Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2006

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

Image:ClemensXI.jpg featured

Nominate

and  Support  Calderwood 20:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in the German Wikipedia Roger McLassus 07:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. not PD? --Shizhao 03:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks great. — Erin (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the secret for great macro shots like that? — Erin (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent - I wish I could make photos of coins only half as good as this one! Hein 16:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --Piolinfax 18:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the Photographer of this picture and I changed the license in PD. Richardfabi 22:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you give us some technical details about your camera settings, the lighting, and how you got rid of the background? Calderwood 16:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not a profi Photographer. I did the picture with a usual Camera, the Canon Powershot A95. I used the macro modus, the diaphragm opening and the exposure-time were automatic. I did the picture in a Museum, and the trick was perhaps, that there was a glass 5cm away from the coin. So a used the glass as a tripod and did the picture with a self timer, because I wanted to avoid a camera shake. I didn't use a lightning. The background was originally a red drapery, and I cut the background away. The coin was relatively big, so it filled the whole picture. Richardfabi 02:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb details -- Lerdsuwa 14:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a coin. So what? Miskatonic 16:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 17:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Miskatonic; and not an especially attractive design either - MPF 11:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep, it's the sharpest coin picture I've ever seen. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 08:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MGo 11:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- just a coin, thirteen in a dozen -- Lycaon 13:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, it 's only a coin, but it's soooo well done ! -- Fabien1309 22:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - i'm not usually into human artifacts or found art, but this is stunning. —Pengo 01:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 18:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 09:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm quite impressed, given that it was taken in a museum... David.Monniaux 14:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AFBorchert 08:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose →  Calderwood 07:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tugra Mahmuds II.png not featured

Nominate

and  Support Calderwood 19:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traduction: Mahmud Khan son of Abdulhamid is forever victorious.
<sorry_in_french> l'intrication des mots est mise en évidence par les couleurs</sorry_in_french> Tatoute 23:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatoute 23:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support what's that word... instructive? --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 05:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 16:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique and different! Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 17:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - the grey strokes are not explained in the caption, and the caption colours don't quite match the calligraphy colours - MPF 18:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked that and found out that you are wrong. The colours look a bit different in the size-reduced picture, but not so at full resolution. And the grey strokes are explained: they mean nothing but are just added for decoration. Calderwood 18:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; though it remains that the grey lines are not explained without going to the image page, i.e., the explanation is not visible in the image itself (and thus won't be visible in an encyclopaedia article the pic is used in, unless separately added in the caption) - MPF 23:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

added a grey underline to the caption (as a reminder of unsignificant grey lines) Tatoute 14:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing spectacular here. Miskatonic 16:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the wording on the bottom is ugly and distracting... and has a big ugly grey underline for who knows what. -Quasipalm 17:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Miskatonic. ed g2s • talk 16:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 08:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although it is smaller, I think the original animated version is more illustrative of the calligraphy strokes. -- Solipsist 11:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Miskatonic. Nice, but technically not outstanding norro 16:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Ack Norro : nice, but not FP for me -- Fabien1309 22:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 19:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Calderwood 07:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wall clock.jpg not featured

Nominate

— Shizhao 16:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Shizhao 16:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution and the dial is bent Calderwood 19:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 06:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose maybe a nice illustration but not excellent. (overexposure at the right side, the rest too dark, angle) --SehLax 09:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 17:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose why does a clock need a drop shadow? bleh -Quasipalm 17:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's five o'clock shadow. Fg2 10:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just awful --Groucho 23:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Dark, bad angle, really not a featured picture -- Fabien1309 22:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kessa Ligerro 19:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 8 oppose → not featured Calderwood 07:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006-02-15 Piping.jpg featured

Nominate

and  Support  Roger McLassus 10:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support good composition Calderwood 11:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I almost cried 'boring' but on 2nd thought - let's give the thumbs-up. It's a photo of piping and piping is what it should show - and it accomplishes this feat in a satisfactory manner. Nice colours too. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 05:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice and clear picture to show piping, but I don't think that's enough of a reason to be an outstanding picture on wikicommons-level. -- Gorgo 16:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Before I saw this picture I didn't realize how beautiful pipes can be. Hein 17:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support composition --che 19:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 21:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Gorgo - MPF 23:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 15:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support i dig it! -Quasipalm 17:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 17:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 08:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Solipsist 11:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Technically very good, but featured pictures are perhaps more than this ... -- Fabien1309 22:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Piping hot!... sorry — Erin (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 19:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- ... I don't like "modern art" -- YolanC 02:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 09:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral →  Calderwood 07:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Surrounding hills of swifts creek.jpg not featured

Self Nom --fir0002 09:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for the time beeing. Good picture and nice view, but too hazy on the right side Calderwood 11:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 16:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wing-Chi 18:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- sorry but too much panoramas... Tatoute 23:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is there a limit on how FPs we can have of a given kind? A beautiful, sharp, amazing image should not be detracted from because we already have FPs with similar content. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, I'm thinking Shire. Yes the light is a bit distracting on the right, but what the hell. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 05:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 06:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I don't like this changeover from high contrast at the left too the smog at the right side --SehLax 09:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC) - Neutral better, but maybe still not excellent --SehLax 20:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice. I don't think there can ever be too much FPs .. the optimum would be to only have featured (extremely good) pictures here on commons ;) -- Gorgo 15:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the other Swifts Creek pic was better, this one is nice but not stunning. --Dschwen 19:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too hazy at the right. Nice, but not FP quality, I fear - MPF 18:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support right side looks great to me at full res (yes, hazy, but the shining lines... wow) --che 00:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot. Miskatonic 07:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow Neutral too hazy upon closer inspection, possibly could be corrected in photoshop. -Quasipalm 16:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've uploaded an edit for your consideration --Fir0002 www 11:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 02:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MPF Hein 15:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured Calderwood 07:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Le Grand Bornand (Haute Savoie), en janvier 2006.jpg not featured

Nominate

Sanao 07:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose composition norro 10:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with norro Calderwood 11:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 17:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lot of snow, but that's all --che 00:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose :) Che put it brilliantly...--Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Composition and light -- Fabien1309 22:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose → not featured Calderwood 07:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:20050412venice06pano.jpg not featured

Self- Nominate

Urban 06:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The resolution is low and the object not outstanding Calderwood 08:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why blue?--Shizhao 02:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I couldn't oppose this because I think it captures a morning mood so well...and the palette is lovely...but the resolution is a bit low! I'm sure you can still do better, Roger. BTW. How do you self-nominate a pic if you're neither the photographer nor the uploader?! Just a thought.. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 05:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's because of the "template", which says self nomination for some reason... hm. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "I think it captures a morning mood ..." - but the photo data file states: "Date and time of data generation 18:04, 12 April 2005", so it's evening! - MPF 02:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Sacre bleu! Well, that's what sprang to my mind the second I saw it - but it's pretty as an evening photo as well. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 04:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ack Lumijaguaari in the positive bits. Clearly a higher resolution would be better but I don't see it so low that it makes it totally worthless --Piolinfax 18:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack Piolinfax --che 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot Miskatonic 07:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose awful color manipulation. Almost looks alien -- or like I need an eye exam. -Quasipalm 16:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 17:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support wssw It's a good photo, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose lighting is great, but object not that oustanding norro 17:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Nice mood, but not really feature-worthy image.--— Erin (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the colors, but the topic is perhaps not so striking. David.Monniaux 14:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blue, low resolution, and nothing to counterbalance these two Hein 15:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured Calderwood 07:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KleifarvatnMorningInWinter.jpg not featured

Sunrise (!! - for those who vote against sunsets - it is a sunrise ;-) ) at Kleifarvatn in Winter, Iceland

Self- Nominate

Andreas Tille 06:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Neither sharp nor spectacular Calderwood 08:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mmmmmm pretty colors.... Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 14:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mmmmhh, I think it's leaning a bit and I still don't really like the scan quality. And the composition is good but not that outstanding as it was at your last geysir ;-) --SehLax 18:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I observed that the scan quality of nearly all of my images is criticised. I admit that Kodak Photo-CD scan is definitely not optimal. When I edit my images using The Gimp I try to despecle the sky using a Gausian blur filter and "Unsharp mask" for details in the foreground. Perhaps someone knows a better method to enhance these PCD images. Thanks for the critical comments in any way. And by the way, this is not really a Geysir but a lake. If you look here I was standing about at the center of the beach on the left. Andreas Tille 06:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just compared the composition to this one :-) --SehLax 18:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Beautiful colours indeed. I particularly dig the two water surfaces that have a slightly different hue and texture to them when compared to each other (and the sky). Same thing with the snow and the clouds. Scan quality? Aahh, nit-picking, my brothers... I can always forgive a shortcoming if there's so much other stuff that is marvelous. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 05:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice colours, but this alone is not sufficient for a featured picture Hein 17:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 17:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Piolinfax 18:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Miskatonic 07:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 17:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colours are nice, but it lacks contrast. --Groucho 22:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- colours -- YolanC 02:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rodge500 20:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- skINMATE 22:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose → not featured Calderwood 07:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Piano hammers.jpg not featured

Nominate

From stock xchng. — pfctdayelise 00:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — pfctdayelise 00:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred - and a 90° counter-clockwise rotation is needed, I think Calderwood 08:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Calderwood, this is obviously an upright piano. Rama 11:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then I was wrong. But this was not an important point anyway. Calderwood 13:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose composition is quite nice, but I don't like the focus position and that it's quite blurred even in its small resolution --SehLax 18:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment piano hammers are covered in felt, so they would look blurred. - 86.138.87.64 18:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res -- Gorgo 16:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Hein 17:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such upright piano interior is usually dark and light absorbing, so I wouldn't mind the little bit of blur. This picture has a nice composition. Of course, if a higher resolution image is available, that would be much better.--Wing-Chi 00:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose depth of field not good. Unclear if Stock Exchange pictrues are truly free. Justinc 09:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 17:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great picture, too low res. --Groucho 22:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral  → not featured Calderwood 07:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trail of Dead live 20050226 01.jpg not featured

Nominate

Taken by User:Andersju, nominated by pfctdayelise 00:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — pfctdayelise 00:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 08:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rock on!!! Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 15:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me this picture is definitely ugly - and it is not sharp either Hein 17:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough for feat status. Though I can appreciate how hard it can be to land a good shot of a performing rock band - it's OK, not excellent. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 04:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose meh -Quasipalm 17:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 11:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kessa Ligerro 19:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 8 oppose → not featured Calderwood 07:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of Europe.svg, Not Featured

Nominate

— Shizhao 09:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Shizhao 09:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Important as a symbol but not outstanding as a picture Calderwood 10:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not exceptional. It's the best way to illustrate this flag, cause it's scalable and there's just nothing more to do, but i wouldn't call it one of our best images. norro 15:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)*[reply]
Oppose ditto calderwood + norro -- Gorgo 15:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I guess it's as good as an image of the EU flag can get, but yeah - not what I think the featured pics category is for. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 04:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm confused... are we voting on the flag as composition, or the EU, or the flag as a flag? I dunno, we don't need every god damn flag in FP IMHO. Perfect rendition though, so kudos to the author. -Quasipalm 17:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 5 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 06:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dodecahedron.jpg not featured

The best, IMHO, of several images of polyhedra, rendered in POV-Ray by w:User:Cyp. Source code is available too as w:Image:Poly.pov.

