldn't be along the same line as the words "U.S. Navy", nor would the gun be pointed at the same angle. This image is pre-Elvis though, so I would discount that theory. howcheng {chat} 17:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, I don't think the image is tilted... it's that the plane doesn't sit flat. And, sure, it's propaganda... but, what's wrong with featuring that? Technically very well done. The wow factor for me is that it is a staged promotional image of the archetypal American fighting man. 72.78.222.135 04:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Please log on to vote, thanks. -- Lycaon 05:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]
    •  Comment I did consider that the plane might not sit flat, but (in the order I noticed these clues) there appears to be a line of buildings visible behind the plane at the same angle, the gunner is also at an angle, there is a line of something on the concrete, and (and this is the big giveaway) there is the angle that piece of rope is hanging at. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - Just because it was released as propaganda (and still is) doesn't mean it can't qualify as an FP. From the guidelines "Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations…". Anrie 14:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support +++ Yes it is propaganda, but this propaganda was successful historically, and the subject is important and very illustrative. Excellent composition and technical qualities, the "message" passes very well (that's exactly why this image was made)! Verdy p 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Lerdsuwa 15:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 17:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 17:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  • Is it not the aim of this FP exercise to try to improve and excel? Even new sunsets can be innovative (though I still have to see them). The competitive element makes Commons an ever growing prime source of quality images. You don't want us to stop posting hoverflies, do you? It's the season B.T.W. ;-). Lycaon 23:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insects generally get wide support, flowers get very few votes or fail outright (except for a few exceptions). It seems that a flower has to have an insect anymore to be a featured picture. -- Ram-Man 04:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 17:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bodhisattva2 at MaiJiShan.jpg

Bodhisattva statue at MaiJiShan, Tianshui,Gansu, China.

If a picture had been nominated recently and failed, then you might want to wait 3 or 4 months before renominating. --Digon3 15:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And then, only if the passage of time has improved the picture in some way. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:57, 7 June 2007 (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: failed on a very recent nomination, and nothing has changed in the meantime. --MichaelMaggs 13:55, 9 June 2007 (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:A Rose By Any Name.jpg

Simple but effective

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: significantly overexposed in the red channel. Sorry - please try again. --MichaelMaggs 13:40, 9 June 2007 (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:Callistemon Flower.jpg

A picture of a callistemon flower.

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 sky, is not quite in focus and has a leaf partially blocking the main subject. Next time you could try moving the viewpoint around a bit before taking the shot to see what looks best. Sorry - please try again. --MichaelMaggs 13:44, 9 June 2007 (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.

Short description

 Comment It actually has more colour span. --Javit 09:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Question You mean the new one has more colour span than the old one? Ben Aveling 11:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Lestat 17:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support There is a highres version. Yah, the image is a bit over processed but this does not matter. The Mona Lisa has some cracks but it is anyhow she's perfect. The symbol is perfectly visualized. A bit hokey ^^ Metoc
  •  Comment can everyone please vote in the section below as well or instead. I suspect that anyone who supports this version, would support the below version, but I'd rather that be made explicit, especially as I hope that not all of the people who opposed this version would oppose the higher-res version below. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Comment Actually sorry I remembered I did blow up 15-20% using Genuine Fractals, which is well within %100 lossless blowup capability.
  •  Comment It will be difficult to reach FP with a blow up, however minor, which is done just to achieve size requirements. Down-sampling makes it a very pretty picture, but not for FP, sorry. Lycaon 05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Don't you lose some information by resaving it as a jpeg ? I don't say it's visible, I am just curious if it's theorethically possible to guarantee 100% lossless with a jpeg resave ? /Daniel78 12:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf and mite

  • I think then that I would need a microscope. A higher resolution camera couldn't hurt either, but I don't have one of those. I will accept donations. ;-) -- Ram-Man 22:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Derek, wanna see the mite full filled on your sensor without any donation? You can use every lens as a magnifying lens when you rotate it and look through it from the opposit side. Try it, its fun. There are some adapters called retroadapters which enables you to mount your lens the other way around. I work a lot with this technique. --Makro Freak 23:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brown bear running 

result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amplexus of Bufo bufo 

result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halt/Stop sign at Auschwitz concentration camp, Poland 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asphodelus albus 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language neutral and SVG version (a french version also available)

