Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2007

< 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.


edit

Flower of the Holy Basil 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 11:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

FP Version
Original version
I disagree, but my mind might have problems from having seen so many mid-20th century b&w prints. The original untouched print was almost just a gray rectangle -- so everyone is just guessing, aren't they? Me and everyone who saw the prints disagree with your evaluation, btw. -- carol 06:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

detail

edit

Which will print on paper better and will reduce for web display better? Grain is not noise to the best of my understanding of those words. -- carol 03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • FP detail
    FP detail
  • original detail
    original detail
  • this version
    this version
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Hochtannbergpass in Austria 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Wind Point Lighthouse

Have tried to fix this image. Didn't fully manage to fix the chromatic aberration. But I have hcanged the white balance and ran a selective sharpening on it: →AzaToth 19:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 11:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 11:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

A view of Prague from the River Vltava 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit

Juan Carlos I, King of Spain

Please show me another photograph of Juan Carlos, which is as up-to-date, has such a high resolution, is as sharp and – last but not least – is under a free licence as well. However, I don't think there can be any kind of great wow-effect in a portrait of a king, neither should there be. -- אx 13:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I think it is a good image, quite illustrative. One question: is that dandruff over his left shoulder? --Al2 14:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support א, you are now the master of portraits on Commons, like Richard Bartz is the master of macro and LucaG is the master of landscapes. Just one question: how do you get so close to all of those important people whose portraits you take? Freedom to share 16:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Please note that I used a rather long lens on a DSLR with a crop factor of 1.6. So I was not that near, maybe about 15 metres. The occasion was the International Charlemagne Prize in Aachen. It takes place once a year and a lot of (serious) celebrities turns up. -- אx 18:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are they open to the public? If not, how do you get in? Freedom to share 08:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ceremony is not open to the public, so I cannot take photos there. But afterwards, the prize winner is presented to the public. One day before the ceremony, the prize winner is invited to the university of Aachen for a discussion with students. This part is open to the public, too. But you have to be there very early to be able to take good photographs. You have to be fast and so you have to know your equipment. You need some good telephoto lenses as well. Thank you for your interest. If you have further questions, feel free to ask on my discussion page. -- אx 15:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the shirt is blue. The bright stripes on the tie are white, and this is where I set the white balance. You can see that the white of the eyes is displayed properly, too. -- אx 18:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC) PS: You can see this more clearly here, if you compare to the shirt of Mr. Solana for example. -- אx 19:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Yes. I uploaded a new version with less sharpening. --Thermos 06:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Thermos 11:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC) --Thermos 11:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Common Frog in Norway, 2007.jpg[reply]

edit

Short description 

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Sculptural stone flowers.

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

--MichaelMaggs 09:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit

The Ammersee in Herrsching 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Hotel de ville de montreal from n-w 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Djerba, in Tunisia 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Comic strip illustrating the Detour Theory 

result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Balanced rock in Colorado 

result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Copper Beech Autumn foliage 

result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Saturn's rings mosaic 

result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Castle Plessis Bourre 2007 02.jpg

edit

Short description

You are free to express that, but the licenses you put on the image allow it to be nominated and discussed like this. Just relax and enjoy the pack mentality here is my suggestion. -- carol 11:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reduced noise version

edit

Short description

  (sadly, but on the author's request, I have to withdraw both nominations). Lycaon 10:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Red Maple Leaf 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Pillar of Golden Gate Bridge

I'm just realizing that my comment is a bit harsh... I hope you won't take it too personaly and apologize in advance :) Benh 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the honesty.  :) Calibas 00:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

  •  Support I like this one. --Tomascastelazo 03:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Photographic perfection/excellence should comes first. This picture is much 2 harsh lighted (unfortune use of flashlight) and not very sharp 4 my taste. Taken at high noon it looks like it's taken at midnight regarding the background. To point out what i mean with harsh lighted you should drop a eye on this or that to see the use of propper light and resulting plasticity --Richard Bartz 00:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

The steeple of Emmanuel church in Boston, MA 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Scrub Pine cone 

result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Plastic- and Nylonzipper.jpg, featured

edit

Short description 

result: 15 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Lycaon 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dent de Vaulion - 360 degree panorama.jpg, featured