Nominate and support. --MarkSweep 21:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Dodecahedron.jpg, Not Featured

Nominate

— Shizhao 09:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Shizhao 09:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support but would have liked a SVG version ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 10:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dodecahedrons are beautiful mathematical objects, but this picture of it is not well performed. The edges are far to thick and the upper right vertex of the front pentagon is clumsily placed. The colours are not well selected either (two browns and two dark greens adjacent to each other). Also, since the back edges are visible, so should be the colours of the back faces too, and therefore each front colour should show at least minor variations depending on which back face lies behind which part of it. Calderwood 10:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not impressive. Also, diagrams should be .png or .svg. — Erin (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose don't like the colours and the edges Hein 16:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the new picture: I would not support this one either. The clumsy position of the front pentagon's upper right vertex is the same. Also, to colour everything in monochromatic blue is not recommendable either. I suggest a clever selection of an individual colour for every single face. Calderwood 22:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 3 Oppose => Not Featured --Shizhao 06:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mg-TableImage.png, Not Featured

Nominate

— Shizhao 09:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Shizhao 09:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No image description. Small, low resolution, should be available as SVG. norro 10:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind the missing description, since the picture is self-explaining for everyone who knows a little about chemistry, but as a graphical representation of the element magnesium it is not convincing. Furthermore, there would be no reason to feature this element and not all the others as well, which amount to more than a hundred. Calderwood 10:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These will all likely be converted to SVG. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 17:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 3 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 06:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gray112.png, Not Featured

Nominate

— Shizhao 09:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Shizhao 09:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an old picture which shows the anatomical details less efficiently than a modern one could. But it is not a historical picture, because since Gray's time human anatomy didn't change at all and the picture shows correctly what it shows. Additionally, the resolution is too low anyway. Calderwood 10:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res -- Gorgo 16:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with above Hein 16:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 3 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 06:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) - The Last Supper (1495-1498).jpg, Not Featured

Nominate

— Shizhao 09:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Shizhao 09:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small resolution to really see anything --SehLax 12:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This important picture would deserve a better resolution Calderwood 16:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lerdsuwa 13:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose makes the painting look not so good -Quasipalm 17:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jossifresco 23:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This picture is not important enough! ... but seriously, the resolution's a disappointment. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 5 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 06:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bunsen burner flame types .jpg, Not Featured

Nominate

Created by pl:User:WarX, uploaded/edited by User:Julo, nominated by pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Simple but effective pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The flames are out of focus, and number 4 is noisy Calderwood 08:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Calderwood --SehLax 09:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 09:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have seen better pictures of flames Hein 16:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 18:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would chop off a bit of the right side --Piolinfax 18:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Solipsist 11:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 11:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 13:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kessa Ligerro 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 Support, 6 Oppose => Not Featured --Shizhao 06:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mosses around Stalactite with Waterdrop.jpg not featured

Self nomination --Wing-Chi 00:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry Calderwood 08:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional remark: shouldn't the drop be vertical? Calderwood 16:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was wind blowing on the waterdrop, but that doesn't distract the whole picture, I guess. This particular stalactite is not in an enclosed underground cavern, otherwise you wouldn't expect green mosses to be around. So, there is diffuse light and there is wind too. --Wing-Chi 18:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - MPF 18:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Tq 22:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 06:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose → not featured Calderwood 07:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Butchers creek - omeo12.jpg, Not Featured

Self Nom --Fir0002 www 23:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With a shorter exposure time this would be a good picture. But so the water looks quite unnatural and the upper left corner is overexposed. Calderwood 23:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't to anything for me. Congratulations to a new lens, though. --che (also a happy owner of 17-40 f/4) 00:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with the above. --Dschwen 12:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd vote pro for the first one if the left corner wasn't overexposed (would be good if it was as dark as in the second one). Easily correctable in Photoshop. --SehLax 17:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the lower one. I don't care about the water looking unnatural, on the contrary - it looks awesome. Like a magical fountain. Fountain of youth! Well, magical anyhow. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 3 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 16:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chaenomeles japonica.jpg, Not Featured

Nominate

— 217.186.156.60

Oppose composition and sharpness are insufficient for FP status Calderwood 21:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not very interesting --SehLax 21:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack SehLax. --Dschwen 12:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very inadequate compositional merits. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 16:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ant on tree.jpg not featured

Info created by Thomas Quaritsch - uploaded by Thomas Quaritsch - nominated by This user loves Krittaya -- 03:51, 17 September 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: significantly out of focus

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 05:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Helianthus annuus sunflower.jpg, Not Featured

Nominate

— Tq 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support (of course :-) — Tq 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice, but I don't like white skies --Buchling 19:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JFYI: The sky was not modified in any way, it is as it came from the camera. --Tq 22:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry but the lens flare is pretty distracting. --Contributor 19:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unnatural white sky, too dark in the lower parts, and not really sharp Calderwood 19:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice but the sky is washed out. I suggest replacing it with a composite image. Miskatonic 07:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Blown out sky, bad lighting on main subject. Composing it with a new sky won't help IMHO. --Dschwen 12:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 13:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 00:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support， 5 Oppose， 2 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 16:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Morocco Africa Flickr Rosino December 2005 82664690.jpg, Not Featured

Nomination. A scene from Morocco -Quasipalm 16:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Quasipalm 16:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC) (I uploaded, but did not take this image)[reply]
Oppose Too distorted. villy ♦✎ 17:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Tatoute 19:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose distortion --che 19:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too much distorsion ... - Fabien1309 00:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lerdsuwa 05:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 11:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lacking location info. Will change to support if location in Morocco is added, as it's a very nice pic - MPF 11:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Location is added. —MRB 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose agree with previous comments: too much of that funny mirror house effect present. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cut at the right norro 08:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, distortion. —MRB 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It does not show Morocco, it shows the distortion caused by too short a focal. Rama 10:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 Support, 8 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 07:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Morocco Africa Flickr Rosino December 2005 84514010.jpg, Featured

Nomination. A scene from Morocco -Quasipalm 16:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Quasipalm 16:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC) (I uploaded, but did not take this image)[reply]
Support --Tq 16:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing really special, seen in every tour operator leaflet. villy ♦✎ 17:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 17:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the edited version (because I don't watch tour operator leaflets ;-)) --SehLax 17:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this version, Support edited version. Beautiful, good quality norro 18:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC) PS: Edited version[reply]
Oppose -- Tatoute 19:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support tour operators can have good pictures too --che 19:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is it the horizon in the background??? - because it seems to be leaning extremely --Buchling 19:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- YolanC 22:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Holy crap, that's perfect. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I always loved tour operator leaflets !! -- Fabien1309 00:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Nothing special? How could an image of a sand dune get any more awsome? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The horizon is sloping too much for my taste LoopZilla 11:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Morocco_Africa_Flickr_Rosino_December_2005_84514010_edited_by_Buchling.jpg- I just tried to correct it. --Buchling 12:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are correcting the tilt - thanks! LoopZilla 08:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - amazingly, pristine, with not a single human footprint to be seen! Though yes, it is tilted; it could benefit from being rotated 6° clockwise - MPF 11:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the corrected version Calderwood 22:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Jossifresco 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the improved one Mayamaxima 08:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm neither the holy crap nor the nothing special camp - but I have to say it's quite good. Just enough for FP, maybe. The only minus is the overall composition, I would have liked to see more of the dune. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --— Erin (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 19:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support David.Monniaux 10:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Lycaon 13:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support improved version. —MRB 18:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21 Support, 4 oppose => Featured--Shizhao 08:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
corr: 22 support, 4 oppose --> Featured Roger McLassus 22:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Morocco Africa Flickr Rosino December 2005 84527212.jpg, Not Featured

Nomination. A scene from Morocco -Quasipalm 16:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Quasipalm 16:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC) (I uploaded, but did not take this image)[reply]
Oppose. What is it supposed to mean ? Can't see the point. villy ♦✎ 17:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bug's trail in the sand. -Quasipalm 17:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do no think so. I think you do not know. You suppose it is a bug trail. Tatoute 19:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know, it's a bug trail. I suppose you are wrong. -Quasipalm 01:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Tatoute 19:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 06:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not outstanding Calderwood 22:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If the tracks were circling, I could have understood it as an allusion to Tintin on the Moon, but with a spiral? David.Monniaux 10:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unfortunately, the author doesn't know which animal did it :( This way it's more evocative than instructive. --Javierme 23:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 4 oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured

