Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2008

< Commons:Featured picture candidates | Log


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


Image:Sausage making-H-5.JPG

edit

Ordinary sausage making.

Motion blurs effets the sense of motion...--Beyond silence 08:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 --Beyond silence 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Ordinary sausage making. 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Ordinary sausage making. 

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

  •  Info The United States Capitol building in 1846. A rare daguerrotype of an important structure as the architect originally designed it, prior to multiple expansions. Clear, large file painstakingly restored from Image:Capitol.jpg. Created by John Plumbe - uploaded by Durova - restored and nominated by Durova. --Durova 02:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Durova 02:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice, though I think it needs some CW rotation. --Dori - Talk 02:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked that about eight times and reloaded the original daguerrotype: the horizontal lines on the structure appear to be true horizontals (I was fixing this down to a tenth of a degree). Two elements seem to be giving it that off-balance illusion: the domes aren't perfectly symmetrical (the one at right has windows) the trees at right are more mature than the ones at left. Durova 02:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on some feedback at en:Wikipedia FPC it appears that we're dealing with wide angle distortion. It wasn't until the 1860s that lenses became available to correct this problem, and by that time this building was already being modified (the current dome was being built). So this is probably the best photo of the original structure we'll ever have. Durova 05:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Amazing. The question is: could I have done that today with my 350D? Freedom to share 21:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, with a very large chisel to remove the new dome and the wings, and large amounts of armaments to fend off the security personnel who might not understand that your goal is historical research. ;) Durova 21:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Old picture in good quality. --Niabot 10:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC) (Last vote after voting period)[reply]
edit

Short description

Version 2: slightly edited.
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 16:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Chardonnerets élégants 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Baby playing with paint 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 16:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit 

result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 26 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 21:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

Please give reasons when opposing. --MichaelMaggs 21:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. It is worth reading the guidelines before posting. They explicitly say that 1600x1200 is normally too small. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

. --MichaelMaggs 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: much too small. Images here should normally be at least 2Mpx in size 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 19:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: overexposed 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 18:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Short description

For comparison, the unrestored file from a colloidon glass negative, 1855-1865.
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Padrão dos Descobrimentos monument in Lisbon

Version2: Cropped from left for removing th half figure and washed -out colors removed.
Version3 by wau
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 10:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Anthrax scare.

Note that it's not out of focus. It was a cold and misty/foggy day :) To remove it, I thought would take away the total effect of the situation that day. DragonFire1024 23:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 10:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

It's not actually taken in the dark. It was taken during the day under water. It was the first time I used my new camera under water and I found that for close up macro shots, using flash, the background became black where there was only water. I was quite pleased with this image as the natural black color of the fish made it blend in and only its fluorescent colors came through. I think it shows why it's called a "Ghost" pipefish. --Jnpet 16:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually getting this one framed. I did a little check on the black background effect and it seems it's a common phenomenon when taking close up macro shots with flash for digital cameras. It seems too, that amongst professional photographers, there is some disagreement if this should be considered good or bad, where some are liking the effect and creating like images (mainly macro shots of insects and flowers), while others are completely discouraging this kind of photography. The fact that some professionals are embracing this as an acceptable technic, and pursuing the effect, it seems to me that it has some value and shouldn't be considered to be a "failed flash" picture. If fault is to be found, it would be that the subject itself is black and therefore blends in with the background leaving only the wonderful ghostly fluorescent colors. If the subject was more colorful, it would also have been a great shot. I guess in this case it comes down to taste. This one certainly had the "wow" factor for me. --Jnpet 06:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lycaon. You made it clear with your initial vote and reason why you didn’t agree to this being featured. And I agreed with some of what you had to say, but with the, (required for promotion), fifth support vote, you now seem to be actively campaigning for “oppose” votes to ensure this doesn’t get promoted. I don’t see you attacking anyone else’s images with such vigor, and I have been told it’s not personal, but I’m not sure how else to take it. Anyway, I’ll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you sincerely just hate this one picture. So, let me now point out once again that the image itself has no technical flaws. It was done with close up flash macro shot, a technique which some professional photographers use. It has already been pointed out that the flaw if any is that it blends in to the background which is what creates the ghostly image. This in my opinion is the “wow” factor. Now looking at some of your examples you provided, I agree that they have better defined outlines, but none of them would ever pass FP. Or are you saying you consider them to be FP material? Well, what ever your opinion might be on that subject, you have already made your thoughts known once on the image in question. I appreciate and accept that, but I do not appreciate you campaigning against it just because there seems to be a majority who also like the image and voted for it. If, in the allotted time people voted against the image, I would happily accept and move on, but I would prefer that people decide this matter for themselves which is how FP is supposed to work. I don’t think it would be fair if it get’s opposed because you actively campaign against it. So, thanks for providing alternate proposals, I personally don’t think they would pass FP. For the proposal at hand, I would encourage people to view the image and understand the issues as pointed out by Lycaon, but ultimately decide for themselves. Like it or not, it's a matter of taste. Cheers --Jnpet 07:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

M-198 155mm Howitzer gun crew of 4th Battalion, 14th Marines 

result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Reeds in the wind

close up
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 10:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

* Support --84.190.192.182 21:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC) /s> Please log in to vote. --MichaelMaggs 22:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC) [reply] 

result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 10:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

* Support --84.190.192.182 21:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Please log in to vote. --MichaelMaggs 22:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC) [reply] 

result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 10:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit 
result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 10:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