edit

Short description

  •  Info created by Alexandre Duret-Lutz (Flickr) - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Mgnus Manske) - nominated by le Korrigan →bla 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quite unusual panorama, but well executed in my opinion.
  •  Support --le Korrigan →bla 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is art work. It is a good example of a polarized mapping of pixels and after writing this, I am going to be looking for where at wikipedia this sort of art work is described. The reason for that is that an article like that would be the only way to consider this an encyclopedic image, in my opinion. To just vote favorably here for an image like this would really be opening the doors to a potential profusion of such images and in my opinion, it would be better to start with some of the first instances of this work especially using the GNU software that can make it rather than starting with the first one randomly chosen by an upload bot -- if you are going to start to do that at all. -- carol 04:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the upload bot did a pretty good job with finding one of the first authors and image sharers. -- carol 04:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for an image to have encyclopedic value to get FP. --AngMoKio 08:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that is interesting. The encyclopedic thing is only for the Quality Images then? I think that I will never be able to determine exactly what it is that is being looked for here and there. -- carol 10:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And actually it is a Common(s) misunderstanding that Quality Images needs to have encyclopdiec value too. They just have to be valuable for Wikimedia projects which is broader than encyclopedic. -- Slaunger 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia for goodness sakes, but a Feature Picture doesn't need to encyclopedia?? Unfortunately, without the need for encyclopedic value, this just becomes another "pretty boy" photography competition. MapMaster 06:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commons isn't an encyclopedia. I hope we don't need a What Commons is not page. ;) Rocket000 00:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When it makes sense that one image is declined for not being encyclopedic it is difficult not to use the same sense with other images, at least for me. I don't want to be 'dogmatic' however or 'beat that dead horse' or whatever the best catch-phrase for this situation would be. I 'took a gander' at the computer art pages at english wikipedia -- they seem to be disorderly, not very definitive, ambiguous and mostly chaotic in their presentation with no clear outline and more. I was looking specifically for Mapping; Pixel Mapping or something along that line as this image is the product of a simple polar mapping -- the not simple parts are getting the image into the panarama and making it so the seam will not show. Making it round is so easy compared to getting it there.
Another question that I have regarding images like this is very simple. If there is a place here for images like this and perhaps other types of mapped images, what reason is it that commons photographers do not download their images which have been mapped and put on other web sites and upload them here for similar consideration? -- carol 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This picture orginates from the Flickr-Account that is linked in the pictures summary. There you can find a lot more...also better ones. It might be worth to upload them to Commons if the license allows it. --AngMoKio 15:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support For purposes of illustrating this photographic technique --Thermos 15:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Interesting, but I find the dark band at "half past twelve" distracting. What is the origin of that band? -- Slaunger 21:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ... It's the Sun, shining from the right of the picture, and not shining on the left-hand side as we are on top of a mountain :-) le Korrigan →bla 22:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a reasonable explanation. It is still distracting though IMO, so I keep the neutral vote. -- Slaunger 23:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like it, I think the stitching is good considering that 120 images was used. /Daniel78 00:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this image alot and would support a version that was stitched a bit better, I'm sure it was a big job even if it was automated but there's a couple of clouds that have been cut up at 3 O'clock and the banding is bad the whole way round, shame about the bit of ground where the photographer was standing as well. Still, looks pretty cool. Benjamint 08:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not centered composition, not high detail, different exposes' joinig mistake. --Beyond silence 12:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Groovy. Calibas 06:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose insufficient quality. Lycaon 20:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I had found this photo while wandering through Commons and put it on the frwp Village Pump and the article on the Dent de Vaulion. I like it very much and have no problem with it being artistic as well as encyclopedic. The quality is better than I thought it would be given all the stitching involved. Arria Belli | parlami 23:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose MapMaster 06:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As far as I know, we don't have another FP like it, so it is in its own category. I think the quality is fine, and I think encyclopedic value (which this has) is of critical importance. -- Ram-Man 04:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Intriguing and original. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 06:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think this photo was retouched. j/k carol's right. This is just artwork; no use I can see. Even a Wikipedia article on this type of art wouldn't (or shouldn't) use this. Something by a notable artist would be more appropriate. Rocket000 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC) voting was finished. Lycaon 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Better images here, but please don't nominate them. Rocket000 00:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "I think this photo was retouched" : well, yeah, it doesn't come straight from the camera... But there are loads of stitched panoramas and HDR images which have been featured, which mean they have been effectively "retouched". If it has no use, how do you explain it is actually used on some Wikipedia articles ? And why shouldn't an article on this type of art use this photo ? Also, asking for something "by a notable artist" is maybe a luxury on Commons, given that we ask for free content. I know we have some excellent artists here already, but a featured picture doesn't have to come from a "notable" artist to be judged so. le Korrigan →bla 01:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, that "photo was retouched" was just a joke (see the "j/k"). Sorry. :) It is used on Wikipedia articles, but it shouldn't be. Have you looked at what articles it's used in? Completely inappropriate (see en:Dent de Vaulion, fr uses it too, but Wikipedias just copy off each other). Once a few more people see those and they move beyond stubs, I'm sure that picture will be gone. Someone just picked it because it looked cool or because there's nothing better. I hope you know what I meant by notable. It was not a comment on the artist's skill or talent. When comes to works of art that are highly stylized, abstract, distorted, etc. there's not much use for it in any of Wikimedia's projects. There's a lot of great (free) artwork out there, this just isn't the place for it. Unless the artist is notable. For example, let's say I create an amazing piece of pop art, should it go in that Wikipedia article? Even if it's FP quality? No, because I'm not notable. Imagine what would happen if that that was the norm. Everyone would be spamming their artwork all over trying to get it on Wikipedia. Artwork is too subjective. You may like this picture (personally, I think it's cool), but FP's should be more than a personal preference. They should have at least some encyclopedic value. Rocket000 08:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about the misunderstanding with your joke... it was late for me :-) Anyway, I still disagree about the need for notability when it comes to art. While I agree that Art for itself should not be on Commons (where pictures should have some interest for WMF projects), I would think that if you create a pop-art picture, it has some use here, because Category:Pop art is a bit... well, empty for copyright reasons, and it would be useful for the casual reader to have an idea of what Pop art is like. Anyway, I understand that this picture is controversial FP material :-) le Korrigan →bla 10:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need for an image to have encyclopedic value to get FP. Commons is for many projects not just wikipedia - also for projects that might not exist by now.--AngMoKio 11:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Adam Cuerden 21:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC) voting was finished. Lycaon 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral =>  featured. Lycaon 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral =>  not featured. Lycaon 22:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured. Lycaon 22:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