I'm also the author of the individual photographs. Sting 20:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All this was totally made by Sting, that is also why it´s really astonishing. Yug (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... because it's the one I have... Sting 21:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The paths, arrows and numbers are… I would be very pleased if you can tell me how to vectorize a photograph and still keep it looking like a photograph… People asked to change it from JPG to a language neutral PNG or SVG, and so did I. I choose the SVG because the PNG file was far much heavier. Sting 14:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, your efforts are very much appreciated. Lycaon 15:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they are. But people seeing SVG will think it's vector graphic, not bitmap with vector elements and cause that it should not be FP (in my opinion)--WarX 15:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. : When I first created this picture (mid 2006), Inkscape didn't allow embed raster images in SVG file, now it's possible and perfect for many applications. And with its powerful vectorization, it is a delight. This one, imo, is a very simple example, but try it, it's really amazing… a priceless toy for Wikigraphists ! OK, those pictures are not 100% vector graphics, but I think it shouldn't restrict us to create high visual results. For a vector topographic map, take out the raster shaded relief and it will loose 50% of its legibility. Sting 16:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amanita muscaria

And? :-) It's on the forest floor, in bright light or a flash the detail in the stipe (stalk) would be washed out. --Tony Wills
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset 

result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salix caprea ? 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramses II statue

EXAMPLE: Levels adjusted to show the person in the shadow
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel

->If you want to duscuss something use the discussion page. --D-Kuru 14:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 22 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A diesel locomotive of US production in Croatia 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

There are always photos of insects. Bianco Dorian 07:10, 9 June 2007
Haha. I hope you meant that as a joke, but I suppose you were being serious. Don't worry, I have the same problem trying to push through certain types of pictures. I didn't say "if only it was an insect", since I just all pictures on their own merits, except relative to other FPs of the same category. -- Ram-Man 03:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see… Bianco Dorian 15:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FDR memorial waterfall panorama.jpg

Waterfall panorama at the FDR memorial in Washington, D.C.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of poor photographic quality (chromatic aberration, noise) and stitching is faulty. Please try again with a more careful editing. Alvesgaspar 18:52, 10 June 2007 (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.

 Support Its a great picture with lots of value. It just lacks some pixels. Please login to vote. --Digon3 14:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Orange juice 1.jpg

#1Orange juice  #2noise reduced 

Just a precision : I'm not the author of the photograph (which was made by the US Agricultural Research Service) as it was initially said, I « only » cleaned it and corrected the colours (original version here). Sting 20:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version 1 (left)

*  Support I like :D --D-Kuru 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC) moved to 2[reply]

  •  Support It's pretty and illustrative. It looks digitally altered, like a cross between a photograph and an illustration. -- Ram-Man 02:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support And now for something completely different (where is that clapping hands smiley when you need it?). Just a bit of noise reduction needed. -- Lycaon 05:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Digon3 11:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral My position can change. It looks very fresh and decorative but this brown soup is not delicious nor representative for orangejuice. This one looks like a combination of orangejuice with ice tea for me. For my taste orangejuice should have a color like this attached image
    so i come to the conclusion that the glass is underexposured on the right side, or its a not so nice reflection of the dark room on the foreground. Hard decission, i have to watch it a few times more --Makro Freak 15:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Tasty for me. Good lighting, good background. Would have been even better without the gray on the bottom. Maybe clone that out? --MichaD 22:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => waiting for the result of other version. Simonizer 07:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fringilla coelebs (chaffinch), male.jpg

#1Short description  #2Short description  #3Edit 2 - Sharpened, Noise reduced  

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Male Lion and Cub Chitwa South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004.JPG

#1Lion and Cub eating a Cape Buffalo  #2Edit 1 Noise reduced 

Original Version (Left)

result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => waiting for other version Simonizer 07:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Poort Arentshof.jpg