Orignal unrestored version.
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Valentine day candles

 Comment ( Valentines day candidate)--Nevit 10:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 08:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

The only trick is ... --Richard Bartz 09:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit

Das Bild 'Sandsteinwand.' wurde in Bamberg, Deutschland, aufgenommen. User:Tian.chris Anfang Januar 2008 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit

Pinky sl 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit

Winter in Vorarlberg, Austria 

result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit

Bar and bottles, available light photography 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]

Image:Swan - Roath Park Lake (Cardiff).JPG, not featured

edit

Short description 

result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit

en:Trees affected mistletoe in the light of calling Winter Sun. 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]

Image:Hip horizon.jpg

edit

A narrow strip of a woman's hip

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: nothing special... not FP-worthy Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Das Bild 'Baumundnebel' wurde im oberfränkischen Sauerhof, Deutschland, aufgenommen.

  •  Info Das Bild 'Baumundnebel' wurde im oberfränkischen Sauerhof, Deutschland, aufgenommen. -- created by Tian.chris - uploaded by Tian.chris - nominated by Tian.chris , 1. Februar 2008
  •  Support --Tian.chris 16:20, 1. Februar 2008
  •  Oppose Not bad, but it was taken too early in the day and also lacks sharpness. I would recommend a tripod. If you have the original RAW file, I very much recommend playing with the colour temperature and maybe the results will then be more pleasing. Freedom to share 19:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose irregular nomination uploader/nominator is not who he/she pretends to be. Lycaon 00:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]

Image:LincolnInauguration1861a.jpg

edit

Short description

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

Lycaon 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tara (Buddhism).jpg

edit
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: badly lit and tilted. It's too easy to take better shots. 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.

Yzmo 13:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

View from Indre Fure

Ehm, its a thin snow cover in the mountains… ;) 87.248.30.1 20:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look on the large cloud at the top and tell me that it's not noise. Freedom to share 21:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

  • All the pictures made by Inkscape are like that. Since the 0.41 version, "Inkscape SVG documents no longer include DOCTYPE declaration with an URI of an SVG DTD; this DTD would not be able to validate our documents anyway (due to extension elements), and was just useless." [11]. Sémhur 19:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In looking around, it appears the SVG working group is moving away from DTDs and towards XML schemas. I think the W3C validator only uses DTDs to do validation, so that may not be too useful for SVGs. See here. I'm not sure if there is a good way to validate SVGs at the moment; the W3C looks like it has an initial attempt here, but the online version isn't working and the downloadable version still has issues with unexpected namespaces (which are the only problems it reports). Carl Lindberg 17:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying it should be like that to be correct, or to look good? The frame and the grass are not mentioned in the blazon, so they can be completely different or absent and still be correct. Ipankonin 10:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Thanks, it looking better to me now. Changing vote, F l a n k e r 22:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

First i thought that i need a new camera but i came to the conclusion that the lens is doing the picture, forget about the cam. 70-300 is sugar ! :-)) --Richard Bartz 19:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Support tolle Momentaufnahme --Simonizer 19:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Changed vote to other version --Simonizer 15:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Image size small, too dark, focus not ideal. But not bad. --Karelj 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Bergwolf 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Small image size? Not in my book it isn't. Very nice. --Digitaldreamer 20:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Marvellous timing. I like the small water droplets very much. Two things I was wondering about: I get the impression that the already nice composition could be improved slightly by cropping a little off the left-hand side. I may be wrong, but have you tried experiementing with that? Next observation: the left wing as seen front on - the three outhermost feathers are much more blurred/out-of-focus than the rest of the wing. I realize the DOF is doing much of this, but is it all due to DOF? The transition between the in-focus part of the wing and the three blurred feathers looks a little peculiar to me. Has the three feathers been included in a BG blur to bring out the subject better or is it all "natural"? Sorry for such a long comment without even placing a vote -- Slaunger 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont thought about this before, but i asume it's motion blur because the big outer feathers which are pointing to the right side are on the same focus-plane as the torso. So the movement of the outer-wings was faster than a shutter speed of 1/1250. If you think a different crop would help, why not doing a alternative version where Creative Commons is for? .. and always welcome. --Richard Bartz 21:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I prefer the other version. -- Slaunger 11:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

I am perfectly happy. A 2x Teleconverter would be nice and thats all for this year. --Richard Bartz 02:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

I have bribed him with wholemeal bread  ;-)) --Richard Bartz 18:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Valuable ... i dont know if everything must be directly ostensible valuable, maybe this counts for Wikipedia or a functional picture (which i'am able to do, too). You can only show things and it depends of whom wants to see it. I am impressed by the beauty and the close distance, which gives that animal a subtle personality. I am sorry to say that the eyes of this animal are very black, shown here or here ... its hard to compare the red eyes of the volture with this. There are some circumstances, depending on the angle of the head where you can see the eyes more exactly. But for this the animal must look directly in the sun which they dont do frequently, like we humans dont do without sunglases, too. --Richard Bartz 21:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not necessarily mean functional and encyclopedic value, just how you see it as valuable for Wikimedia projects. I am just recalling the guidelines about value and that "beautiful is not always valuable". It may be in this case, I am unsure. I do see the point about the "personality" - it has this reserved, "stay away or I'll bite you look to it". Concerning the eyes, I am aware that they are black, it was more the angle of the head I was thinking about as you also point out with some good examples. Good point about the sun, and thank you for responding to my comments and questions. -- Slaunger 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It extends the available pictures in the Cygnus olor category in an unusual and beautiful way, IMO. As you assumed correctly with "stay away or I'll bite you look to it", this 5 feet tall beauties like to bite and this picture shows it very well. I think it looks cute ;-)) -Richard Bartz 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