Image:LaoLiangPhi.jpg, Not Featured

Self nomination. Scene from Lao Liang Phi island in Thailand. -- Lerdsuwa 14:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Lerdsuwa 14:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting -- Gorgo 15:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose subject is in shadow, while the foreground is very bright -Quasipalm 16:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting. villy ♦✎ 17:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a few comments about lighting, I should point out that it is best viewed on a calibrated monitor. -- Lerdsuwa 05:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Urban 06:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither the quality of the picture nor the beauty of the scenery are sufficient for FP status Calderwood 22:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support though it's a bit too postcardish David.Monniaux 10:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 5 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 07:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Plum on tree02.jpg, Not Featured

Self Nom --Fir0002 www 10:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Composition, fruits are cut, obstructed by leaves. Unbalanced image. Unspectacular. --Dschwen 12:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Dschwen Calderwood 13:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Incorrect exposure LoopZilla 13:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 15:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 07:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:westerngull.jpg, Not Featured

An illustration of sea anemone's from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur (1899)

Self nomination Miskatonic 07:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good idea, but bad lighting norro 09:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad light => colours are not very good --Luke1ace 11:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack norro. --Dschwen 12:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 13:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 13:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bird not sharp enough -- Lerdsuwa 13:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Norro. Would have supported if bird had been better lit - MPF 11:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kessa Ligerro 19:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it really is about showing a gull, then the bridge is disturbing and should not be there. If it is about a gull next to a bridge, this is just yet another pouétique photo, rather poorly executed due to bad lightening. Rama 10:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 06:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 01:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 07:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fortpoint02-01-2006.JPG, Not Featured

Self nomination Miskatonic 06:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting. Cannon is cut norro 09:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack norro.--Dschwen 12:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 13:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 13:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (composition) --SehLax 17:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Tatoute 19:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate your effort, Miskatonic, but yes - the picture kind of lacks a focal point. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 07:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Neuraminidase Ribbon Diagram.jpg, Not Featured

Nominate

— Shizhao 08:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Shizhao 08:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Low resolution LoopZilla 11:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reason Calderwood 22:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It needn't be larger, since it's clear. It's not a photo but a schema, hence resolution is not a good argument. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 13:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image could not be used in a printed document LoopZilla 14:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - quality pb Tatoute 14:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low resolution and still aliasing effects. Should be SVG or at least PNG --SehLax 15:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 4 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Koala climbing tree.jpg, Not Featured

Nominate

— Fabien1309 00:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 00:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 03:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, even though it has a rather glum expression on its face - MPF 11:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tq 16:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture has something I don't like, but I can't say what it is yet. Maybe a mixture of several things (quality, light, face ...) Calderwood 23:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (but only just) Reminds me of a couple of Finnish radio & TV personalities. But I'm not opposing because of that but because of the lighting. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the background disturbs the whole picture --Buchling 15:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice -- aka 11:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice work. Darkone 11:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the photographer probably frightened the poor animal David.Monniaux 10:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 13:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 15:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 01:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 6 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured --Shizhao 02:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tram interior edit1.jpg, Featured

Nominate

— Fabien1309 00:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in the English Wikipedia Calderwood 22:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Fabien1309 00:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support bordering on saccharin-sweet -- but who can say no to that face. -Quasipalm 02:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shizhao 03:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatoute 11:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too saccharin-sweet (and serious questions about the legal ability of the person to consent to the licensing of the photo) - MPF 11:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Some discussion about the pic on its en nomination page.--Dschwen 15:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 22:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice -- Gorgo 03:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support let me quote en-wiki: "The lighting, wood and stillness of it give it a gentle by-gone era feel about it. The young girl in the picture adds life to it, its more than a stale museum image." --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tbc 10:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC) This is what I call a great picture.[reply]
Support --— Erin (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- skINMATE 16:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bertilvidet 22:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 13 support, 1 Oppose => Featured --Shizhao 02:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zion mount carmel highway view.jpg, Not Featured

Nominate

— Fabien1309 00:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 00:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 03:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose foreground too dark. I know you cannot have it all, but there are nicer views of Zion. --Dschwen 09:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - have to agree with Dschwen - MPF 11:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Dschwen Calderwood 22:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the contrast is too sharp, in my humble opinion. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 5 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Smithsonian Air and Space Planes.jpg, Not Featured

Nominate

— Fabien1309 00:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 00:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Urban 05:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too cluttered - MPF 11:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto. // Liftarn 14:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose awful (sorry) composition norro 15:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Tq 16:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 22:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose confusing composition, almost every element in this picture is cut -- Gorgo 03:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Gorgo. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same as above David.Monniaux 10:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose everything is either cut or not emphasised, and there are too many details. Frankly, go back there, take individual photos of each plane and detour them... or maybe do something with the depth of field, though I have trouble imagining how you could blur the background while keeping the whole subjet sharp in this case. Rama 09:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 06:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 10 Oppose => Not Featured --Shizhao 02:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image:Alosa fallax.png, Not Featured

Alosa fallax - Twaide shad. Photo by Hans Hillewaert on board of RV Belgica at Westdiep on 29/09/2005

Self- Nominate

and  Support — Lycaon 16:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose low quality, no background Calderwood 07:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice shot, but not sharp enought --Luke1ace 09:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "it's just a fish" Darkone 11:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not just a fish: it is an anadromous fish that is quite rare these days. The picture moreover, shows many diagnostic characteristics, making it an ideal image for illustration of articles about the Twaid shad. Rarity of an image should imo also play a role in choosing FPCs. I do agree about 'not sharp enough' though. My pictures are all taken at sea... -- Lycaon 16:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Havn't you seen the quotation marks? Please think about it. -- aka 19:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too many signs of damage by the catching process (torn fin, displaced scales: inevitable, or not?) so it doesn't look life-like - MPF 16:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 01:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 5 oppose => Not Featured --Shizhao 02:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hippeastrum flower.jpg, Not Featured

Self nomination Bjwebb 11:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bjwebb 11:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose great color and interesting composition, but I think it's way too blurry even in the thumbnail --SehLax 15:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The w:en:stamens are not clear against the background of the petals: also very monochromatic (which may be Nature) LoopZilla 15:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 18:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry Calderwood 07:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry norro 15:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 01:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's sharp! open the highres file in the original size. it's nice Metoc 14:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 6 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pollen.arp.750pix.jpg, Not Featured

Nomination by --— Erin (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --— Erin (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the risoluzione is a bit on the low side...hm, and the composition isn't perfect, IMHO. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution and sharpness are insufficient for FP status Calderwood 13:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 09:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New candidate above (resolution 1024 x 768) Image:Daisy 3 bg 013003.jpg LoopZilla 09:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 2 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 2.jpg, Featured

Nominate

— Fabien1309 22:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 22:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --— Erin (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support this fellow finally got a picture worthy of him/her. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Harp 12:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 13:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 18:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Best picture ive ever seen of a racoon. --Bjwebb 19:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- it's just a raccoon. -- Lycaon 07:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 09:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great shot --Joonasl 13:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ears cut --SehLax 13:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support forget the ears! Beautiful picture of a beautiful animal. Ma.rkus.nl 21:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support but caveat about the cut ears. David.Monniaux 10:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! I like this shot. --Kumaapr9 15:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 17:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ears, whiskers cut - MPF 16:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Trounce 22:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with David Hein 16:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 09:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 01:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15 Support, 3 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Featured

Image:Sydney opera house sunset.jpg, Not Featured

Nominate

— Fabien1309 22:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 22:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition not the best one (half of the picture is sky) and disturbing shadow -- Gorgo 01:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the shadows don't disturb me that much but yes, there have been better shots of this building. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- There are some pictures eg. Image:Sydney Opera House Sails.jpg but I think it's better with this colours. Perhaps without shadows it would be better. -- Harp 12:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose primarily because of the bad composition. The shadows are a bit disturbing too. But I like the colours. Calderwood 14:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatoute 16:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting and composition --SehLax 17:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- colors, building -- YolanC 02:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Confused image LoopZilla 09:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colours but shadows detract from building's form Rodge500 12:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pouétique and difficult to read due to the extravagant colours Rama 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think the bridge shadow adds to the pic - MPF 16:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 Support, 9 Oppose => Not Featured --Shizhao 02:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Horse profile.jpg, Not Featured

Nominate

— Fabien1309 22:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 22:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like that metal bar in the middle of the picture -- Gorgo 01:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the bar's what makes this pic worthwhile! The atmosphere is nice and rustic. I would've liked the horse to be smaller in relation to the edges, though. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition. The metal bar doesn't stand out against the background. Would like to see either just the horse's head and neck or the entire horse, but not that way with the cropped body norro 10:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack norro Calderwood 13:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Urban 06:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Mayamaxima 15:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 6 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:F-16 Fighting Falcons above New York City(2).jpg, Not Featured

Nominate

— Fabien1309 22:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 22:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --— Erin (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Urban 05:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very kühl indeed. The difference in sharpness between the fore- and background adds to the effect. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The lack of sharpness in the background is acceptable, but the planes could be sharper. Nevertheless a good picture. Calderwood 13:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 02:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Staged photo-op for making weaponry look poetic. I approved the SR-71 because the photo was nice and all, but this one... David.Monniaux 10:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK David.Monniaux -- Lycaon 13:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tvpm 20:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many details in the background, planes too small. This photo pretends to try to show both F16 and New york, and ends up showing nothing well. What it really tries to do is induce a nation of grandeur and "patriotism" by a gross propaganda setting (as per David.Monniaux (though I did not approve of the SR-71 either. We have far better photos of the SR-71 than the grossly deformed propaganda poster which eventually was featured)). Rama 09:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per Rama - MPF 16:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't care about patriotism or not, but the quality of this picture is not convincing. Hein 15:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't care about any perceived message, the photo is interesting (much more so than the many sunset photos we have featured). -Quasipalm 22:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: I really don't give a damn whether an image is propaganda or not, as long as it is well done. I think that this one is only propaganda, that's all. Rama 13:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 01:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 Support, 7 Oppose, 1 neutral => Not Featured --Shizhao 02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gallop.jpg, Not Featured