  •  Comment Grapes from the Guadalupe Valle, Baja California, Mexico during the pigmentation stage.
As someone once said... "De beste stuurlui staan aan wal" --Tomascastelazo 02:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment True, not a difficult picture to take, but here's the story. Grapes are hidden from direct sunlight most of the time because of plant configuration, so the only time you can take sun lit grapes is early morning, as you can see from the sun direction. Another common way to photograph grapes is either before the sun comes out or after it sets, in total shadow, which render a very uniform type of soft lighting. In this case I chose a back lit position in order to appreciate the transparency of the grape, which is very, very rare to see, as well as the texture structure of the leaves, in fact, none can be found in Commons. Digital photography has a very limited dynamic range, and yes, some areas are burned, but that is ok, it acts as a specular reflexion if you wish, like the one given off by chrome surfaces. But even considering the limitations of the image itself, I think that the dynamic range is well managed despite the limitations of the medium itself. Lastly, we are used to seeing either green or red grapes, but not during the pigmentation stage. None can be found in Commons other than mine. Those are the considerations of this image. --Tomascastelazo 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As someone once said... "a picture is worth a thousand words, but if you need a thousand words to explain a picture, well, maybe it is not accomplishing its objective" -- Lycaon 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose noise, detail

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 16:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The usual objective in a close up is to show the subject. In that sense, if you notice the lighting, then that suggests that the lighting may be a distraction. In this case, I like the lighting. I like it because I react emotionally to it - to me, this photo captures the passage of time: the grapes are passing from young to mature, the light is passing from night to day. It's all very en:Memento mori. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be improved if the sun was at a 45 degree angle in front of the grapes, rather than slightly behind them. I think half the grapes should be in sunlight, rather than just a couple of them. I would also have framed more of the grapes on the right. That is just my humble opinion though. You can certainly feel free to disagree. Cacophony 07:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is what everyone does, and it is exactly what I did not want. I chose a backlit position in order to get the transparency of the grapes and leaves, which would have been imposible with the other sun position. The grapes go flat in transparency. And I welcome your opinion, that is why I asked. --Tomascastelazo 19:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured. Lycaon 22:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

  •  Info Back to minimalism. A flower of a common Yellow Hawkweed (Hieracium vulgatum) opening to the sun rays in the morning, like many other species of Asteracea. Taken close to my house, in the city of Lisboa, Portugal. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar -- Alvesgaspar 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Alvesgaspar 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment, it's very noisy, despite having been shot at ISO 100. Did you increase the exposure in a RAW converter afterwards? If so, why didn't you go back to reshoot the picture with a higher exposure setting? --Aqwis 20:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Info - The noise is minimized now. It is almost inevitable to have some noise in the dark background of macro shots (this is little flower). There is the possibility of using the flash to lighten the background a little but I don't like it - Alvesgaspar 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really, according to your info "manual, f/18, 1/125, ISO 100, fill in flash" you did use flash - meaning to get a well exposed background you should have used no flash and relied on natural light. --Fir0002 www 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Modern Nikon flashes have the capability to control the exposure of both the focused subject and the background, but I did not use that mode. But of course you are aware of all these possibilities. -- Alvesgaspar 22:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No I was not aware of such a capability and struggle to see how it would work - as surely flashing with the output required to expose the background will blow out the subject matter. Have you got a link or something which explains this? --Fir0002 www 22:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Autofocus Speedlight SB-600". There shouldn't be difficult to find some info on the so-called "Automatic Balanced Fill-Flash (TTL-BL)". As you surely know, lighting is a critical factor is macro photography mainly because of DOF problem. That is why the flash was used. - Alvesgaspar 22:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fir0002 is correct. Fill flash in this case would not be able to distingish the foreground from the background and would have burned out the flower. It would have to creat a "digital mask". Fill flash works on subject that are on the same plane and using light metering capabilities stop the flash output in order to avoid washed out areas. The use of flash in this case actually darkened the background the background and flattened the image. --Tomascastelazo 23:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment - And now that all of us have shown how much we know about photo technique can we please proceed to voting? The picture is under reviewing, not my phtographic knowledge. (for a moment I thought I was in WP:FPC but that was only a nightmare) - Alvesgaspar 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like the minimalistic composition. Freedom to share 07:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think it is an image of good technical quality, but I do not find it sufficiently exceptional to acheive FP status. The lightning is not that interesting, I do not find it particularly valuable, and the front-most petals are too unsharp for my taste. -- Slaunger 11:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As above --Karelj 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Dust spots in a FP? If you choose to use an SLR, you have to correct the sensor dust spots, especially on flat areas. -- Ram-Man 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't think this image is exceptional enough to be FP material —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Tbc (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 December 2007(UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured. Lycaon 23:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