A Wilted rose 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: much too tiny. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 00:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Rhododendron flower picture

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small and no exact species information is provided Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 20:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

A red-tail hawk 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => /not/ featured. Mywood 12:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

The Hawk with a slight color edit 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

A red-tail hawk 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

  •  Info created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 13:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Ichneumon wasps are important parasitoids of other insects, and beneficial organisms. Species attacking wood-boring larvae (which are mostly forest pest) must penetrate considerable depth of wood to oviposit, and have attained an extreme length of this organ. This requires an involved process of manipulation to attain the required position for drilling and to exert the force necessary for penetration.

The process of oviposition
1 Tapping with her antennae the wasp listens for the vibrations that indicate a host is present.
2 With the longer ovipositor, the wasp drills a hole through the bark.
3 The wasp inserts the ovipositor into the cavity which contains the host larva.
4 Making corrections, the oviposter must deposit the eggs into the larva or they will be lost.
5 After finding a host larva within the cavity, the wasp deposits her eggs.
6 The wasp is still depositing her eggs.
7 Not pictured here is a male wasp; they just tap around looking for willing and able females. 

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 21:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 21:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Vanessa atalanta     Vanessa atalanta

Original (left)

edit 
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (right)

edit 
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Hoarfrost covered winter scene in northern Germany 

result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 21:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

St. Louis by night as seen from across the Mississippi River 

result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Workmen In A Pearl Farm - Rangiroa 20061118.jpg, not featured

edit

Two workers in a black-pearl farm, in Polynesia 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Convergent ladybugs 

result: 9 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Convergent ladybugs 

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

White swan 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Japanese Squirrel 

result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

Alternate version.
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cuerpo a tierra - Mushrom.jpg, not featured

edit

a yellow mushroom

Chanterelles or Cantharelus tubiformis —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Serg!o (talk • contribs) indeed not!! Lycaon 11:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Drawing of an anime charakter

In Germany it is unusual to elect yourself, so i didn't take any side. --Niabot 09:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Edited version of Image:Polish cavalry in Sochaczew (1939).jpg 

result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Battle of the Bzura: Polish cavalry in Sochaczew in 1939. Iconic image of the end of era of cavalry. 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Das Bild 'Baumundnebel2' wurde im oberfränkischen Sauerhof, Deutschland, aufgenommen.

-- i'm sorry, i'm a newbie. the link is ok now. Tian.chris , 2. Februar 2008

 Comment, the kit lens of the D40 isn't this bad. I'm quite sure we have a few featured images taken with the kit lenses of the D40(x) and D50. --Aqwis 08:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmm... Category:Featured_pictures_by_Derek_Ramsey --Aqwis 12:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Phalaenopsis orchidee 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Pale Grass Blue 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Tschierva glacier 

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 17:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Flower of Hakea laurina (Pincushion Hakea) in Bonbeach, Victoria, Australia

  •  Comment Fair criticism. I guess saw it as a good shot from an encyclopaedic point of view rather than as an entrant into a photography contest.
  •  Oppose The DoF is fine for a shot like this (See this example), but the quality is not that great. To my eyes it looks like the whole image was heavily noise reduced or somehow post-processed. The white parts have halos. Maybe this was just oversharpened bringing out the grain? The end result is not pretty, and it is visible at 2MP viewing. Plus, I'm missing the EXIF information. -- Ram-Man 22:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Looks like the consensus is against this photo, so I won't bother trying to convince you folks further. The perfectionist standards required are obviously way too high for anything but professional photographers with high-end cameras. That said, I'd just like to comment that the image was NOT sharpened or otherwise altered. Halos on white parts? That's just how things come out when you use early morning overcast natural light to photograph a flower with a half decent domestic digital camera. Ian Fieggen 23:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Oh, and it was me that removed the (superfluous and private) Exif info with my program, JPGExtra, though what bearing that has on the image I have no idea! Ian Fieggen 23:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXIF is hardly superfluous information, especially for macro shots. It isn't required, but it does help satisfy questions that may arise. For example, in some cases we might assume that DoF is too shallow, but in reality it is just a smaller object than we realize and the DoF is at a maximum. I don't oppose for lack of EXIF, but I may not support without the information. I only mention it because sometimes people will actually upload a version with EXIF when asked. Also, the emotional outburst is understandable, but if you knew anything about me, you'd know that I'm the last person that would say you have to have a professional camera. I have 3 FPs from point-and-shoots, and heck, one of them was a POTY finalist. -- Ram-Man 02:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 17:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

original

edit

Mount Ararat and Khor Virap Monastary 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

edit

Mount Ararat and Khor Virap Monastary 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:William Hogarth - Beer Street.jpg and Image:William Hogarth - Gin Lane.jpg, not featured