#1Gate of the Arents Park in Bruges, Belgium  #2Gate of the Arents Park in Bruges, Belgium - edit2: vertical lines straightened  #3Gate of the Arents Park in Bruges, Belgium - edit3: vertical lines straightened  

result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you change the light balance in #2 (which looks now overexposed) ?
Note that not all vertical linescan be parallel in this snapshot because they are at different depths. Trying to correct this reduces the visual depth and introduces an aberration, sort of "fish eye" effect where dimensions seem too large at the top of the image (but this feeling may have been cause by your change of light balance). I see that #2 contains parts of your own original that were clipped in proposal #1 (the bottom of the trunk on the right).
Well, the correction of verticals seems correct, but could you please restore the light, color and dimensions (that were better) ? Despite this, I like both images (I'd like to vote for #2, but because of your color/light changes I still prefer the original) : just use a trapezoidal transform to push the top right corner to the right, then clip the small triangle on the right to make a rectangle.
Anyway, #2 is less clipped, so it would be good to have your original width, with the better looking apparenceoflight and colors you made in #1 (the correction of verticals is not absolutely necessary as this gives a non natural depth). Verdy p 19:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The verticals in this edit were what I was looking for, but I liked the color/light changes of the original. #3's verticals still seem tilted (I am mainly looking at the brick gate. --Digon3 16:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The verticals are great in #2. If you can get the color in #2 the same as #1, create a new nomination and put it at the top. I appreciate all the work you are doing for this. --Digon3 15:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the appreciation. I do'nt have a calibrated screen for full control of the colors. So, if you want perhaps to try editing #2: feel free! -- MJJR 19:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Info created by Christian Werkmeister / Christine Apel - uploaded by Werkmeister - nominated by Romary

There are very few black and white nominated. I like this woman portrait. --Romary 08:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support --Romary 08:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose very weird focus, unnecessary white border. Lycaon 08:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Image clearly posterized when seen in full resolution. This kind of focus is (or was) more or less common in women portraits and doesn't bother me. Alvesgaspar 09:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Strongly opposed – the awful histogram explains the steps in the grey scale : the picture was edited in a very bad way, trying to get a brighter subject which still remains far too dark (the brightest pixel value is around 192!!) ; non encyclopaedic picture, it isn't even used and WP is not a gallery for personal « artistic » work (if I did care, I would even propose it for deletion…) ; secondarily, what is that file name « DSCF0003 » ? Sting 14:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice protrait. Maybe to smooth. I can not understand why you would even delet such a nice portrait. Does Commons not accept great portraits because they look too good (artistic)?! No—Commons is not only a place for dry and correct product pictures. Metoc 17:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I clap with the two hands for a nice portrait here in WP, but for one that has an encyclopaedic value because WP is an encyclopaedia (shoot by a famous photographer, showing a famous person…). Obviously this one hasn't the requirements : poor technical quality, poor format quality and like I said, it isn't even used in an article. Because of this last, where is the interest to keep it here ? Sting 18:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not in WP but in Wikimedia Commons. Encyclopaedic value is greatly appreciated, but not required. Berrucomons 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Encylopaedic value is not mentioned at COM:SCOPE, the only thing it mentions about this is in the first sentence "Wikimedia Commons is a freely licensed media file repository (similar to stock photography archives) targeted at other Wikimedia projects.". It's kind of vague, what do targeted really mean ? Or is this more clearly stated elsewhere (I have not looked very thoroughly) ? I see this issue popping up from time to time here. /Daniel78 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"This also means that files uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project. Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons." So everything that's ok according to the wikimedia project scope is welcome here as well too which means "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." [5] -- Gorgo 15:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OpposeNice protrait with no VALUE.--Mbz1 18:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose the editing was too harsh. Berrucomons 21:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It doesn't convince to me. The picture is too blurred --Drow male 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support if the border is removed and the file renamed to something useful. Good composition and pose. This picture does have value. It shows all sorts of photographic techniques for portrait photography: Black and White and the resulting emphasis on tonality, soft focus to smooth skin blemishes and for artistic effect, and a good example of a pose that has expressive emotion. The posterization effects are barely visible at 100%, so they don't concern me. -- Ram-Man 15:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I agree with Ram-Man. I think it is problematic to argue that an image has "no value". For whom? I agree that the file name is a disaster--Christoph Michels 17:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose You need to reedit the image from scratch using your original and a much more precise filter because the shades of greys are really bad, as seen in the histogram (the bluring effect comes from artificial reconstruction of gray shades by the dispersion of pixels, but this is at the price of lot of noise, that would have been avoided using a much better filter, computed in one step and not multiple lossy steps as it was done here). Look also at the missing focus on eyes and on lips (plus the articificial lines on the right of lips that are extremely damaging to the quality, even at low resoltuion where it is immediately visible). And of course you need to load your new image with a descriptive name, and propose this image here for deletion... (It is significant that you have not even been able to provide a description of your image here or in its description page!). The intended subject is extremely important! Verdy p 20:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, at least until someone gives me an example of an article this picture could be used on. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)  Neutral. I agree it could be used, but it still doesn't give me a wow factor. Ben Aveling 23:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makroshot of a Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia

I think you have to ask the author (Makro Freak) --D-Kuru 20:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your first visit?