*...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can. The best swordsman in the world doesn't need to fear the second best swordsman in the world; no, the person for him to be afraid of is some ignorant antagonist who has never had a sword in his hand before; he doesn't do the thing he ought to do, and so the expert isn't prepared for him.:::- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, Mark Twain. --Tomascastelazo 23:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support because I think it shows situation in Tijuana quite well; on the other hand, I would appreciate if the author didn't respond to opposing users with quotations about stupidity and ignorance. --che 02:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
che - just a little fun rivalry between two users, no harm done... I cannot call it a battle of wits, one is missing!--Tomascastelazo 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot help me, but when i read the comments of Tomas and Hans i get the impression of a kindergarten. The only difference is that the kids are quite eloquent ;-) --Simonizer 08:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured. Lycaon 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured. Lycaon 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

The New River Gorge Bridge

  •  Info everything by JaGa. The New River Gorge Bridge near Fayetteville, West Virginia, is the longest (3030 ft), highest (876 ft) steel-arch bridge in the Americas. This bridge (and almost this same angle) is featured on the WV quarter. --JaGa 04:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support BTW I won't be around for the voting, so if you have a question, please leave something on my talk page. --JaGa 04:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I like it but I think it would have been a much better picture without the bridge. Calibas 06:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, sharp, good composition. --Aqwis 08:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OpposeChanged my mind- -- Slaunger 21:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC) The composition is so close to being dead on that it distracts me that it clearly isn't dead on (non-horizontal upper line). However, I guess this would be hard to acheive as the river below seems to be curved under the bridge. Under those circumstances I would (if possible) have chosen another view, which was clearly not dead on. Otherwise a very fine photo with good value, colours, lightning and sharpness, just not exceptional enough for FP (for me) due to the composition. It may be improved though - maybe you should discuss it with User:Klaus with K. He is very proficient regarding bridge photos. -- Slaunger 11:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should probably answer these here. I didn't want a horizontal upper line - it really does climb from left to right. You can even see it in the West Virginia state quarter. --JaGa 19:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Support Oh, I was unaware of the fact that the bidge actually has a significant slope in real life. That coin convinced we. That changes my opinion. -- Slaunger 21:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question How many photos did you use for this stitched image? Regarding Slaunger's comment, I think in this case you do not need to choose a different projection, as you were fortunate enough to be far enough away from the imaged object. You probably could use a different orientation of your rectilinear projection to align the bridge deck horizontally, if you wish to try this out. Here I just could not go further backwards without a drastic change in the foreground, but the piers look just too fat, that is why I thought this cylindrical projection better suited. -- Klaus with K 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used a total of 25 images for this one, in 3 rows. I checked out the cylindrical projection, but it made my bridge look more like the Gateway Arch than the New River Gorge Bridge. I think the distance helps me get away with the rectilinear. --JaGa 19:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 12:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

The New River Gorge Bridge 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Bay Bridge and downtown San Francisco

It would be better if there were more reflections in the water. As it is, the lower half of the photo (except the bridge) is basically dead. WolfmanSF 05:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I would stay neutral, but there are many people opposing and I want the image to be FP, so... Poromiami 20:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Bay Bridge could at least be centred. Otherwise, a little noisy and possibly a little blurry. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 04:07, 04 December 2007 (GMT)
    • Centered? Sigh. Then people would complain about boring composition. Centering is a no-no. Besides that would result in less interesting parts of the skyline to be shown. --Dschwen 17:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment The yellow and green pixels are what has disqualified other better images here and is called noise.-- carol 11:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose  Neutral Too noisy. Without EXIF information, it's impossible to say if this was taken correctly or if the camera choice was a mitigating factor. If EXIF information was provided, I'd reevaluate my vote. The image also appears to be a tad too blurry, perhaps from the long exposure + wind. I expect closer to perfection for this type of shot. Composition is great. Update: Having read the above comments, I see this was taken with an older camera, thus the noise. I've changed to neutral as a result. Please take this again without the wind. -- Ram-Man 23:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Merlijn 10:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Lack of sharpness, and trees in bottom right are distracting. --Cpl Syx 22:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Stark reality... not a critique against a country, but against the conditions that force migration, where we all share responsibility --Tomascastelazo 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't like the composition, I think showing a longer portion of the fence would be better. Also I think black and white should be reserved for occasions where it really enhances the image, and I don't see that here. Dori - Talk 17:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I feel that this is a political statement rather than FP. I disagree with your description of the image and I also disagree that we all share responsibility. If you want to debate this with a real right-winger, I am more than happy to discuss it with you. I am not however saying that this image should not be an FP because I disagree with its political message, but rather that it is not the type of image that I would list as one with a great WOW factor and as FP material. Freedom to share 18:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I am saying is that this is not something that I would like to see as a featured pictured. Sure, it's powerful, thought-provoking and maybe will open my mind to the issue of illegal immigration one day. I love the use of monochrome, but that I do not believe is what FPs are about. This image would be great at the first page of an opinionated newspaper article about the subject, but for an FP I expect something else... a beautiful landscape or an important person would be FP-worthy material, but I somehow feel that street children or images such as those, no matter how striking, simply do not belong here. Commons is not their home. They are meant to be reprinted and shown to the world together with their accompanying messages to show everybody what you feel and maybe convince them to your views. I am not disputing that this image is great: a piece of poetry, even if I do not agree with it, can be great. I am simply saying: this is not an FP. It is an entirely different level of photography. It is expressionistic photography, heavily polarized and opinionated. It fits into Commons like a Capulet on a party full of Montagues: it simply doesn't. Sorry, I do not want to sound rude, dishonourable or disrespectful, but please put those images somewhere else, where they will be recognised, for they do not belong here. Freedom to share 21:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear.... First of all, thank you for taking responsibility for your opinions... I truly respect that. Now, whatever I may say is rethorical, nothing personal, and take no offense... But, what is a FP? A beautiful landscape? Who are you (or me)to dictate what should be a FP? Limiting the scope of photography in this forum, to me, amounts to censorship, and censorship, to me, is worse than leprosy. It eats away the spirit of the human being, his right to be heard and speak out. Not everyone must like every picture, it is everyone's right to like or dislike. It is democratic to support or oppose. This is an encyclopaedic effort, in every dimension, including FP. Anything less would make this effort a waste. As far as FPs, I am a proponent to evaluate according to well informed criteria, be it photographic, cultural, scientific. Unfortunately, IN MY OPINION, that utopian scenario is a long way off, but in a democratic way, one must accept opposing points of view, and at the same time, one has a right to oposse the opposing points of view, even if they don't like it. By critisizing, one must open up to critisism also... Regards...--Tomascastelazo 22:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For once I agree with you on this one Tomas. FP should be about value and good photography and not (only) about beautiful photos. I am glad that we have very valuable non-beautiful photos like this on FP. I wish we had more. -- Slaunger 22:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. :-) Even if this nomination is not going to be a success (including my oppose contribution), your photo would have achieved its desired effect: it made me think about this issue and therefore it fulfilled its purpose. Freedom to share 15:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