edit

Beer Street Gin Lane

  •  Info created by William Hogarth - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 14:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment These images are almost always referred to together, as they were published as a set, so I'm nominating them together. The quality should be the same for both - if not, tell me, and I'll rescan. (By the way, I've added a redirect from Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:William Hogarth - Gin Lane.jpg so that, if this goes through, the templates should still work for the Featured picture notice}
  •  Support --Adam Cuerden 14:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Could you provide more details of the source? The description says "Reprint from circa 1880 in uploader's possession". Are they scanned from an old book, or from large framed prints? Could you explain the basis for the 1880 date? Regards. --MichaelMaggs 17:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They were a gift acquired through Abebooks.com, so I don't know, so I don't know everything. The information that came with them (on a label attached to their pouch says c. 1880; this is believable, as the method of printing is typical of that used for high-quality engravings of that time, complete with tissue-paper coverings for each plate, which also shows they've clearly been cut out of a book, I'm presuming well before the bookstore owner got them, because that would be desecration and I would be very upset at someone who did that. The fonts used on the supplementary material - the labels in red on the tissue paper, and the black and red ink used on the description page (not scanned) are also typical of the period. However, a lot of collections o f Hogarth's works were printed in the 19th century, so it's difficult to say which it was taken from. this one seems not unreasonable, at a guess. Adam Cuerden 18:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral This isn't one of Hogarth's originals, but a copy by Samuel Davenport. It is interesting in its own right, but I'm a bit worried that it will be passed off as Hogarth's own work. The plate of Beer Street lacks the precision of Gin Lane and both misses and mixes features from the issued states. Yomangani 23:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Wooden snake-like branch 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured.
edit

Nataliya Gotsiy

  • Yes I know. So far 5 support 2 oppose is going to FP. This one could be FP but I really wanted more suitable one. But if you want to reopen then I will withdraw my withdraw :) --Laitche 06:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

An orange chinesis rose 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)(Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)(Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit

Casa Rinconada NM

  •  Info created by Charles Sauer - uploaded by Charles Sauer - nominated by Charlessauer --Charlessauer 01:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Charlessauer 01:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose not really sharp, weird light and unfortunate size. BTW, what happened to the EXIFs of your uploads? Lycaon 14:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Size and sky coloration. Recommend EXIF, as images taken from point-and-shoots will sometimes be afforded mitigating circumstances. -- Ram-Man 21:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The size fits within the norms of featured picture rules and EXIFs are not required. Charlessauer 13:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The sky coloration is normal. Somehow I know that you've never been to this national treasure in the U.S.A. becuase of the comment about the sky. Not that that matters. This picture was taken at dusk with no filter. The sky looks different because it wasn't taken in the suburbs where the sky is polluted by automobile exhaust; it was taken in the "bad lands". I did not retouch this picture. Charlessauer 13:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment There are so few pictures of Native American architecture, for instance Chaco Canyon, and there are no articles that include the ruins of Casa Rinconada. Charlessauer 13:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You make many assumptions in those comments! First, the resolution guidelines is a minimum. For a relatively easy landscape shot, there is no reason why a high resolution image could not be supplied. Second, EXIF can have a positive effect, but the lack won't have a negative effect on outcomes. Third, atmospheric distortions are affected by temperature, which is why clarity is much higher in the winter. Also, I've been to plenty of remote areas, such as Alaska. Fourth, the very fact that you used no filter actually proves my point. A camera's sensor can see UV and it interprets it as blue. This is why digital cameras have such trouble matching the sky with what our eyes see and also why skies often look so bad. You may be used to it, but it still looks bad and has nothing to do with pollution. Lastly, you are confusing the value of this image with whether or not it should be a FP. It is merely a contributing factor. You can add this image to an article without it being a featured picture. -- Ram-Man 17:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Good point about the minimum: I'll think about adding a larger resolution image next time. Good point about the EXIFs. I am certain you have been to plenty of remote areas, and there is nothing wrong with the suburbs. . . Thanks for the tip about filters; although, I love this picture of mine. It looks great, by golly! I think I'll frame it and put it on my wall. Lastly, you should enter or re-enter some of your pictures of plants. Charlessauer 18:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commons reviewers are among the pickiest art critics I've ever met. The kind of rigourous beatings that my perfectly good pictures take is what presses me to make even better work. My most popular image, the waterfall that was a POTY finalist, was criticized for noise, overexposure, and slight unsharpness. It looks spectacular when actually printed large and is hanging on my wall. I'm going to be off-wiki for a few days, so we'll see about more nominations when I have time. -- Ram-Man 19:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit

Ouzel Lake Dam 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)(Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit

original

edit

Photo of the Skogskyrkogarden cemetary near Stockholm, Sweden. 

result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => (Waiting for result of the edited version) Simonizer 14:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
no votes for the edited version. --Spiritia 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Photo of the Skogskyrkogarden cemetary near Stockholm, Sweden.

  • No, you are not ;-) It is not easy to see at first glance, but the quality of the second image has substantially improved IMO. Have a look, e.g., at the sky above the small bush left of the cross at 100%. The noise in de sky is virtually gone, while details that were there have been preserved. Lycaon 09:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, do you think that this image will ever be used above resolutions of 1000px? I should've uploaded a smaller version. The reason that is not de-noised is that I believe in purity of the moment - with as less as possible software tricks. BloodIce 09:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The option of using it at resolution above 1000px has to be there per Wikicommons Scope. And do you really believe that your camera is not doing any software tricks with your image? That noise is per definition a software/hardware trick. Lycaon 10:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right - the hardware is generating the noise (despite of the advanced algorithms to mask it), exactly as the film resolution is a limitation in classics. However with particular hardware you can make just a certain image similar to a single shot from film camera. And in my opinion it must stay as it was shot, with as less as possible interventions (to be honest I increased the brightness and contrast of that image with one or two steps). I am not trying to defend the noise - it is obviously there, I am just expressing an opinion. BloodIce 13:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured --Spiritia 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Hylomanes momotula

edit

Short description

 Thegreenj 02:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CID - Balboa.jpg, not featured

edit

Statue of a hero

Created by Michael Seljos nominated by Serg!o 15:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lycaon 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Parque Balboa - San Diego, California.jpg, not featured

edit

Museum

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

Lycaon 16:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

A Bufflehead

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

Lycaon 03:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without discussion better than most of the images that are nominated. Jeblad 12:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Mare in Clonmel.