Nominate

— Fabien1309 22:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 22:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --— Erin (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support quite nice -- Gorgo 01:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support! --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Would like to see it slightly more from the side and 10-15% at the bottom cropped. Perhaps little bit more contrast/saturation norro 10:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very commonplace. I agree with the objections made by norro and I miss the consent of the person shown. Calderwood 14:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not agree about the bottom cropping, the current cropping accentuates the horse being completely airborn. --Dschwen 10:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 12:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lycaon 13:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMHO needs slower than 1/400s to show some turf movement, and better light to make it a FP Rodge500 20:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AFBorchert 08:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC) (and please do not crop the bottom)[reply]
Support and agree with AFBorchert, don't crop - MPF 16:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No, it should not be cropped, but it is boring anyway. I guess everybody has already seen thousands of similar pictures. Hein 15:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not outstanding Kessa Ligerro 13:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Briseis 22:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 01:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Hein Mayamaxima 15:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 Support, 6 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sultan Abdul Samad National Day.jpg, Not Featured

Nominate

Government building in Malaysia brightly lit to celebrate National Day. — Lerdsuwa 14:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Lerdsuwa 14:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality too low. — (Tq // Talk) 17:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose extremely grainy even in low res and disturbing cars in foreground (could probably be removed with photoshop) -- Gorgo 18:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low quality Calderwood 19:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurred, cars, not the best composition --SehLax 17:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kessa Ligerro 19:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 5 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:fuji apple.jpg, Not Featured

Nomination Bjwebb 12:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bjwebb 16:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting - too hard/dark shadows norro 15:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not bad, but too low resolution and too dark shadows Calderwood 19:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution way too low -- Gorgo 01:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the resolution should be higher yes. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hard shadows and unnatural underground --SehLax 17:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 5 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Reflected sunset.jpg, Featured

Self Nom --Fir0002 www 10:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky is really great, but the image composition not. Also leaning norro 15:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the sky - but only the sky Calderwood 19:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - both sky and land. --— Erin (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have to support this in spite of the too dark foreground. The sky is just breathtaking. You can even see an ominous face forming up there if you want to. If I were a hobbit traveling under a sky like that I would be very worried indeed. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rodge500 10:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wart Dark 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 22:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack norro -- Gorgo 14:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Mayamaxima 15:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

neutral

6 Support, 2 Oppose, 1 neutral => Featured--Shizhao 02:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sensu.JPG, Not Featured

Self nomination--Tomomarusan 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kumaapr9 13:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not bad, but not outstanding either Calderwood 14:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 02:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 08:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Light not even enough. --— Erin (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Urban 06:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurred edge at handle and lower right - MPF 16:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 Support, 4 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 07:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Matsumoto Castle far3 0504.jpg, Not Featured

Self nomination one of Japans few original castles ( = not rebuild with concrete) -- Gorgo 00:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose enchanting building but I don't like the angle - and I don't know why. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kumaapr9 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is something in this picture that stands between it and a support vote. I can't yet say what it is - therefore Neutral for the time beeing. Calderwood 14:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's too bright and composition could be better (maybe it's the cut pillars or the fact that the bridge is hiding the persons behind it) --SehLax 17:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 02:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Composition - the eye is drawn to the bridge and the building. LoopZilla 09:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i don't like the sharp light, the bridge also distracts in this composition --che 17:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 13:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rama 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose due to being over-exposed - MPF 16:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 01:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition and subject, but I think there is something wrong with the colour balance. A grey-point set on the castle's shutters seems to help. -- Solipsist 09:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 06:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 8 oppose, 2 Neutral => Not Featured --Shizhao 07:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:St Petersburg Eternal Flame on the Field of Mars.jpg, Not Featured

Nominate --Joonasl 13:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't see any eternal flame, just a smal orange point. Monotonous, foreground is too dark and cut norro 16:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this photo doesn't show very much --che 17:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose leaning horizon, hardly visible object, badly cut and dark foreground, boring composition ... do I have to say more? Calderwood 18:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I loved the fact that the picture is so grey, now that you mentioned it, the horizon in leaning. --Joonasl 19:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 13:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mayamaxima 17:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hm... 'vuodelta 2002' siinä seisoo mutta jännästi kuva näyttää kuin sen yhden ensimmäisistä värivalokuvaajista (venäläinen muistaakseni) ottamalta, 1910-luvulta. OK, muttei omissa kirjoissani tarpeeksi spécial suositelluksi kuvaksi. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 11:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- meaning what? Calderwood 18:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - (this is an international project) Just that though it says the pic was taken in 2002, to me it brought to mind the work of this fellow. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 07:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 16:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 06:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 oppose, 2 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 16:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Daisy 3 bg 013003.jpg, Not Featured

Nominate

LoopZilla 09:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support LoopZilla 09:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose slightly better resolution, but the difference is negligible - and sharpness did not improve at all Calderwood 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 06:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose grey shadow behind makes it look odd - MPF 16:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support， 3 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 16:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PB011939 Karls Kirche Wien.JPG

Self nomination Luke1ace 15:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose leaning, cut, not sharp, disturbing house on the right Calderwood 16:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colour tones but converging verticals and lack of sharpness outweigh Rodge500 16:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mayamaxima 17:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—skINMATE 22:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 03:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Loukoum.jpg, Not Featured

Self-nomination ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 09:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Big plate, small loukoum, no color contrast... David.Monniaux 10:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Et pourtant! It's not a plate but a saucer... regarding contrast I think you're right. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 11:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose artefacts on the saucer, object small and not very sharp, no colour contrast Calderwood 13:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - dark, low contrast - Fabien1309 13:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Joonasl 07:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 03:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Field of sheep at lambing time - swifts creek vic australia.jpg, Not Featured

Self Nom --Fir0002 www 23:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather support, no vote. Nice photo, though trees are "à contrejour" ie against the light. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 10:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose} it is just a panoramic image of a field of sheep (well executed though). The lambs are only a few pixels in size. Not really spectacular. --Dschwen 10:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad artefacts in the sky Calderwood 13:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beautiful, real. Zafiroblue05 09:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's not "just a panoramic image of a field of sheep", it's a very nice panoramic image of a field of sheep. BTW. "A field of sheep" sounds funny to my English-as-a-foreign-language-type-ears. The hues of green are beautiful. Calderwood's comments about "bad artefacts" left me somewhat confused. Is the plane evil or the clouds? Anyways, to me they don't matter. Hm, I'm noticing a growing trend of yours truly almost always voting support when it comes to panoramas. But there's something very pleasing in them - if they're well done (unlike some of my own hehe). Ugh. I have spoken. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 12:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I did not mean the little plane, but if you watch the sky at full resolution it is filled with unnatural looking coloured areas. They are certainly not clouds but artefacts generated by the compression of the image into a jpg-file. Calderwood 18:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right... to me they sure looked like clouds. Are you sure they are not? Well anyhow, it's not enough to deny it featured status. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 06:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the thing in the sky is just clouds. JPEG artifact, if any, should show up at tree branches before the clouds due to compression of high details. - Lerdsuwa 16:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There are several types of artefacts (generally, I mean, not in this picture) and one type is always found in areas where smooth changes of colour occur, which the compression algorithm cannot properly follow. I am sure that the sky in this picture is full of compression artefacts. I cannot prove it, but I have seen a sufficient amount of them to be sure. Calderwood 16:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Urban 18:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rex 21:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 16:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose countryside with some sheep on it .. I can't find anything featured in it, sorry -- Gorgo 23:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 Support, 4 Oppose => Not Featured --Shizhao 03:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Egg_in_straw_nest.jpg, Not Featured

Nominate

norro 15:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support beautiful and warm. Great composition norro 15:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The left one of the two eggs is quite blurry, while some unimportant parts of the background are sharp. If not everything can be sharp, then the main objects (the two eggs) should be thus contrasting their surrounding. Calderwood 17:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same David.Monniaux 10:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support d'accord avec Norro. Calderwood perhaps supposes that the shooter meant both of the eggs to be main objects but it could well be that he meant only the one that is nearer the camera. They're both individual animals with souls, for christ's sake! Well, they will be anyways. Notwithstanding that they're eaten before that. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 13:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 18:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --AFBorchert 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 16:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 5 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 03:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Acueducto de Segovia 2006-02-11.jpg

Nominate

norro 15:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Little bit noisy in full resolution, but great composition and very aesthetic norro 15:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too blurry and too dark shadows Calderwood 16:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 05:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - don't think the 45° angle works well - MPF 16:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 06:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - artsy view with too many little aesthetical imperfections. --Wikimol 21:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like this photo, but can't support it. I think the size of the bridge is not easy to recognized from this photo, though actually this bridge is very large. The size is an important charm of this building.--Morio 05:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 5 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 03:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

Image:2006-02-25 candle-flame with colour-shift B.jpg, Not Featured

Colour-shift deliberately applied on the image of a burning candle in order to enhance the visibility of the colour-zones

Nominate

and  Support Roger McLassus 12:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support good idea and well performed Calderwood 16:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ed g2s • talk 20:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 13:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 17:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 05:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - lurid - MPF 16:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 13:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 11:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Lycaon 13:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose maybe good for understanding, but it's not very nice... Metoc 14:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do the areas correspond with the actual different combustion zones of the flame? --Janke | Talk 07:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but indirectly so. They correspond to areas of different radiation temperature which in turn are dependent on the combustion zones. Every photo of a flame shows these areas, but the human eye is incapable of distinguisthing between them. The colour-shift makes the difference actually visible. Roger McLassus 08:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 18:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 Support, 7 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 03:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006-02-25 candle-flame with colour-shift A.jpg, Not Featured

Colour-shift deliberately applied on the image of a burning candle in order to enhance the visibility of the colour-zones

Nominate

and  Support Roger McLassus 12:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support same as above Calderwood 16:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ed g2s • talk 20:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too blue! my eyes! :( Ma.rkus.nl 21:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 17:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - lurid - MPF 16:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 13:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 11:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Lycaon 13:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As above, do the areas correspond with the actual different combustion zones of the flame? --Janke | Talk 07:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as above Roger McLassus 08:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the one above is better. Metoc 18:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 18:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 Support, 6 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 03:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marginacion mexico02.JPG, Not Featured

Nominate

— LeCire 00:08, 25. Feb 2006 (CET) (Signature added by norro 12:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose bad composition, sky full of artefacts, object not outstanding Calderwood 16:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 13:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Calderwood - MPF 16:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Briseis 11:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The mood is touching. But this time Calderwood's rambling of heavenly artifacts rings true :). A good picture but not enough for featured status. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 16:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 oppose， 1 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 03:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mandarin.duck.arp.jpg, featured

This picture has been shot by User:Arpingstone.
Nominate

— AFBorchert 07:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — AFBorchert 07:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rama 09:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 10:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gwir 11:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose not sharp at full resolution, white parts are completey structureless Calderwood 11:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, but ah so deadly. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 13:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - pinioned captive bird (only one wing!) - MPF 16:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Rex 21:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Joonasl 07:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose outblown white parts and nearly no composition at all ;-) --SehLax 21:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Erin (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful!--Kumaapr9 14:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose partly overexposed + bad lighting (shadow), given it's quite an easy object -> oppose -- Gorgo 23:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 01:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Gorgo MGo 10:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 12  Support, 6  Oppose ---> narrowly featured! --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Corcomroe Abbey Crossing And Presbytery 1997 09 03.jpg, not featured

Inside view of a medieval Cistercian monastery in Ireland, constructed 1210-1220.