 Comment Because it's not a plant or insect? ;) Jón 16:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Freudenberg SG Switzerland.JPG

Landscape near St.Gallen

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: tilt. Please try again with a more careful editing. --Simonizer 07:56, 11 June 2007 (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:Cow Manure01.JPG

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: of poor photographic quality: noise, unsharpness, lighting, confusing composition and bad framing. Alvesgaspar 08:10, 11 June 2007 (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.

Iris sibirica

1) I have a landscape version, but the background is more distracting. 2) Vertical framing highlights the tall plants. In landscape, fewer pixels would be dedicated to the flowers since the view would be wider, lowering their sharpness. Vertical is better suited to a taxobox. 3) Instead of taking it straight on, a higher angle would introduce perspective distortion, decreasing its value. 4) A smaller aperture increases flower sharpness at the expense of background blur, as mentioned above. 5) What top is missing? -- Ram-Man 20:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dracunculus vulgaris Dracunculus vulgaris

Original (left)

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited (right)

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Full Body 1880px.jpg, not featured

Red-tailed hawk

Why is no one else voting on this picture? My opinion can't be the only one. It is a great picture technically and deserves some comments. --Digon3 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

Image:PortraitGirl2005-1.jpg

Portrait of a girl Portarit of a gril

  •  Info I’m not sure if this place is ready to accept common “non-exotic” human portraits. Last time I dared to propose one, in my first Commons nomination, it was quickly and violently kicked-off (here). I suppose it won’t be necessary to explain why this kind of picture is valuable, and not only for those who care about the people in the portrait. After all, people (Homo sapiens sapiens) is in a clear minority among Commons FP species. I suppose it won’t be really disappointing if the nomination fails miserably, but I’ll be happy if there is some discussion about the subject. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar - Alvesgaspar 14:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2 (right) - featured

 Result: 8 support, 2 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 14:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:English Ivy Hedera helix Red Brick Wall 2892px.jpg - featured

English Ivy 

 Result: 6 support, 1 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 14:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Siberian Iris Iris sibirica Specimen 2000px.jpg

Siberian Iris*Siberian Iris*Siberian Iris

Original Nomination (Not Shown)

Left Version - not featured

 Result: 3 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 14:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Center Version - not featured

 Result: 2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 14:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right Version - not featured

 Result: 3 support, 1 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 14:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aurora australis panorama edit.jpg - not featured

Short description 

 Result: 3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 14:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tipulidae Luc Viatour.jpg - featured

Tipulidae 

 Result: 10 support, 1 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 14:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flughahn.jpg - featured

Short description 

 Result: 6 support, 0 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 14:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eagle Owl IMG 9203.JPG - featured

Short description

* Neutral At last you organized a propper camera, congrats. I was exploring your galery a while ago and thought somebody should support you with a better camera. My thoughts was heard, thank you wherever was responsible for :) ... but ... you was very touchy in the past concerning your votes, so i give you a neutral for now and awaiting further deployment. --Makro Freak 13:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Peace!--Makro Freak 20:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

 Result: 11 support, 2 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 14:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Acrididae grasshopper-2.jpg - featured

Grasshopper of Acrididae family

* Support  Neutral for now, waiting for the propper ID playing substitute for lycaon--Makro Freak 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

 Result: 11 support, 1 neutral, 0 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Acrididae grasshopper-1.jpg - not featured

Acrididae grasshopper 

 Result: 3 support, 3 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hymenoptera front.jpg - featured

Short description 

 Result: 8 support, 3 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 14:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hymenoptera diagonal.jpg - featured

Short description 

 Result: 8 support, 0 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 14:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Papaver orientale 02 by Line1.jpg - not featured

Short description 

 Result: 2 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 14:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grasshopper-2.jpg and Image:Grasshopper-3.jpg

A big grasshopper on a little island in Croatia.A big grasshopper on a little island in Croatia. 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right picture (edited)

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Turtle (chelonia mydas) attempting to dig a hole for egg laying on Heron Island, Australia 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Matyas templom orgonaja.jpg - not featured

Organ from Mathias Church (Budapest) 

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 15:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:P anguinus2.jpg

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 - Alvesgaspar 19:36, 13 June 2007 (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:LOVE Park fountain.jpg

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: is smaller than the normal minimum size of 2Mpx, and there are no mitigating circumstances.--MichaelMaggs 09:38, 14 June 2007 (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.