  •  Support Great composition and colors. Dori - Talk 21:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question For such kinds of photos I guess the person being photographed should give their permission for being published? I do not find any notice thereof in the image page. Would that not be normal? Or is it not needed because the person in this case appears quite unidentifiable since we do not see the face? -- Slaunger 22:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slaunger: I find it so ironic that our moral issue concerns verse on legal aspects. The real moral issue is poverty itself. It is my wish that photography becomes a window that allows us to see beyond. --Tomascastelazo 22:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting. Przykuta you see a beggar in this image? -- carol 23:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

If you do not like the pic, that is ok... but where is it stated that information and categorization are criteria for FP? --Tomascastelazo 14:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did I mention FP criteria??? I think not! Information and categorization are required for every image. Lycaon 21:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! finally an agreement between us, I totally agree with your "I think not". IVery coraugeous of you to acknowledge it. Thanks! --Tomascastelazo 21:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nice image, I especially like the inclusion of the CCTV poles in the image, which seem to almost be a criticism of a surveillance nation (a view with which I disagree, as usual :-) I live near London, if you are wondering why I am pro-CCTV :-) ), but the thing that really annoys me is the curved distortion due to the shape of the road, which I am sure someone of your abilities can fix in Photoshop. Also, what is Operation Guardian? Could you please add a link to its Wikipedia page (if it exists). If the fix is done in Photoshop, I will support the image. Freedom to share 22:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an actual dip on the road, so it is as it is. And yes, lens curvature probably exagerates it a bit. I try to to be as unobtrusive with the image itself as much as I can, I hate gimmicks. I limit manipulation to tonal values, color correction, etc. --Tomascastelazo 21:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with you (for once :-)) about Photoshop, but this is not a manipulation designed to deceive, but something that would improve the photo significantly without altering the content, so I would recommend considering. Freedom to share 22:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose for now due to distracting geometric distortion/tilt - especially of the CCTV pole. I do not think it is a gimmick to correct that. If that is done, I'll support. Besides that a strong photo. -- Slaunger 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I corrected the tilt as much as I could without cutting off the lights on the right. Thank you for the observations and suggestions. --Tomascastelazo 22:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... better, but I think you need to go a little beyond tilting to make it optimal - you have to fix the geometric distortion to make the pole straight (I reloaded so I hope I am looking at the right photo, I think I do...) -- Slaunger 23:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coca cola lady.jpg

edit

Short description

  • Slaunger, no such things as ignorant questions... Generally, anything in public view is fair game. People, brands, etc., etc. if it is used in an editorial way, and even in a commercial manner as long as the intent is not to suggest, imply, etc., sponsoring of the particular symbol or company to whatever the photograph is trying to "sell". I can commercially shoot anthing in the street and have commercial logos present, for good or bad. And that is the way it should be. And if it is art, the options are even larger. I once uploaded a photo collage here but unfortunately some (choose your own adjective), maskerading as purveyors of decency and legality, censored it and deleted it. --Tomascastelazo 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Thank you for the explanation. -- Slaunger 11:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