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

Lycaon 16:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Short description

Yeah, 8th March, 2008 is not coming yet. Richard must have taken a future picture. This is not a featured picture, this is a future picture :) -- Laitche 18:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the man from the future and hey Laitche! This is a japanese camera!!! with a non working clock ;-) --Richard Bartz 23:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will complain to Canon :) -- Laitche 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much and tell them they should hurry with the 5D Mark II :-) --Richard Bartz 14:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is a better picture than the en.WP version (what were they thinking?). It's slightly over-sharpened and the resolution should be higher, but I think it just barely passes my minimum requirements. -- Ram-Man 17:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, Considering that this picture wasn't uploaded when the other one was featured, I'm betting they weren't thinking anything, so give en.WP a break perhaps. Richard, you held out on us :( Pschemp 05:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Posterization is slight on the borderline. -- Laitche 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure about the posterization. -- Laitche 19:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Almost there but not quite. I don't like the tight crop, the image should be larger, it is oversharpened and there is really some posterization in the LR corner (not serious, maybe it can be fixed). Finally, the subject is too dark for my taste. - Alvesgaspar 20:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination Reset for the concerns by Dori --Richard Bartz 12:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Midnight sun in Munich, Bavaria, Germany

It means sun at midnight, which does not happen that often. --  Naosei610  (WANNA TALK??) 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt invent "Midnight sun". That is what was written in the photo's source. Maximilian Nerb wsrote it. I am not lying, you can see that for yourself. --  Naosei610  (WANNA TALK??)
Sorry. I don't say you're lying. It's the picture's creator who is joking. --Flicka 18:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: low resolution BMP in a frame 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.

--che 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

A photograph of maany antique cameras, taken in the Museu de Arte de São Paulo (MASP). The photograph was taken by Gabriel Suarez.

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

Lycaon 07:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor quality (artifacts everywhere) - Alvesgaspar 10:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
edit

Short description 

result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Modified version with satisfied wolfs behind the hill 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

more modified version to get rid of the huge amount of color noise

Fixed --Richard Bartz 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some more things:
Fixed --Richard Bartz 00:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its enough to make a a photoprint ..Richard Bartz 11:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ha ha ha, okay, then I didn't oppose :) -- Laitche 12:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
do you prefer size or noise ? --Richard Bartz 15:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm... Both! :) -- Laitche 19:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Into every life a little rain must fall. --Richard Bartz 20:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My life is every day fine. ＼（＾＾）／ -- Laitche 16:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose nice picture, but the typical points of the breed can not be seen, so it is valueless for an enzyclopedia. --87.78.158.47 21:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly right that fitting the criteria of featured pictures is very hard. But this is no excuse. We evaluate the final result and not the effort the photographer has done. I like the picture and I think the photographer can be proud about it - but I do not regard it featured anyway. Andreas Tille 07:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, You are right. It has been a note only, not reason for my vote. Reason for my vote are nice composition and image (not technical) purity. Sure, it brings high level of artefacts by noise correction so details are supressed. It is a pity. --Martin Kozák 23:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple modified version

edit

Simple modified version.

Only noise reduction version

edit

Only noise reduction version.

edit

Grande Case in Tjibaou Cultural Centre, Nouméa, New Caledonia 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kanak house - modified.jpg, not featured

edit

Grande Case in Tjibaou Cultural Centre, Nouméa, New Caledonia

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Niabot
    rotated, shadows partialy removed, resized, some other small modifications
  •  Support --Niabot 14:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I prefer the colour saturation of the first version, but this one is sharper... It's a nice picture anyhow. -- MJJR 21:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment thanks for rotating, but downsampling a picture to make it appear sharper on a monitor will loose details and make it unsuitable for quality prints. No picture suitable for a 300dpi print will appear sharp on a 72 or 96 dpi monitor, this is absolutely normal. I will provide a third version, keeping the original size and the colour profile that was stripped in your file when I have some time. inisheer 13:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If a pictures isn't sharp at high resolution, then it is no use to keep the file size. You can't add details with filters. If i would double the resolution, its still not sharper and lacks the same details. --Niabot 13:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not talking about adding details, I'm talking about avoiding ruining them. You can reduce the definition of a picture by 2 or 3, add a lot of sharpening and it will look perfectly crisp on your monitor, but it will be unsuitable for a quality print. And Commons is also a repository for printing. inisheer 13:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Im aware of that. But if an image has the same quality as if you doubled the size first, then you will have no loss reducing it to 1/2. --Niabot 14:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For a camera of this sensor size and resolution, f/13 is excellent for maintaining resolution. If this were taken at f/22, downsampling would merely be removing information that didn't exist to begin with, but in this case I agree with inisheer. -- Ram-Man 22:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. Quite very brigt colours. Канопус Киля 16:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support (with possible jump to Inisheer's version). Reality sometimes is brightly coloured. Adam Cuerden 17:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm not keen on the harsh lighting and shadows, nor on the way the tree cuts across one of the central pillars. --MichaelMaggs 18:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

The heatsinks from an Intel quad-core processor and an Asus P5E-VM motherboard 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Views of the extravehicular activity during STS 41-B 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Views of the extravehicular activity during STS 41-B 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Bridge Rust 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Chief HAK oh the Kharkov institute 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

The heatsinks from an Intel q6600 and an Asus motherboard 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Cliff at Southern coast of Iceland 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small - Alvesgaspar 14:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
edit

Lampa and fire away

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: 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.