Short description 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antelope

Can I discard it? It seems that it is not good. Chanueting 15:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can withdraw your nominated pictures at any time. This is done by simply writing "I withdraw my nomination" or by adding the text {{withdraw|~~~~}}. --Digon3 talk 16:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OKAY.  Chanueting 08:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: Nomination withdrawn=> not featured. Simonizer 09:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Deutsche-Bank-Frankfurt-am-Main.jpg, delisted

Deutsche Bank 

result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 10:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flower jtca001.jpg, not delisted

Flower 

result: 2 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 10:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RomaCastelSantAngelo.jpg, not delisted

Short description

  •  Info Motion blur from long exposure causing details to become very smudgy and unsharp, especially in the important focal points of this image. There are blurred people in the image. Image appears underexposed. This isn't a difficult subject, so the standards should be higher anyway. Lower value: nightshots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime. Original Nomination.
  •  Delist Since this would be rejected as a new nom, it should be delisted for reasons stated above. It longs to be as high quality as this image. -- Ram-Man 13:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist As above. --Digon3 13:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist Not very sharp and this would most probably be way better in daylight MichaD 09:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 10:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ginkakuji04.jpg, delisted

Short description 

result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amaryllis stamens aka.jpg, delisted

Amaryllis stamens 

result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WernigerodeCastleWinter.jpg, not delisted

Wernigerode Castle 

result: 2 Delist, 1 Keep, 1 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 10:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Japan Kyoto Kinkakuji DSC00117.jpg, delisted

Kinkakuji 

result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 10:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EuropeanParliament.jpg, not delisted

European Parliament 

result: 4 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 11:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Kodak camera

Perhaps, look at Image:Kodak-Vollenda620-1a.jpg --Kolossos 09:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Info: I use aperture f16, more isn't possible. Ok the Zoom was on nearly 120mm and camera was an en:Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1. --Kolossos 11:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethmia bipunctella 

result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wägitalersee in the swiss canton of Schwyz Wägitalersee in the swiss canton of Schwyz . 1st edit 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 13:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 13:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fence which closes a bridge used by many to flee from North Korea. Far most of them who tried to escape through this way died and are now remembred

  •  Info created by Y.S. Groen - uploaded and nominated by Y.S. Groen --Trebaxus 14:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Trebaxus 14:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Too cluttered and I don't like the half-cropped people in it. Try a different area. --Digon3 talk 20:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had to choose between the people and the flags and fence above it. I thought the fence with the stings in combination with the flags and notes whas more important than the people moarning at that place. At least in my opinion of the seriousnes of this picture and all things related to it. I also had some pictures of the people and the fence, but I had to delete those pictures because near the fence there were soldiers, who did not allowed me to take pictures where they where on. --Trebaxus 02:59, 15 June 2007 (CET)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 13:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two Hens and Chicks 

result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lipoinjection practiced in Saint-Denis, Réunion. 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Cooper, inventor of the first one cellular phone. 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pollination Bee Dandelion

Yes, it is a macro on dandelion, you can see its Stamen. Guérin nicolas 15:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adult Yellow-legged Gull (Larus michahellis), in flight 

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf of Drosera rotundifolia 

result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Douglass House in Washington, D.C. 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 11:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme closeup image of an aphid colony minor dust removed

--Sanjay ach 02:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version 1

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2

result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hemerocallis Flower

  •  Info jep, the posterization was not pretty. I removed that!! I corrected the overexposure of the tip too although I would not have seen it as a necessary thing to do! Amada44 21:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern sculpture in the evening sun 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green frog 

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctuary of the National Cathedral 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crocus tommasinianus 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator de Santa Justa 