  • Sorry to load so many pics today... Loaded them in between phone calls....
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Concert guitar player.jpg

edit

Short description

Image:Grape workers.jpg

edit

Short description

edit

Short description

  • That is exactly why this is useful. If you cannot see the first circle, your monitor is not calibrated right, and if your monitor is not calibrated right, your output will be off, especially when you fly visual. What you see in the monitor is not what you necessarily get in printing, whatever the medium (inkjet, photo lab). --Tomascastelazo 01:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will share a couple of tips with you… In Zone System photogaphy, a method developed by Minor White, Ansel Adams, and others, there are what are called dynamic range and texture range. This particular illustration is useful to calibrate your monitor for the dynamic range, that is, the tonal separations in a particular image. If you calibrate it correctly, the texture range will fall into place automatically. Now, what I do is the following: I print a picture without any adjustments where I can see in the histogram that it covers the entire dynamic range, and has a decent amont of colors. Then I place it next to my monitor and adjust the brightness and contrast settings so that the monitor adjusts to the output, and then I do the same with color adjustments. I write down the settings because they will be useful only to that praticular output medium. I have two settings, one for my inkjet and one for the photo lab. The settings will not be the same. Depending on where I will print, I ajust values in the monitor. That way, what you see is what you get. This illustration, at least, will give you a good start in monitor and output calibration.--Tomascastelazo 02:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that people see the Picture of the Day and that is how they arrive here to vote, and also for the simple fact that the featured pictures are viewed via a display which is getting information from a computer -- it might be just good practice to once a year remind people about the technical aspects of what makes an image good or not good and the reasons that images are Featured and not as well as the voting guidelines. Once a year, everyone gets to calibrate their monitor and perhaps, reassess their criteria for their votes and their opinions. -- carol 07:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. Technically useful but not FP material. The image text actually says that your monitor is too bright if you can see all four, contrary to Tomascastelazo's comment above. My monitor is regularly calibrated using Huey Pro (a clever little device and software that actually measures screen output and adjusts colour balance and brightness settings automatically). I see three circles, and the ghost of a fourth if I stare very carefully. --MichaelMaggs 09:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I left out the part about just barely seeing the first circle. Like you say, a ghost. --Tomascastelazo 19:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Pine cone and holly

 Comment It's strange but the shallow DOF is what actually makes this photograph so good in my opinion - maybe I'm just being swayed by the seasonal theme of the image! --Cpl Syx 04:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the cone is better measured in millimeters or centimeters? More than half of the one of the subjects is out of focus. No disqualified template has been used on this image.
    the cone is better measured in millimeters or centimeters? More than half of the one of the subjects is out of focus. No disqualified template has been used on this image.
  • Disqualitied for DOF and noise (which are both problems here). The subject is a baby bee in the first few seconds of life. DOF is measured in millimeters and is a much more difficult subject to capture. The original image is part of what is honestly a great set of photographs documenting the birth of an insect. Happy Holidays all!!
    Disqualitied for DOF and noise (which are both problems here). The subject is a baby bee in the first few seconds of life. DOF is measured in millimeters and is a much more difficult subject to capture. The original image is part of what is honestly a great set of photographs documenting the birth of an insect. Happy Holidays all!!

-- carol 11:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Missing here is the indiscriminate placement of a template saying that the image will probably not be accepted due to DOF problems. -- carol 15:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, mind-reading? The templates are applied usually extremely quickly in the candidates tenure here. Ben Aveling, what qualifies you for this expertise in how it works? The templates are usually applied within 30 hours. How does one know if there is going to be support for an image or not and if one knows, what reason is there to enter it into a contest like this? -- carol 09:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 8 oppose 9 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Laitche 14:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 13:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 13:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 13:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goeldis monkey - butterfly lunch - big.jpg

edit

Short description

edit

Sand dunes in Morocco

blotches in the sky

result: 11 Support, 7 Oppose, 3 Neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

  • I've made a first edition on that panorama and uploaded it over the original with the following corrections : the former blurry clouds turned blue, so I corrected this ; also there were several darker areas in the sky (due to stitching ?), which were well visible in the thumb view like above, a bit less in the larger view of the description page and I made them clearer to match better the luminosity of the other clouds. This edit may be viewed here.
  • I made a second edit I've uploaded also over the previous version (it's the current version — if you don't like it, you can revert —) : the mountain, on the both sides of the picture seemed to me unnaturally darker, not because of the shadow of the clouds or the nature of the ground but more like a vignetting problem. I made these two areas clearer. Sting 12:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 Support, 0 Oppose, 0 Neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Oakland LDS Temple 

result: 7 Support, 7 Oppose, 0 Neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Map of Gibraltar

 Info I've uploaded a modified version replacing « International border » by the more neutral (?) term « Frontier », even if it is disputed (or should I have used the expression « De Facto Boundary » like in the CIA map ?) and notified the claims of Spain about this area. I didn't use the term « Fence » as this one is really of Spanish-centred use which of course can be mentioned in the article pages of the different WPs. Sting 12:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I think that de facto frontier would be the most accurate approach (however, maybe just a note on the box simply stating that its not recognized by Spain would be fine). --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 13:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 Support, 0 Oppose, 1 Neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Sagami Temple 

result: 12 Support, 1 Oppose, 3 Neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Column capital in shape of elephant's head in Petra

Without dust spot
result: 9 Support, 5 Oppose, 0 Neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Panorama of the Central Pyrenees from Bailo, in Huesca province. 

result: 2 Support, 4 Oppose, 0 Neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 Support, 2 Oppose, 0 Neutral => not featured. (Rule of th 5th day) Simonizer 09:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Paesaggio della Bosnia-Erzegovina