Lycaon 06:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

300px|Short description 

result: was deleted because of copyright issues Gorgo 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kutia kondh woman 3.jpg

edit

Because of repeated image changes I suggest this nomination is withdrawn and the picture is renominated, with the best current version. Lycaon 10:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Short description Image has changed. this was the image that was nominated. 

result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

editing effects

edit
before edit
edit

Short description

after edit
edit

Short description

edit

Short description 

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

They left as organ donation for veteran butterflies. Heliconius has only 4 legs. --Richard Bartz 13:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I learn new things here! Indeed the front most legs are very much reduced in males of this family! Thanks Richie ;-). Lycaon 13:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a picture where you can see the 3rd pair very good --Richard Bartz 14:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We zoologists call it the first pair ;-)). Lycaon 15:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds logical 2 me. I was astounded right now that in my mind things which are not used becoming a lower hierachy --Richard Bartz 17:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I let it .. this is the original version --Richard Bartz 15:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Support If you say so. -- Ram-Man 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

  •  Oppose As Ram-Man. The quality of image and also nothig with high wow factor for me. And as I remember well, this image or some very similar was on this page some time ago. --Karelj 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Baobab and elephant Tanzania - modified.jpg, not featured

edit

Baob and elephant in Tanzania 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Ouzel Lake 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Spinning dancer

A hoax? I am sorry, but several reliable users including me can tell you that it is *not* a hoax. Have the patience to watch the animation for a while, and you will see the illusion eventually. --Aqwis 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already tried that. I don't have more than 15 minutes available for experiments like this, and am unconvinced that this will ever work for me. If you believe (!) it genuinely works for you, I direct you to the alternative I have already provided, this illusion doesn't work very well, and wish you a good day. Samsara 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone has a brain that works the same, but I can assure you that this is no hoax (which is laughable!) -- Ram-Man 23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose"Valuable" means in Wiki context valuable for an illustrative purpose. What is/are the purpose/s of this image? It's mislabelled as 'dancer', since the movements have very little to do with dancers' movements in turns. If its function is cognitive psychological, suggest substitution of different silhouette for that of young woman, which is misleading regarding physical action, probably of Tufte's class, "chart junk". Alethe 16:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC) voting is closed Lycaon 14:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

A particular of Casa Milà. 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:William Hogarth - Gin Lane.jpg, featured

edit

Gin Lane

  •  Info created by William Hogarth - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 14:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Originally nominated together with its companion engraving, but we don't have a way to handle a set, so I'm re-nominating them as separate images. Both were a gift acquired through Abebooks.com, so I don't know everything about the source. The information that came with them (on a label attached to their pouch says c. 1880; this is believable, as the method of printing is typical of that used for high-quality engravings of that time, complete with tissue-paper coverings for each plate, which also shows they've clearly been cut out of a book - hopefully well before the bookstore owner got them, because that would be desecration and I would be very upset at someone who did that. The fonts used on the supplementary material - the labels in red on the tissue paper, and the black and red ink used on the description page (not scanned) are also typical of the period. However, a lot of collections of Hogarth's works were printed in the 19th century, so it's difficult to say which one it was taken from.
  •  Support as nominator. Adam Cuerden 18:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is a very high quality reproduction of near technical perfection. It has value, so what more is there to say? -- Ram-Man 21:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I've been reading Peter Ackroyd's London: The Biography, which mentions this work by Hogarth (and, indeed, Hogarth himself) many times over. Out of curiosity I searched for it on Commons and was pleased to see that it was here, and nominated to FP to boot. Excellent quality and historically important. Arria Belli | parlami 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Absolutely marvellous reproduction of a historical work. Thanks Adam. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral This isn't one of Hogarth's originals, but a copy by Samuel Davenport. It is interesting in its own right, but I'm a bit worried that it will be passed off as Hogarth's own work. This plate in particular is difficult to tell apart from Hogarth's - the heaviness of the printing is the only thing that marks it out. Yomangani 23:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was almost surely pantographed, though. Saying that it's not a purely mechanical copy when it came from a date when mechanical copying was impossible doesn't seem a particularly useful distinction. Adam Cuerden 03:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would think that unlikely as the Beer Street plate combines elements from different states as well as omitting and altering others. Regardless, impressions from Hogarth's original plates do exist, so acknowledging this as a later copy avoids the need to replace it when decent versions of the originals are supplied. Yomangani 10:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eh, perhaps, though I'll admit to being a little uncertain about such things, as getting a Hogarth original to a scanner is not something that can be all that easily done without very large budgets.
  •  Support although I'd prefer it paired with beer street. Durova 04:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been pointed out that the (1809) reengraving of Beer Street that's the other half of this set has minor changes that were probably not approved by Hogarth. This one has no obvious differences that we could find. Adam Cuerden 05:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --MichaelMaggs 09:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mbdortmund 22:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Oxeye Daisy 

result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flower February 2008-1.jpg

edit

edit 
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit 
result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