Self- Nominate

--AFBorchert 09:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rama 09:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lack of sharpness and bad lighting, overexposed sky Calderwood 11:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Calderwood. Uninteresting. norro 20:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Joonasl 07:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - blurred and grainy - Arpingstone 19:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 10:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results: 1  Support, 6  Oppose = not featured. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grand Central Station Main Concourse Rectilinear projection Jan 2006.jpg, not featured

Nominate

— Fabien1309 13:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 13:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - rectilinearing a bit overdone; people at margins look wierd (stretched out fat), and columns appear to diverge upwards (they're parallel by measurement, but one needs to allow for the optical illusion of the brain interprets this as looking diverging); also slightly tilted to right - MPF 16:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MPF Calderwood 16:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urban 18:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rex 21:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much cut (I'd like more at the top) --SehLax 21:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Quasipalm 22:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like SehLax said, too much cut. And distorted people in the fringes. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 11:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a correction of the distortion/stretching, and that version became a FP on the English WP: --Janke | Talk 07:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --David Gaya 17:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 10:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results: 5  Support, 6  Oppose ----> not featured. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amundsen-Scott marsstation ray h edit.jpg, featured

Info created by Chris Danals (National Science Foundation) - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Xymmax -- Xymmax 20:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a featured picture on English Wikipedia, and it's so unusual I decided to nom it here as well. It depicts a research station in Antarctica, with the Aurora Australis visible in the sky. It was taken at night, by the natural light of the full moon, with a 25 second exposure. I had nothing to do with taking or uploading the image, but the uploader indicated that this version has been edited to remove noise and hot pixels visible in the original. The National Science Foundation is an agency of the U. S. Government, so I agree with the uploader that this is in fact a free image.

Support -- Xymmax 20:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Platypusx 12:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support High wow. Freedom to share 21:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support S23678 08:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment already nominated here Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Amundsen-Scott marsstation ray h.jpg Movieevery 10:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I nominated this image before, but this is an edit that was chosen that will hopefully allow the image to rise up to its full potential. Freedom to share 11:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Image:Amundsen-Scott marsstation ray h edit2.jpg here's a perspective corrected version. Mfield 12:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor foreground, noisy picture, weird perspective, i.o.w., bad quality. The only thing more or less pro is the strange lighting. Lycaon 12:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As last time. I'm still not keen on the over-processed look, the tilting buildings or the grey snow. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 13:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again familiar all faces.--Mbz1 21:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as last time. --Lerdsuwa 14:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 21:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kimse 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pauk 23:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor foreground. --Nevit Dilmen 09:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 16:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support stunning picture. —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tower Bridge London Dusk Feb 2006.jpg, featured

Nominate

— Did you say sharp ? - Fabien1309 13:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 13:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 16:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great job! Rodge500 18:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Urban 18:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rex 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —skINMATE 22:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support mosaic outstandingly done.. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 06:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AFBorchert 07:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Joonasl 07:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (even if the flags are blurred ;-) --SehLax 21:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 08:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morio 04:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good -- Godewind 17:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful -- Gorgo 23:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 11:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 01:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Darkone 17:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results: 19  Support -----> featured. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:British Museum Reading Room Panorama Feb 2006.jpg, featured

Nominate

— Fabien1309 13:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 13:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much distortion -- Lerdsuwa 14:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the distortion is unavoidable Calderwood 16:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AFBorchert 19:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rex 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Trounce 21:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support wa!! pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a place where U really can focus on the reading at hand.. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 06:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Joonasl 07:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive norro 13:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Wikimol 21:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morio 04:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 11:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Solipsist 08:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support <zoidberg voice="on"> aaw... I remember the days... too long gone, they are! What a nice reading in there, it was!</zoidberg>
Very nice... but, it doesn't give you a real sense of the shape of the room since it is highly distorted... weak support I'd say... gren 19:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dakota ~ 22:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results: 16  Support, 1  Oppose ---> featured. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lower Manhattan from Staten Island Ferry Jan 2006.jpg, featured

Nominate

— Who said "not sharp" ?? Please view full :) - Fabien1309 13:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 13:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- No-w-ay 16:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC) invalid vote (fake-signature) Kessa Ligerro 21:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 16:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nearly 5 megabytes is overdoing it. I don't have a two-metre-wide screen. - MPF 16:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... but if you want to print it as a poster, you'll need such a resolution -- Fabien1309 17:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... I'd not want that as a poster, cityscapes bore me . . . so I guess that counts as an oppose anyway! - MPF 21:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --AFBorchert 18:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC) I'm impressed! (And even if I don't have a 2m-wide screen, I like to scroll through the panorama.)[reply]
Support-- Urban 18:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rex 21:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support - the weather conditions are not perfect in that the buildings do not contrast well to the sky in the background. But still pretty good. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 06:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Joonasl 07:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK MPF. It is really sharp, but that's not everything an excellent picture needs. --SehLax 21:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - technically high quality work, but I just think the light's too flat to do it justice Rodge500 22:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support fantastic -Quasipalm 22:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tbc 15:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting is quite bad (half of it is shadow) + composition is not that special; technically extremely well done though -- Gorgo 20:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Bloddy amazing. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 02:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 11:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 20:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 01:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sarazyn ^{Got milk?} 08:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support what a picture. never seen such a big one of new york. Metoc 18:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results: 16  Support, 1  Neutral and 5  Oppose => featured Kessa Ligerro 21:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rolling-thunder-cloud.jpg, not featured

Nominate

and  Support. I know, the resolution is quite meagre and the picture has other flaws too, but the cloud is breathtaking. Calderwood 14:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in the German Wikipedia Calderwood 14:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low resolution, JPEG artifacts visible especially in clouds and right building with tower. -- Lerdsuwa 16:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive! - MPF 21:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ACK Calderwood and MPF. Maybe the uploader could contribute a bigger version? --SehLax 21:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Resolution too low. — Erin (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 06:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose breaks my heart of steel to oppose since the weatherfront is awesome but the resolution is way too low. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the phenomenon is very well depicted and understandable here, and the city adds a sense of scale (and dramatic effect, which does add something when it manages to stay discreet like here). Rama 10:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution / artifacts. Darkone 14:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support fascinating --Buchling 23:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Edit by User:LoopZilla inserted here. Edits are always discussed in the same template. Calderwood 07:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see why it should be good too interpolate pictures. It's very blurry now even in the image page --SehLax 14:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is fearfully beautiful! --Kumaapr9 14:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution is way to low to be featured and quality of second picture is too bad -- Gorgo 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yikes! artifacts... resolution... blurry... -Quasipalm 21:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We need not discuss the fact that the technical quality of this picture is very low. But in all my life I have never seen such a cloud, which makes me believe that clouds of this kind are pretty rare. So the mere existence of this photo is a point in its favour - comparable to historical photos, which are sometimes technically quite bad but nevertheless get featured with good reason. Calderwood 22:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that might be true, but I think a featured picture has to be outstanding on a technical and on a content level, just one makes it quite nice but not "featured" in my opinion -- Gorgo 22:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion differs from yours - and not only mine as the support votes on this picture show. Calderwood 07:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support the first one Kessa Ligerro 14:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which one are we voting on? LoopZilla 00:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 01:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 11:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 07:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AFBorchert 06:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ACK, Calderwood[reply]
Support ack Calderwood Mayamaxima 15:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing - Bertilvidet 22:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Content is far more important than size. -- Solipsist 08:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A street in the sky. Just amazing Metoc 14:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Roger McLassus 14:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too low resolution -- pretty cool, though gren 19:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results: 15  Support and 9  Oppose → not featured. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ice at little waterfall.jpg, not featured

Self nomination --SehLax 22:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low resolution and blurry in parts. — Erin (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the palette really appeals to me... --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too blurry and bad lighting. I know that it is very difficult to get a good photo of natural ice objects, but this knowledge does not make it any better. Calderwood 11:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and there's some noisy compression at the bottom Veledan 18:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Erin & Calderwood - MPF 11:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 07:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results: 2  Support, 5  Oppose ---> not featured. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Turkishcoffee.jpg not featured (withdrawn)

A cup of Turkish Coffe at an Istanbul terrace --Bertilvidet 21:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. Bertilvidet 20:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self Nom -- Bertilvidet 21:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very blurry, bad background, cut saucer, boring Calderwood 08:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry, cut saucer. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 13:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - why has such a blurred pic been put here as an FPC? Most baffling! - Arpingstone 19:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 06:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see Calderwood; the plate is cut on the picture, too --[[User:Sarazyn|Sarazyn [[User talk:Sarazyn|'''Got milk?''']]]] 07:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What you call a plate is in fact the saucer already mentioned Roger McLassus 14:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 18:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Calderwood Kessa Ligerro 18:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a much better picture is (further down) nominated for delisting! MGo 07:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry, and it looks like chocolat instead of cofee and it gives me hungry. Francisco M. Marzoa 15:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, and thanks for the constructive critics. I actually tried to remove it from the list of candidates. However, I need to say that Turkish coffe is supposed to have a layer of foam, so this is the way it should look. Bertilvidet 15:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want do discontinue voting on this picture, then simply write "I withdraw my nomination". Soon afterwards someone will remove this template and put it into the archive. I could do it, if you like. Roger McLassus 19:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that option Bertilvidet 20:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Raspberries02.jpg not featured