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lebiskari Fortress in Georgia 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 11:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Larch*Japanese Larch 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info This version was taken with a slightly angled composition. Perhaps it is more interesting to this crowd.
  •  Support -- Ram-Man 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Same as above, the composition is uneven. It is the subjects that make it that way, not the framing. --Digon3 16:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't know but I get the impression that two things are just placed next to each other and photographed, a bit too artificial to be an image of two natural items. Hmm I am not sure I managed to explain exactly what I mean... /Daniel78 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well yes, the two things were posed together, however the tree is naturally somewhat chaotic. Trying to get a macro shot of two objects in this basic configuration in sharp focus is nearly impossible unless the objects are in the same plane perpendicular to the length of the lens. As a result, I had to place the cone relative to the needles to achieve the goal. It would have been trivial to take the cone and needles separate from each other. Some context is missing: See this and this for how this tree looks. -- Ram-Man 20:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Looks as if the cone is growing out of the trunk, which it actually does not.--MichaelMaggs 09:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Romary 07:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Daylily 

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yellow Coneflower Echinacea paradoxa Twisted Pair Bee 2000px.jpg

Yellow Coneflower*Yellow Coneflower*Yellow Coneflower 

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 09:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

view from Austria to Switzerland 

result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Freudenberg sg Switzerland.jpg

landscape near St.Gallen Edit 1 Edit 2 

result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => featured Simonizer 07:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info - Sharpened and noise reduced and color temperature cooled down. Maybe it kills the mood and atmosphere. But let the majority decide.
  •  Support --Arad 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HerdenkingVuurgrensRotterdam1940 2007.JPG

Fireline Rotterdam Bombing iso 400*Fireline Rotterdam Bombing iso 200 Edit 1

  •  Info created by Y.S. Groen - uploaded and nominated by Trebaxus22:32, 13 June 2007 (CET)

* Support Move to right picture --Trebaxus 00:32, 13 June 2007 (CET)

* Support moving my vote to 3rd version. --Digon3 talk 14:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => other versions has more support votes Simonizer 09:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 12:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dancers at festival

  •  Info created by Jmabel - uploaded by Jmabel - nominated by Jmabel --en:Jmabel | talk 06:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. I have rarely nominated any of my stuff, but I think this does a great job of capturing the ecstatic dance at an outdoor hippie-ish festival. --en:Jmabel | talk 06:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This image does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is of poor photographic quality. This was probably scanned from a small paper copy and then upsampled to the present size, resulting in a blurry image. Also, the picture is tilted and the composition and framing could be better - Alvesgaspar 08:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The composition and focus were deliberate! It is intended to convey the chaos of the dancing. But, oh well, if this is a standard around here - no art - consider the nomination withdrawn. - en:Jmabel | talk 16:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Sorry to disagree but I am the first to consider Photography as a form of Art. If you go through our archive of Featured pictures, specially those under the People section, you will verify that most of them have a strong artistic component and also an excellent technical quality. As a matter of fact, technical quality is not incompatible with artistic value. On the contrary it is normally an indispensable part of it, both in Photography as well as in other forms of visual arts. I can understand that this particular photo may have some special value for you, but I don't see a trace of artistic value in it. - Alvesgaspar 19:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Terrible quality --Karelj 20:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I disagree with Alvesgaspar: I think there is lots of "artistic value" in this picture. The atmosphere and the colors are great. I even like the grain of this image, it somehow supports the subject. Probably it's due to the fact that I live in Switzerland and those scenes are rather rare, but this is really a good picture for me. I also think without the the tilt the image would be much worse because it makes immediately clear that this picture was taken by a dancing person. This is an image which is very much alive! Although I know this image will most likely not make it due to its DOF, ISO and DPI I give it a strong support. --Christoph Michels 22:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I generally like the image and framing, but the image quality (intentionally or not) is just too bad for me to support. /Daniel78 21:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose bad quality and composition -- Gorgo 12:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis approaches the ISS

Actually, I was looking in Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy only, I didn't even think to look at Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles. --Digon3 talk 13:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither did I.  :-) I did a search for category 'PD NASA' in category 'Featured pictures' then looked for anything that might be a shuttle (STS, Columbia, Atlantis) Try [7] Regards, Ben Aveling 20:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Quebec Bridge - Pont de Québec.jpg, delisted

Short description 

result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral =>  delisted. Simonizer 13:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urmala-area in Latvia 

result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lielupe in the background? Is it taken on Dubulti or Majori perhaps? // Liftarn

Garden inside Tarascon Castle, France 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wil Altstadt 8375.jpg, not delisted

I think it is unsharp because of the fog. --Digon3 talk 14:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 Delist, 1 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 07:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PatineursQuebec.jpg

Patineurs sur les Plaines d'Abraham, Quebec

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: is not large enough and there are no mitigating reasons for it being smaller than 2Mpx. --Simonizer 07:02, 25 June 2007 (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.