"Love or Duty", an 1873 chromolithograph by Gabrielé Castagnola. 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Panorama of Château de Chambord, France. 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

A panorama of Melbourne's Yarra River 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cuillin mountains - Isle of Skye.jpg, not featured

edit

View of the Cuillin on the Isle of Skye, Scotland

  •  Support Great composition. Considering this is from a point-and-shoot, it's surprisingly good (above average). As I understand the FP guidelines, we evaluate the image at 2MP, where this one looks fine for any web usage (I can't see any of the defects at this resolution like I can with many others). In addition, most noise processing in P&Ss destroys fine detail in scenes like this, but you can see the individual grasses and they are not horribly smudged together. It is high resolution as well, so it's also useful for printing. The sky is also not blown out and the colors look natural. Heck, even at 100%, the noise blends in with the natural colors. I think this image is suffering from picky voters that expect high quality at 100% or images from SLRs. -- Ram-Man 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • featured pictures should not only be "above average" (50% of all images) but some of the finest images on commons. -- Gorgo 20:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I was not referring specifically to your comment, many people opposes because of the quality even though they liked the composition. I see this as an example where we do have a "fine" composition, but this is being neglected in favor of technical pickiness. Obviously if you don't like the picture, that's fine. -- Ram-Man 21:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Lerdsuwa 17:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Mønobi 23:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame the actual image isn't ON the Isle of Skye! The image is of Buachaille Etive mor, on the road into Glencoe pass. And I'm from Australia!!!

edit

Opera House Paris 

result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Opera House Paris 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Opera House Paris 

result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Dom Luis I bridge bridge in Porto, Portugal 

result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Close caption of a bee on a flower

I see. Thanks. -- Laitche 16:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

A common purple iris with morning dew drops

  •  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by User:penubag
  •  Support -- penubag  16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Flower is very noisy, while background has clearly been artificially smoothed. How did this one ever get through QI??? Lycaon 18:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Most of the noise is/was jpeg compression related, which means lost information. Furthermore the background (not the iris) was de-noised after selection as QI, which may (??) invalidate that stamp. Lycaon 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I have just made further ajestments to my image, including gaussian blur, contrast, and reduction of background noise. I'm sorry, I didn't realize this picture was so bad, the commenter at QI said it "just barely passed". Hopefully my minor adjustments can at least keep it at QI level, if not, I'll revert to the original version. -- penubag  19:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose For one thing, this image is just too noisy. For comparison, I have more than two dozen Iris pictures here that are higher quality than this one (1 2 3 4), and none of them are FPs. -- Ram-Man 04:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I withdraw my nomination after seeing those non-FA's, please still comment on my picture, I am interested in improving it. -- penubag  04:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image is actually quite nice, and it's a fine iris specimen (better than many of my own). The water is a nice touch (assuming its real). The main weakness is the noise (caused by too high ISO more than likely). Noise reduction just kills the sharpness and lustre. The background is only average, but since you're dealing with a large flower it is not that bad. I shoot most of my irises in bright daylight and/or use a tripod. -- Ram-Man 04:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the ego boost, and yes, the water's real. I tried to further reduce noise, but that just reduces the quality (grainier seemed prettier) and further blurring the background makes the image look unnatural, as cmnt 1 said. I'm afraid that this can never attain FP. I think you should try FP on your pictures, they blew me away.-- penubag  05:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

How could I make a new svg? Noy 15:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are several programs for working with svg, you could start looking at Help:SVG. /Daniel78 16:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not needed, it's the color of the gray squares that are interesting. /Daniel78 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --norro 18:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Panorama of Paris, from Montparnasse Tower

La forme et notament la queue me fait penser très fort à une grosse étoile filante plus qu'a un avion... --Luc Viatour 07:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Ça ne peut pas être un avion car les avions sont interdits de voler dans le ciel de la ville de Paris - les avions peuvent (quand même) voler au-dessous des banlieues. En plus, on peut facilement voir qu'il n'y a qu'une seule lumière blanche, de forme ovale dans le ciel - les avions ont au moins des feux de trois couleurs différentes (rouge, vert et blanc) --Booksworm 09:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sandro Botticelli 065 E4.jpg

edit

Madonna of the Book (Botticelli)

edit

Madonna of the Book (Botticelli)

Reproduced art should be judged according to very stringet criteria on the repro work, and any attempt to "refine" the original work should be rejected. That is, any color correction without color temperature measurements of the light should be refused. Jeblad 12:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 20:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Douglas MD-82 Overhead 

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Basilica San Marco 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

The ending of a nerium oleander without flowers. 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Allium 'Lucy Ball' 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Upper cabins wheel overview of the Park Mayakovsky, Kharkov. At the very top cabin sit two forty.

  •  Info. My new good photo. This picture depicts a upper middle-sized cabins wheel overview, located in Ukraine, Kharkiv, Mayakovsky Park. Height of-35 meters. At the top cabin sit two podsvechennye very beautiful birds. Photo quite solid, the best I can do is not on the technical possibility of the camera. Camera not professional and amateur, with 4 megapixels.