I love how this turned out - makes a beautiful simple desktop b/g

Self Nom --Fir0002 www 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - really nice --Buchling 21:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - great, but I don't know about the spacing between the foreground and the background raspberries -- the background seems too blured and become distracting. I also think that some photoshop levels correction should be applied here as the berries look a bit washed. Great pic though, I'm just not 100% there. -Quasipalm 21:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not even to two raspberries in the foreground are really sharp, let alone the others, which show bad compression artefacts - and the colours are not convincing either. Calderwood 22:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, again, I would support if the title was something like "depth of field". But this does not show raspberries. If it did, there would not be distracting blurry things in the background, and the raspberries would be at the centre of the image. Rama 09:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joonasl 09:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The title is just a placeholder. The image speaks for itself! pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring Kessa Ligerro 14:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 05:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. villy ♦✎ 07:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Mayamaxima 15:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Quasipalm -- Solipsist 08:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 21:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC) I agree with Rama[reply]
Question: Where did the other raspberries-picture go? Calderwood 16:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite follow you...--Fir0002 [http://www.photos.flagstaffotos.com

www] 10:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose MGo 10:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like this more than the newer one, just need a bit more of DOF. Francisco M. Marzoa 20:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 10 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Highwayman's Hitch.jpg not featured

Nominate

— (self-nomination. article example: Highwayman's hitch) Brighterorange 18:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Brighterorange 18:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice -- Gorgo 20:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Parts of the hitch are badly out of focus and the tablecloth is distracting. Putting everything on the table causes unnecessary shadow. In addition to that lighing is bad anyway. Calderwood 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ack Calderwood --Buchling 21:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Quasipalm 21:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Calderwood Kessa Ligerro 14:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 07:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 5 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kuboctaeder-Animation.gif not featured

created by Aka
Nominate

Calderwood 15:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in the German Wikipedia Calderwood 15:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Calderwood 15:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would support this if it was a bit bigger -- small pic such as this just aren't that illustrative for me personally. -Quasipalm 21:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 14:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godewind 17:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small Lycaon 01:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have no interest in too small pictures on Commons. villy ♦✎ 07:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, it is small. But it is nice, and if it were bigger, it would not contain more information. Roger McLassus 14:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per McLassus. I'm curious if rotation about a skew axis (not coaligned with an axis of symmetry) could be done? Wsiegmund 00:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 3 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Inside Moscow Bolshoi Theatre.jpg not featured

Nomination Joonasl 12:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - composition (black corner,...) --Buchling 13:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obviously the this picture was originally badly leaning and later put upright by rotation. Of the four empty corner-triangles that thus came into beeing the two small ones were cut off and the remaining big ones were simply filled with black colour. No - this is definitly not a featured picture. Calderwood 15:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dito calderwood -- Gorgo 20:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ Calderwood: aren't the two dark triangles the balcony from where the photo was taken, rather ? Rama 09:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but in this case they would not be less disturbing. Calderwood 10:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Rama is correct, note that the black triangles have slightly curved edges, so it isn't a bad rotation & crop job - MPF 23:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are right, so I crossed my assumption out. But whatever may be the origin of these dark triangles, they look bad. And even without them the picture is not sufficiently remarkable to be featured. Calderwood 19:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Mayamaxima 15:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 06:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --[[User:Sarazyn|Sarazyn [[User talk:Sarazyn|'''Got milk?''']]]] 07:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 10:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfly head featured

This image shows a macro shot of a Southern Hawker head (Aeshna cyanea). There is also an image that shows the whole animal.

Self nomination aka 07:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 09:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luke1ace 10:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 10:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kumaapr9 14:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 15:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AFBorchert 18:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very interesting -Quasipalm 21:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The reflection of a light (the flash I assume) is very distracting. Otherwise tremendous pic. —Gabbe 14:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godewind 17:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bertilvidet 09:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 11:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 01:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support alien pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm tempted to say "it's just a nice closeup of a colourful bug"... Dunno. There are MANY bugs out there that look even more interesting/freaky and the composition (ah, there's that useful word again) could be better. I personally like insect photos that show more than just this detail, photos that show the creature in the context of the surrounding nature or in an interesting position, for instance. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Sarazyn ^{Got milk?} 08:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Makes me want to read about dragonflies. :-) --Eloquence 11:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MGo 10:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral -->  Roger McLassus 17:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nase not featured

This image shows a Nase (Chondrostoma nasus).

Self nomination aka 07:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support probably the best fish pic I've seen up for vote here - MPF 11:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 15:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Technically well done (apart from the strong reflections), but composition is trivial and I see no reason to presume that there is anything outstanding to this species or individual. For all I know, it is just a fish - or am I wrong? Calderwood 08:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I guess you aren't, but you can use that line with any photo: "It's just a sunset!", "It's just a city panorama!", "It's just an alien spaceship!". For me, this image would've needed a better composition. Though it is an OK picture of this species. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 11:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether you have a good reason or not to say "just a ..." depends on how outstanding an object or a way of showing it is. To give an example, the image "rolling thunder cloud" (further down) does certainly not show "just a cloud". And if everybody had already seen thousands of pictures of alien spaceships, and they all look more or less asame, then a photo showing just one of them without anything special and with no particular aesthetic qualities would in my opinion not deserve FP-status. Calderwood 11:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good but not outstanding Kessa Ligerro 14:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great pic !! -- Lycaon 01:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 07:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring Mayamaxima 15:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 17:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Solipsist 08:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Briseis 10:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --[[User:Sarazyn|Sarazyn [[User talk:Sarazyn|'''Got milk?''']]]] 07:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Darkone 10:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 10:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its just an alien space ship with fish like wrapping to cheat us. Francisco M. Marzoa 17:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In a second view I found that's its an alien space ship with fish-like wrapping to cheat us but good taken. Francisco M. Marzoa 20:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willow catkin not featured

This image shows three Willow catkins.

Self nomination aka 07:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose depth of focus is insufficient for FP status Calderwood 10:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice pic, but without the species of willow, it isn't a great deal of use - MPF 11:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Isn't it Pussy Willow, known as Goat Willow? 57.66.51.165 18:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Urban 05:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 16:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 07:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 4 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small spider not featured

This image shows a macro shot of an only about 5 mm small spider of the species Scytodes thoracica.

Self nomination aka 07:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Luke1ace 10:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition is boring, the shadow of the legs is irritating, and sharpness is not overwhelming Calderwood 10:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - un-natural background - MPF 11:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kumaapr9 14:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with the opposers Kessa Ligerro 14:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 01:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Briseis 11:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 07:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Mayamaxima 15:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting critter, but the background's baad, m'kay? --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 16:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very fine; an excellent image - clear, distinct, well framed LoopZilla 21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 17:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 10:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The background is really ugly for this case. Francisco M. Marzoa 20:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 8 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common toad young not featured

This image shows an about two month old Common toad (Bufo bufo).

Self nomination aka 07:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - even tho' the depth of focus would ideally have been slightly greater - MPF 11:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shizhao 02:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose considerable parts of the animal are out of focus Calderwood 07:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 01:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - good, but not outstanding, not clear enough Bertilvidet 09:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 07:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 17:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support DoF is essentially fine, most detail and profile is sharp, composition is good. -- Solipsist 08:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Briseis 10:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sarazyn ^{Got milk?} 08:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 07:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of DOF. And it remembers me my father-in-law! Francisco M. Marzoa 20:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 6 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tenthredo.vespa.larva.6910.jpg not featured

Nominate

— Samsara 04:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Samsara 04:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness is not satisfactory, and this picture does not make the larva's anatomy clear to me. Calderwood 11:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I take it this grub is pretending to be a bird dropping? That's well illustrated. There does seem to be a bit of bad compression in the upper background at high res but I'm sure someone can smooth that out. Veledan 18:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AFBorchert 20:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 04:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I refer to Calderwood's comments. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 11:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kinda looks like poo... nice pic, though --Sarazyn ^{Got milk?} 08:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 07:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 4 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AgamaLizard.jpg not featured

Self nomination Square 04:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lizard's tail, which is emphasized ty taking the picture from behind, is not sharp. Calderwood 07:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 16:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Square 17:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. villy ♦✎ 07:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Calderwood. But there is a lot to like here too. -- Solipsist 08:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Pretty amazing. Look at his purple arms! But yeah, it's just... not quite there. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sure he's a he? The lizzie is indeed very coolio - but everything else in the shot is a bit amiss. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 04:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wasserfrosch.jpg featured

Nominate

— startaq 01:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — startaq 01:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really like this picture, but unfortunately the forepart of the frog's head is out of focus. Calderwood 07:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Calderwood --SehLax 22:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Square 01:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ditto Calderwood. villy ♦✎ 07:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 01:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 16:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I'm almost neutral. -- Solipsist 08:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportRomary 12:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Joonasl 07:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--[[User:Sarazyn|Sarazyn [[User talk:Sarazyn|'''Got milk?''']]]] 07:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lerdsuwa 16:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tbc 17:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC) would have liked it more if it was taken precisely in front of the frog, that little asymmetry bothers me[reply]
Support Limited depth-of-field noted, but that's unavoidable and I don't find it very distracting here. --MarkSweep 00:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood is right. I like the picture nonetheless. Kessa Ligerro 18:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with MarkSweep, its not perfect but its really good. And I like it a lot. Francisco M. Marzoa 20:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The limited depth-of-focus is inherent to this sort of picture. It's sharp where it matters. Great photograph (and a lovely animal, of course). MartinD 09:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 21:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral -->  Roger McLassus 17:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Raspberries05.jpg Featured