Seekarkreuz 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto de Mogan, Gran Canaria 

result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preikestolen platform 

result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columba livia

can you explain that please? --AngMoKio 20:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lamas in the sunset 

result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lamboffspring.jpg

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: of poor photographic quality --Simonizer 08:45, 26 June 2007 (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.

Short description 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

It would only take a minute to clone the tag on it's ear out but I think that since it is a domsticated animal which is mainly farmed (as opposed to pets) then it's most common state is with a tag on it's ear or a brand. Shall I get rid of it? I like the blackberry cane tangled in it's fur and the wool caught on it's horn, they seem to emphasise the hardyness of goats, I actually found them scrambling around halfway up the cliff of the quarry in the background but I wasn't quick enough with my camera and they all slid down to see if I had food for them. 

result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helix pomatia 

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typewriter detail 

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetation in HivaOa 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Info Replica of a wind rose from the chart of Jorge de Aguiar (1492), the oldest known signed and dated Portuguese nautical chart (original here). Yes, I have also uploaded a svg version but it doesn't show correctly here, as usual (St SVG is abandoning us). Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 12:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Alvesgaspar 12:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Will this replace this version as FP? --Digon3 talk 15:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Info - Well, I suppose that will be up to the reviewers. Though they are both beautiful, the two wind roses belong to differente "species" and authors, and have different historical importances. - Alvesgaspar 16:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Mbz1 00:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose - the image is clearly made with a vector graphic program, so that the file should be svg (smaller file better quality than png) Plus if it is really a replica you should respect the thickness from the lines and the proportion of the circles and arrows (including their overlaping, or wether they are simetric or not) by making circles straight, and lines thin what you just did is a very normal, if well old looking. windrose -LadyofHats 10:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Comment - I disagree, there is no point in making an exact replica, which includes the obvious imperfections. This version is, I believe, close to what the author would have done if he had access to the same instruments as us. I would have gone even further in this "interpretation" if I could decipher all the writings, in order to make them more easily readable. If I wanted an exact vector replica of the original I would have used some kind of automatic tracing application (as avalilabe in CorelDraw, for example), but that would have been useless. As for the svg version, it is available in the "other versions" section of the file and can be accessed by InkScape. It is not my fault that the rendering routine of Commons can't show it properly - Alvesgaspar 13:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info - All the names were deciphered and the lettering was replaced in order to be more legible. It should read now: norte (north), nordeste (northeast), leste (east), sueste (southeast), sull (south), sudueste (southwest), oeste (west) and noroeste (northwest) - Alvesgaspar 16:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Bem feito! A beautiful picture. There was no need of making an exact copy of the original for use in articles like en:Compass rose without distracting background. Additionally you could put a link to the original on the picture page. --wau 16:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Simonizer 12:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --MichaelMaggs 06:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I would have oppose this because I think it is too similar to this FP and I like the other one a lot better. But since no one else seems to have a problem with that and it is a very nicely done image, I am not going to stand in the way of it being FP, so neutral. --Digon3 talk 14:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Makro Freak talk 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 12:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rana temporaria 

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 12:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Franco-Prussian War- Illustrated London News, September 3, 1870.PNG, featured

Short description 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 12:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 12:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Insect in ambers.jpg

Short description

  •  InfoThere are at least 2 insects trapped in that small piece of amber. Bubbles that you see are not a camera artifact. They really are present in the amber and indicate that insects were trapped while still alive and breathing.
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 22:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mbz1 22:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- Harsh lighting with intrusive reflections; and the amber seems to be sitting on a dirty table. --MichaelMaggs 09:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm really surprised that the picture was nominated 12 hours ago and so far I see only one oppose. To tell you the truth I expected to see at least 5. Well, an ant in an amber is a hard subject. Maybe you'd like a right image better? You cannot see a second insect there, but you could see a shadow of that bigger ant. If you do not like either image, I still will be interested to learn which one of them you like better, or, should I say, which one of them you dislike less. Thanks.--Mbz1 16:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose both The first one has harsh lighting and a bad background. The second version is a lot better, has a good wow factor, but has poor technical quality. There is a lot of jpeg artifacts (or noise?) and is not very sharp. ----Digon3 talk 20:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: [8]. ZooFari 02:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/June_2007&oldid=302678667"