  •  Info created by Michele.gaiga - uploaded by Michele.gaiga - nominated by Michele.gaiga --Michele.gaiga 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Michele.gaiga 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Una parte de las nubes está sobreexpuesta. --Jorgebarrios 21:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Overexposed, noisy, posterized colours, sorry. I recommend to add geodata to such types of photos. -- Slaunger 21:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I like the composition but unfortunately on the technical side is not acceptable. Jacopo 22:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As per your other photograph, the quality of the camera is the factor here. --Cpl Syx 04:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Even in the thumbnail, it can be seen that the whites are too white -- blown-out is the weasel wording that get used by the digi-photo speak people to describe that. It is not so obvious in the other photograph. If you can take a well composed photograph which does not have the too strong white areas in it, to prevent people from judging your camera instead of the image that was produced, there are tools online that can edit the metadata -- if you are the kind of person that might do that. It is an interesting thing to consider doing to the kind of people who criticize a photograph based on the metadata only -- the making of a perfect picture.... I am of the opinion that a great camera can take many different kinds of great photographs; the lesser the camera, the fewer the options, the fewer the kinds of great photographs it can take. The more options there are, the more confusing it is as well. Also, to be perfectly honest, I would not have looked at the photograph if it hadn't been pointed out that it was part of a cellphone, due to the composition problems. People, including me, are quite whatever negative attribute that is. -- carol 07:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Carol, I'm unsure if you were referring to my statement when you said "the kind of people who criticize a photograph based on the metadata only", but I was not judging the camera itself as I agree that good photographs can be taken with any equipment. However after viewing the image it was clear that the camera was the limiting factor - had there been no metadata I would have still stated as much. --Cpl Syx 21:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Constructive criticism. -- carol 02:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 Support, 4 Oppose, 0 Neutral => not featured. (Rule of th 5th day) Simonizer 09:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Torri del Benaco - Lago di Garda.jpg, not featured

edit

Barca ormeggiata a Torri del Benaco (Lago di Garda) 

result: 1 Support, 2 Oppose, 0 Neutral => not featured. (Rule of th 5th day) Simonizer 09:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Iguana Buin Zoo 

result: 1 Support, 3 Oppose, 0 Neutral => not featured. (Rule of th 5th day) Simonizer 09:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

 Neutral, better. --Aqwis 15:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Sahara desert in Tunisia and shadows of camels with travelers

Yeah, the noise is reduced. How much did that software cost you? -- carol 11:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just looked this up myself. It did not seem to hurt this image, but some of the examples I saw online of what it can do were terrible! -- carol 12:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Bee anatomy scheme

You seem to be an expert about bees. Thanks for your help to improve this diagram ! Sémhur
✓ Done why are Malpighian tubes and anus outside the abdomen?: that's true, I have contacted the wikigraphist, he will redraw this part. Done, they are inside, now.
✓ Done what about the names for the leg segments?: Do you talk about the letters e f g h i ? I havn't found a name for each one in french. They have only a generic name, articulations tarsales, articles tarsaux or métatarses. But perhaps they have names in other languages. Done, only the main have a name (basitarsus).
✓ Done What are the white circles on the abdominal dorsal blood vessel?: I think they are cardiacs valves, according to the diagram of this document (p. 27). Done, cardiacs valves.
✓ Done what is a postgraphme ???: it was a spelling mistake, I have corrected it. The right word is "postphragme".
  • ganglia and cerebral ganglion don't seem to be properly connected: I don't see what you mean, can you be more precise ?
✓ Done Labial palp is not labelled: Is it the red appendix close to the tongue ? Done, description added.
✓ Done Muscles are drawn striped but they are not in reality: the diagram was made from this photo, and muscles appears to be striped, and also in this document (p. 25). If you have other sources, please tell us. Done, sources indicate striped muscles.
The first tarsal segment connecting to the tibia is called basitarsus [2] --Al2 20:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, description added (in french : métatarse)
Checkerboard? That's just how your browser renders the transparent background.. --Aqwis 07:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is easier to integrate a transparent background than a coloured one in the graphic charter of a website. Commons is not only for Wikipedia (and when it's used in WP, the background appear to be white). About the colours, well, to each his own... Sémhur 13:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. When Mediawiki converts this to PNG, it's either transparent if your browser supports it, or it's white. You should see a checkerboard, though, on the image description page. That is just to let you know there's nothing there. Rocket000 14:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very nice. And as mentioned the checkerpattern is just transparency, if you use a browser that supports svg you can can look at the rendered svg directly. /Daniel78 23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Now that the issues mentioned by Lycaon were fixed. Very nice and clear drawing which represent a lot of work as well as research to be accurate. Sting 21:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Annabelleal.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: too small - Boxes 16:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