Perhaps this is a better raspberries shot --Fir0002 www 21:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self Nom --Fir0002 www 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much better than the other one, but the depth of focus is insufficient. Calderwood 07:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 16:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - far better, and there is a serious lack of featured pics of food and drink Bertilvidet 08:29, 7. Mär 2006 (UTC) (signature added by norro 08:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joonasl 07:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mikaduki 18:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that's a grand ol' pic! --[[User:Sarazyn|Sarazyn [[User talk:Sarazyn|'''Got milk?''']]]] 07:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A delicious picture Metoc 18:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 18:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- excellent at full resolution. Mmmmm .. raspberries.--Eloquence 11:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 17:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- User:timothyarnold85 Please log in before voting. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support really delicious. I like it. Kessa Ligerro 18:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose But nice for wallpaper of a child's room... Francisco M. Marzoa 17:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MartinD 09:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support FML ^hi 02:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very appetizing -- Godewind 08:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral -->  Roger McLassus 10:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Statuefront.jpg

Self nomination

The Statue of Liberty as seen from the Circle Line ferry. BigMac 21:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)//[reply]

Oppose very blury -- Gorgo 22:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Try automatic Levels. You'll be amazed at how it can help this photo. Fg2 07:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry, boring composition, a tourist shot without anything remarkable Calderwood 07:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring composition, boring sky, shadows. Rama 10:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special. The face of the statue is in the shadow -- skINMATE 06:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 18:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 10:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The face shadow makes it unsuitable. Wsiegmund 23:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary. Francisco M. Marzoa 10:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 20:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerwood Library, Cambridge featured

Self nomination. The trails on the left are bicycle lights passing over Garret Hostel Bridge. -- Solipsist 23:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Wow, this is marvelous. I wish I was that cyclist! Even if wasn't a bicycle fan, I'd say that the attractive house, the sky, the cyclist's lights, the overall distribution of light in the pic - all's just . --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 06:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very Cambridge, and very good LoopZilla 09:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, almost looks like a paiting in low resolution. -- Get_It (Talk) 18:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 17:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Roger McLassus 20:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I like this picture very much although it is to well lit to be "a Kinkade" ;-)) Kessa Ligerro 18:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Would rather have more resolution in an ideal world though. Justinc 12:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice, but not exceptional enough for a support vote - MPF 20:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it a lot. And I want a house like that for me! Francisco M. Marzoa 16:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, I like it -- Godewind 08:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support, 1 oppose -->  Roger McLassus 10:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kusama Tulips2.jpg - Original nomination not delisted

The image just isn't very beautiful or special in my opinion. It's also not that easy to find out the actual size of the tulips, there's nothing to compare them to. --Conti|✉ 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist . I wouldn't vote this if it were gunning for FP status as a new candidate. The fog is a downside, it doesn't enhance this image in any way. PS. image:Symbol keep vote.svg and image:Symbol delete vote.svg are useful in these kind of votes, use them. The X on left is 15px. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not in favour of frequent listings and delistings. This picture was featured recently (less than one year ago), so delisting it now would send a signal of shilly-shally. Morover, it is not so bad anyway. I only wonder how it could get featured with only four supporting votes. Maybe the rules were different then. Calderwood 11:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really sure if "recently featured" is adequate on an image that was featured about 10 months ago in a project that was created about 18 months ago. --Conti|✉ 20:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist . Sorry, I think it's awful. In the thumbnail it looks just like some plastic tulips on a table so it's real size is hard to see. The compression artefacts don't make it better. (And the composition seems to simple to mee to really make it "weird" as someone said in the nomination process.) --SehLax 16:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've just created the templates {{Keep}} and {{Delist}} and applied them here retroactively. Calderwood 16:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Calderwood Bertilvidet 19:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist . I've always wondered how this image was featured. -Quasipalm 20:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LoopZilla 09:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an interesting image - the ambiguity of scale and the fog make it more so imho. --SaulAlbert 11:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's second edit. --Conti|✉ 15:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is this delisting of perfectly good pictures about? Is there a canon evolving or something? Wierd can be good... Szczels 13:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's first edit. --Conti|✉ 15:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what? Roger McLassus 14:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roger McLassus 14:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tarquin Binary 05:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Nice change from all them endless blooming shots of small furry animals or large geological formations (National Geographic stuff in general)...[reply]
Delist I don't see anything special. --che 00:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is the only featured picture of contemporary art. I just looked through all the featured pictures and this is of reasonable quality by comparison. We have some truly dire featured pictures like Image:Euston Tower 2004.jpg though. Justinc 10:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist no question Darkone 18:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a voting about the new symbols on the discussion page. MGo 14:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist gloomy, misty pic. -- Lycaon 11:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist bad pic FML ^hi 02:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Shizhao 11:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 delist, 8 keep --> not delisted Roger McLassus 10:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kulin tinhorse.jpg not featured (withdrawn)

Self nomination taken for the wikipedia article on Kulin, Western Australia Gnangarra 01:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sharpness, colours, composition -- Lycaon 22:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fernando S. Aldado 02:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Urban 05:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gnangarra 01:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 09:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 12:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Miskatonic 23:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am happy for the image to be withdrawn and removed from FPC. Gnangarra 06:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 7 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 11:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Catalonia Maresme SantaSusanna.jpg not featured

Nominate

--David Gaya 18:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I assume the sky is the subject since everything else is dark -- and the sky isn't very notable. -Quasipalm 20:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 07:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image has a deep meaning LoopZilla 09:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not very good -- oh and see w:en:Portal:Trains/Featured_picture and w:en:Portal:Trains/Featured_picture/2005 archive for featured railway pictures. Maybe a few of them might be worth promoting. Dunc|☺ 11:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark and I don't like the sky too much. :x -- Get_It (Talk) 18:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "deep meaning" mentioned by LoopZilla must be very deep. I can't detect it anywhere. Roger McLassus 14:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted LoopZilla 21:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Poetic (: Tvpm 08:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not poetic! - MPF 20:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too dark. Francisco M. Marzoa 16:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 10:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 7 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 11:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kettering2canopy.jpg not featured

Nominate

— Bjh21 12:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is one of the nicest of the station photos I've uploaded. — Bjh21 12:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I really don't find it interesting. Bertilvidet 12:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not outstandig. By the way, there is something wrong with the high resolution. Instead of the indicated 3010x1952 px I only receive quite a small picture. Calderwood 15:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Forcibly reloading it (shift+reload in Camino) seems to have fixed this problem for me. I think some things are caching the earlier (low-resolulution) version.
Oppose composition --che 16:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 07:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 18:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's nothing wrong with the picture, I think, and British station roofs, with their infinite variations, are likely to be an endangered species. MartinD 09:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's very noisy. Francisco M. Marzoa 14:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting architectural details well presented. --AFBorchert 18:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 6 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 11:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nathan Twining photo portrait head and shoulders.jpg not featured

Nominate

Now before you get all huffy, I'm Australian. I just think it's a really good, statesman-like portrait. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but what is special about it ? It is just yet another paused portrait. I also have good photographs of myself taken my photomathons, which I consider quite a remarquable achievement, but I don't list them here ! :) Rama 10:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In case this picture should have any excellent feature, it escapes me. I can only see a boring portrait of very limited quality. Calderwood 11:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 07:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 18:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am unable to see any reason whatsoever why this picture should deserve to be featured. Maybe someone could explain its hidden qualities to me. Roger McLassus 14:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Elise, I too cannot see where's the exceptionality here... What differentiates between this and a million others soldiers'/politicians' standard poses? --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 04:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe nothing, except I don't spend a lot of time looking at standard soldier/politican portraits, so I am not disillusioned like you all. ;) Or mroe likely it's just that I have lower standards than most voters here. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks a bit like Bert from Sesame Street... but even that is not enough to make it special! ;-) Francisco M. Marzoa 16:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 5 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 11:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:A small cup of coffee.JPG - Nomination not delisted

I find this photo rather boring, anonymous and was surprised to see it a featured one.

Delist Bertilvidet 17:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Canonical coffee cup - hence keep LoopZilla 10:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The background is bad, but not bad enough for delisting. Roger McLassus 14:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Lerdsuwa 18:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Whats the point of a teaspoon with no sugar? This error makes it look staged. Justinc 10:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment i had already used the spoon to stir in the sugar. -Quasipalm 15:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without a doubt. Where do you expect the sugar to be? It could be in a small container beside the cup. This is a good basic shot of a cup of coffee. No frills, but gets the job done. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 05:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 09:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a high-quality coffee picture. - Jersyko 13:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hey, i took this photo. can i vote? :) -Quasipalm 15:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure - why not? MGo 07:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good picture -- Fabien1309 11:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a voting about the new symbols on the discussion page. MGo 14:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the slimplicity of the image is its strength. its well proportioned, good clarity, and its functional Gnangarra 13:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep vote of User:Francisco M. Marzoa Roger McLassus 10:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oonagh 18:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ss181292 20:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 delist, 11 keep --> not delisted Roger McLassus 11:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Södra Åsum Old Church.jpg not featured

Self-nomination. A typical Danish medieval church in Skåne in Sweden. Fred Chess 09:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Shadow on the left is too distracting, and it is also cut. -- Get_It (Talk) 18:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Churches are a dime a dozen, so a photo of one needs to be truly excellent to stand out. This one is a bit noisy, the shadows are annoying, and the church itself is just a little too plain and boring -- I see nothing that makes the photo especially visually appealing. Is that tall white box a back entrance? It looks like an outhouse.--Eloquence 11:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is that a UFO in the photo? -- Lerdsuwa 18:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Please, this church from the 12th century is not boring. Instead, it has a number of interesting details as the sturdy tower in the West is followed by a comparatively short nave (with a strange sequence of windows), an even smaller choir, and finally a tiny apsis -- as if this has been unfolded by dragging the apsis out of the tower. The shadows are in my opinion also fine as they tell us how deep the sun stands at the late afternoon. I particularly like the precisely cut shadows of the grave slabs in the freshly mowed lawn. All together it gives an impression of simplicity, austerity, and tidiness. --AFBorchert 19:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that interesting, not the best image quality, shadows (especially the big one in the foreground) and disturbing fore- and background. norro 23:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 06:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- unusual, interesting church but foreshadow a problem, also that UFO. Rodge500 17:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose almost good enough, but the foreground shadow -- the extra leaf in the upper left and the ufo all disctract me from the subject. -Quasipalm 01:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I found it a very nice foto and an excellent subject, but yes, the foreground shadow kills it. Francisco M. Marzoa 16:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition, if you wanted to you could apply a slight crop to remove the tree and its shadow from the left and bottom edges. Gnangarra 14:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 21:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 14:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dag Hammarskjold.jpg not featured