Photo taken with the optical zoom quadrupled. Photo remarkably beautiful sky, the sun and the calling of course, a bird. Канопус Киля 16:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I have noticed your work and seen that you are eager to improve your photography. I think you are doing progress, so don't let this oppose vote discourage you. The composition on this one is actually quite good. I like the four simple colours. However, I still miss a clear idea with your contribution, and the thing with the birds. Well they are too small area-wize in the image to be of much relevance. It is also not clear to me why this image should be especially valuable for Wikimedia Commons projects. You also have the odds against you with the technical quality of the photo. Most of all problems with noise. You could improve the image page of such photographs by adding some geodata and improve the categorization. In this image you have added the Category:Birds. Surely, you can find a more specific category relating to birds. You could also use the other_versions field of the {{Information}} template to refer to the photo you have of the full wheel. It makes it easier to envision the context your image is taken in. Keep up improving your work. -- Slaunger 22:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Very nice composition, I like the touch with the birds, but you have a problem with noise. Noise is sometimes related to ISO speed (the higher the ISO, the worse the noise), so if your camera has the ability to change the ISO (some point and shoots do), change it to its lowest setting if possible and use a tripod if you have one. (If you don't, I recommend buying one, even a cheaper model will work wonders at times and improve your composition as you think more about what to place in the frame.) Also, a warmer sensor (the part of the camera that records the image) results in more noise so be careful and minimally use live view (don't overuse it basically) before a shot. Compose it through the optical viewfinder if you have one rather than look at the image on the LCD screen. Good luck in your future endeavours, Freedom to share 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Cranberry harvest

Original image
  •  Info created by Keith Weller, USDA-ARS - uploaded by Gorgo - nominated by Gorgo. This image was one of the first featured images on commons, but was defeatured for being low quality some months ago. I really like the composition so I removed a lot of dust, spots and noise, did some exposure correction and downsampled it. Please tell me what you think. --Gorgo 21:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Gorgo 21:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I think you have done an appreciative work at restorating the original image, which is of high value to Commons. Although the technical quality has improved quite a bit I am still not convinced that the technical quality is good enough for this image to become one of the 0.05% top-of-the-cream featured images on Commons. I suggest you try to test nominate it as a Valued Image Candidate. This forum is well suited for recognizing these kinds of contributions, and will (hopefully) be online soon. -- Slaunger 21:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Strange noise in the background. The outline of the white shirt looks like after a fight with a lion. --Niabot 21:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Detail

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 14:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Panoramic view of Florence from Piazzale Michelangelo 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Firenze - modified.jpg, not featured

edit

Panoramic view of Florence from Piazzale Michelangelo 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

A yellowish flycatcher 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 18:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Colibri thalassinus 

result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 18:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Thraupis episcopus 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 18:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Kiwi

 QuestionEst-ce que c'est du bruit qu'on voit sur la kiwi du fond à gauche ? Benh 10:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
C'est (3 983 × 2 720 pixels) donc un très grand agrandissement imprimé en A3 il n'y a rien ;) --Luc Viatour 10:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes corrected --Luc Viatour 23:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aka l'auteur de cette FP est pour moi un modèle de photographe pour Common et j'admire toujours son travail, mais en quelques années le matériel numérique a évolué et la qualité aussi.--Luc Viatour 08:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment :) --Luc Viatour 07:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 18:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

The Moon 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 18:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

* Support Valuable, nice quality, skillful. Freedom to share 17:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

The Stiftskirche (a curch) in St. Gallen The Stiftskirche straightened 

result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description Short description

I'm afraid that to my eyes it looks too much like a quick snapshot, with too little care taken in choice of viewpoint and camera angle. You could have cut out the cars and the pole, for example, by shooting from where the people are. Also, try to make sure the whole of your subject is in the frame - it detracts that the apex of the dome is cut off. Don't be discouraged, though, as many nominations here don't succeed. You might like to try posting on Commons:Photography critiques or Commons:Quality images. Regards, --MichaelMaggs 18:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you ! It's my first featured picture candidate ... Stef48 18:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stef48 has said that this was a first FP candidate. Is your intemperate language necessary, and do you think it will encourage Stef48 to consider Commons a friendly, helpful place? --MichaelMaggs 19:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but it isn't important ... I keep cool Stef48 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

UL260i aircraft engine

 Comment I found the image here: http://www.ulpower.com/img/ul260i-04.jpg . So we need the permission from ulpower for promotion here. But I believe it is simply copyright violation. --Kolossos 21:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - Copyright issues have been resolved; the uploader is indeed the copyright owner, and has amended the external webpage to indicate that this image is copyright-free. See here (scroll to bottom of page). I've been working with the uploader about this both here and on en. --Rlandmann 21:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment -It seems ok. I write this information in the image-description page. I understand the first sentence of "Feel free to use these in press articles or websites when referring to our engine. The pictures are free from copyright." as a suggestion not as a restriction. --Kolossos 07:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Map of Flanders by Matthias Quad (1609) 

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Minor editing for stain removal. Supplanting original nom. 

result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 08:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06b.jpg, featured

edit

Short description 

result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 08:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bumblebee October 2007-3.jpg, not delisted

edit

Short description Short description 

result: 1 Delist, 6 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Mywood 08:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wrightflyer.jpg, not delisted

edit

Short description 

result: 1 Delist, 5 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Mywood 08:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Asteracea poster.jpg

edit

Short description Short description

edit 
result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Other version has more support votes) Simonizer 09:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit 
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bosnia And Herzegowina ID issued 13 12 2007.jpg

edit
Agree --Richard Bartz 21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I agree that this shouldn't be an FP, and I have now also uploaded a new version of the file, censoring certain details... --Booksworm 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
but the old versions of the file should get deleted....in the file history the original version is still visible. --AngMoKio 22:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small and dubious 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.

--Richard Bartz 03:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/February_2008&oldid=125575584"