Dag Hammarskjold portrait

Dag Hammarskjöld (July 29, 1905 – September 18, 1961) was a Swedish diplomat who served as Secretary-General of the United Nations from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in September, 1961. I don't think you can get a better picture of him than this. Fred Chess 09:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even if this is should really be the best picture of Dag Hammarskjöld (which I am inclined to doubt) there are certainly better templates for scanning. The one used here is damaged at the man's right hand, and scratched and dirty in other areas. Furthermore, cropping the picture closely outside the map's frame is not recommendable. Especially in this case, where the two remaining sides are quite leaning. My suggestion is to find a better copy of the same picture for nomination. Roger McLassus 19:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose can't see anything special norro 14:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Roger -Quasipalm 01:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 07:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me. The map is on a board resting on the table, leaning against the wall, so the sloping edge is inevitable (or it would have fallen forward off the table and hit Dag on the back!). And I agree with Fred Chess, I doubt you'll find a better one with a free license - MPF 20:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ack Roger on the cropping. Perhaps it would actually be better if it was cropped within the border of the map, at least then you wouldn't have that big brown area on the left which is what is making it seem crooked. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 10:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 14:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Personal computer, exploded.svg featured

Nominate - It's a well-drawn, descriptive picture of the topic at hand. This can't afford another day of not being a Featured Picture. Messedrocker 19:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 22:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree. Well done norro 23:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rodge500 10:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support fabulous! -Quasipalm 01:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support What Messedrocker said! pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yepp. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 04:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ACK @ Messedrocker --Boris23 16:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 22:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Evidemment! Tatoute 08:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Clear picture with no text (helps useage in different languages). // Liftarn 13:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- well done! Nvineeth 04:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 support -->  Roger McLassus 11:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crab apple flower.jpg not featured

Nominate

— Per Palmkvist Knudsen 18:48, 11. Mär 2006 (CET) (Signature added by norro 15:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose predominantly blurry/out of focus norro 23:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -Quasipalm 01:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 02:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 10:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- 82.102.38.99 22:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Please log in to vote. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good detail and focus on the subject. shadows, slight over exposure, and background are detracting Gnangarra

4 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 11:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rastkogel ski slope.jpg not featured

Self-nomination — che 23:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -Quasipalm 01:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 09:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- interesting -- YolanC 09:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it --Buchling 23:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Urban 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Rodge500 17:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't like the effect of polarizer. The sky in the left corner is almost black. --Wikimol 19:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing special - MPF 20:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Interesting the clouds behind the top. -- Get_It (Talk) 22:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special -- skINMATE 16:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't says nothing to me. Francisco M. Marzoa 16:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would like to see a foreground skier or two to provide depth and a more egaging subject. Wsiegmund 23:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - I like it too --No-w-ay 17:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC) invalid vote (fake-signature) Kessa Ligerro 21:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 19:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Newportshore.jpg not featured

Self nomination Judgesurreal777 23:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -Quasipalm 01:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't find it great -- YolanC 09:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose me neither, though I like the (old?) dude in the middle. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 04:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose can't see any reason for supporting this picture to be featured MGo 07:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 22:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Two much sky. Poor composition. Francisco M. Marzoa 16:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I find the tilt in the horizon an issue (editing could solve), Gnangarra 14:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 19:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cascata Caracol.jpg not featured

300px

Nominate: Fernando S. Aldado 20:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely breathtaking when you are there, but picture is uninteresting. Low contrast norro 23:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to start with -- needs levels correction; but even with that it's good, but not great. -Quasipalm 01:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Thanks for the opinions. -- Fernando S. Aldado 04:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 10:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with the two first commentators. Though not perhaps featured material, it's an OK shot. Keep on trying to improve, Fernando! --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 04:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well I like it and I'm going to vote for it, whatever everyone else says. You can even identify the Araucaria angustifolia trees near the top of the fall. - MPF 20:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 22:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- BTW, I change that image to Image:Cascata caracol2.jpg. What do you think? -- Fernando S. Aldado 01:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It might be better with direct sun. Excellent subject and composition. Wsiegmund 23:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The edited image Image:Cascata caracol2.jpg, is the one that should be Featured. Gnangarra 14:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support the edited picture, too. Richardfabi 23:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Miskatonic 00:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of focus. Boring composition. Francisco M. Marzoa 15:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 8 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 19:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:One_man_band.jpg not featured

Nominate

— One man band. Self-nomination--Ygrek

Oppose - Lighting, disturbing foreground, leaning (at the top anyway, bad perspective?) -- startaq 21:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons MGo 07:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition norro 09:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose note notable enough for me, but a fine picture. -Quasipalm 04:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 13:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original and fitting LoopZilla 21:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot of Ramblin' Conrad. --AFBorchert 07:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 6 oppose --> not featured

Image:Crew of a Sherman-tank south of Vaucelles.jpg featured

Nominate

— Canadian crew of a Sherman-tank south of Vaucelles, June 1944 Minto

Support - Found this incredible picture here on commons 5 mins ago, love it!! ~ Minto
Oppose - don't like the composition --Buchling 23:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1944? 1944? Looks like could have been taken on my digital yesterday. Amazing preservation; amazing quality. -Quasipalm 04:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing is this really 62 years old. Gnangarra 05:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition and good quality for its age MGo 07:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 12:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wikimol 19:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 22:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historic and yet timely. Hard to believe this picture is 62 years old and so sharp. Awesome.--Dakota ~ 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 20:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given it's age, it is a rare photo. MartinD 09:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 11:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Amazing for its age, but not per se Bertilvidet 17:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 21:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Excellent image and amazing preservation. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also find the contrast between the relaxed atmosphere of the photo and the surrounding grim realities speaking in favor of this photo. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Miskatonic 22:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 12:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dannycas 03:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral -->  Roger McLassus 09:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthomyiidae featured

Self nomination aka 18:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support- high quality (aka-like) -- Godewind 18:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great focus, very sharp, good light. Excellent. Good pr0n. Francisco M. Marzoa 19:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing. How long did you sit there waiting for this shot, aka? ;) norro 20:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support first rate. Good subject. Wsiegmund 23:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, very beautiful. Perfect resolution. -- Fernando S. Aldado 23:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow... pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MGo 07:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Patience rewarded! MartinD 09:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Darkone 09:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 12:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bjs 12:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great!! Exact species name would be a bonus. -- Lycaon 19:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 00:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Erin (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 16:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 21:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support shag 'er rotten, baby! --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 15:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 16:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dannycas 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow,beautiful Oonagh 15:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 17:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support that's really a great picture! Kessa Ligerro 09:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friday 13:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

23 support -->  Roger McLassus 18:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kadakali painting.jpg not featured

Nominate

--Pratheepps(self nominate) Photograph of a Kadakali artist (painting)

Neutral I find it really strong, but has "noise". Francisco M. Marzoa 19:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a great and unusual photo. Bertilvidet 22:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Few brightness. -- Fernando S. Aldado 23:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great subject, but the photo is lacking. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 04:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - cut - MPF 22:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think it is very interesting and I don't think the cropping is that bad. --— Erin (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 16:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shizhao 19:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ++ skINMATE 10:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Miskatonic 22:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 11:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 5 oppose, 4 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 18:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ErcinaLakeHorse.jpg

Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by Francisco M. Marzoa
Info It has been recently assessed according to Quality images guidelines, so I think I should give it a second try on FPC.
Support Francisco M. Marzoa 13:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Warning sign in cologne.jpg featured

Nominate

— Cologne in April 1945 ~ Minto

Support - Excellent compostion, great quality for such an old bw-picture.. ~ Minto
Support MGo 07:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I definitely support this good historical pic even though it's probably staged. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 11:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its a GREAT photography from the artistic point of view with a high historical value. Francisco M. Marzoa 16:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting -Quasipalm 04:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support In view of the historical value. MartinD 09:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice comp. Darkone 12:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 16:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 21:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose war can't be a feature in my book -- Lycaon 23:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This voting is not about a war but about a picture. Roger McLassus 12:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ACK Minto. --AFBorchert 06:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe staged, but a very impressive and atmospheric historical document. Had already added it a month ago to the German Wiki-article "Cologne Cathedral" to relieve it of its architectural monotony. -- Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 02:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Nice picture. War is part of human nature. Miskatonic 22:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 18:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment – I don't understand the image. Who is the sign addressing to? An allied officer? - no, he has the same risk. The Germans? – no, it would have been in german. Who? (I added some information to the caption).
Support Mayamaxima 17:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friday 13:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thryduulf 17:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral -->  Roger McLassus 18:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stye02.jpg not featured (withdrawn)

nomination -- Gnangarra 13:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support something to pick on, if you dare, seriously I like the detail and the clarity of the Image Gnangarra 13:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it's "outstanding" in any way -- Gorgo 13:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a medical shot that adequately shows a stye, but there is nothing excellent about this picture. Styes are not rare, considerable parts of the picture are out of focus, and there is no clear border visible between the eyelashes and the iris. MGo 13:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Picture is a bit small (although it could be cropped even more) and the lighting is suboptimal. --Dschwen 14:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oonagh 17:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -Quasipalm 20:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Miskatonic 00:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 10:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Was it taken after a fight? // Liftarn 11:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont know there's nothing on the image page i was just looking through the recent edits list this one caught my eye Gnangarra 15:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this one can be withdrawn with 7 oppose votes its no going to achieve FP status Gnangarra 15:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 19:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]