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

Lycaon 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bloody frog.jpg

edit

300px|Bloody Frog

We normally chloroform the frog and then dissect it. Killing it might damage the internal organs. But unfortunately this one received a low dose and woke up, turned around and started jumping with its organs hanging around. It was a shocking sight and whilst my friends took care of the problem I snapped a few pictures for wiki. (I still get nightmares). Muhammad Mahdi Karim 05:59, 11 December 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: out of project scope Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 07:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I am not sure it is correct to state that the contribution is out of project scope. On the educational side it could be a clear demonstration on how not to prepare a frog for dissection. On the technical side, I would argue that the photo is on the low res limit with an unfortunate light although the special circumstances could mitigate that. I do not know much about dissection, and I am surprised that the animal was not killed efficiently prior to dissection. Would that not be normal? -- Slaunger 13:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The animal is not normally killed as killing it may damage the organs (mechanically killing) and poisoning may be considered dangerous when students dissect. Hence, chloroforming is normally done. But unfortunately, this one as I mentioned, received a low dose. I have a higher resolution photograph, but I believe 2mp is the minimum requirement. Right? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, glad I do not study that science, it would be hard for me to accept the procedures. With respect to image size the technical quality normally has to be very high for a 2 MPx picture to get through the nomination phase unless there are mitigating reasons. If you have a larger res photo, which gives an overall better technical quality do upload it. -- Slaunger 16:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vivisection seems to be the proper term for this and there is no commons category or gallery yet for this subject here. There are two other images that appeared when I searched Image:Activist against vivisection.JPG and Image:Harbin Gedenkplakette Einheit731.JPG. -- carol 15:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Frog

  •  Info Here's a higher resolution picture. Slaunger, since you do not think this picture is out of project scope, could you please remove the 'out of scope' template? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually what I had in mind was that you should upload a new version of the old image not create a new one, but nvm. Regarding removal of the template, I am not so sure, I will do that; although I do not agree that the photo is out of project scope, I really cannot replace it with a supporting vote. Actually, I am inclined to oppose it, but to do that I have to make up my mind why I would oppose it. The easy reason would be to just refer to bad lightning, but really I have a hard time filtering away my dislike of the cruelty in the scenario as such. But an FP does not have to display beauty - I have to think about it. -- Slaunger 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I am opposed to gross pictures. I really think that an FP should be something that one likes to look at. If this picture was of ultra-superior quality (which I don't think it is, though it's not bad either), I would still be disgusted and therefore I would not like to look at it. Not FP for me. --JDrewes 21:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I really think" <-- thinking is cool, I would like to encourage that; however if you could look through the FP guidelines and find something there that supports your thoughts on this it would make it appear that you used research and documentation to base your thoughts on. I did not think when I made my first comment here -- I don't like the image, I did not study biology even in high school -- dissection was one of the reasons. Instead of 'thinking', I looked to see if the commons had a category for such encyclopedic images and they didn't, but they have enough to make one. -- carol 03:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I am a bit scared that featuring these kind of pictures might encourage people to try to shoot other twisted images for nomination. Also I don't think this image is good enough anyway. /Daniel78 23:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Common Muhammad Mahdi Karim, I'm sure you are making fun of these peoples he he he... Anyway, in my opinion this image is not valuable: There is nothing to learn of it, it's not a proper vivisection and there is nothing difficult of doing such a photo, I could have done that at 5 year old if I had the equipment... Acarpentier 00:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose If it makes any difference to the other voters here, amphibian brains lack the features that produce basic emotions in mammals, birds, and reptiles. So this unfortunate animal probably is not suffering. That said, the composition simply isn't anything special. It's a botched vivisection, nothing more. Durova 02:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The Commons:Image Guidelines state "An image “speaks” to different people differently, and has the capacity to evoke emotions such as tenderness, rage, desire, rejection, happiness, and sadness, good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations." Keeping that in mind, I believe this picture does just that. Just because a picture is gross, does not mean its not FP material. If the picture has technical flows, then please let me know specifically how and where. Thanks Muhammad Mahdi Karim 05:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Ugly and irrelevant. I don't see any useful purpose in this picture other than shocking people or satisfy their morbid curiosity - Alvesgaspar 08:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose After thinking about it, I have made up my mind about your nomination. I oppose the image for several reasons:
    1. The photo is not sufficiently self-explanatory. You have to read the context to realize that the photo is a result of a vivisection mishap. The frog is photographed on a package with some gloves, which gives hints to the laboratory environment, but this is nowhere clear enough.
    2. The photo demonstrates how not to do vivisection. Although this is somewhat educational and useful knowledge I think a vivisection photo to become FP rather should show a professional vivsection, where the animal is sedated correctly, and it is shown in a vivsection/lab environment with the tools used for vivsection alongside the frog.
    3. The flash lightning and messy background indicate point-and-shoot conditions. Not surprising given the conditions, but too low quality to be mitigated for FP. And that does not imply that I urge you to go back and reshoot the scenary...
    4. I consider the photo as being equivalent to nominating photos of accidents in the public. Such photos serve others "morbid curiosity" as Alves states. And although I support the existence of such photographs on Commons I do not think their presence should be emphasized by giving them FP status unless there are very special conditions such as great historical value.
    5. Although you state that others were busy taking care of the situation while you took the photos, I am a somewhat surprised that you chose to spend your time photographing the scenario instead of actively dealing with the situation.
In summary, valuable, but not FP material IMO. -- Slaunger 09:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think this is very well in our scope, but I oppose this because I don't like looking at it. I could of very well came up with technical reasons for opposing, but I didn't feel like it. (Which is ok people.) Rocket000 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thank you Slaunger for being the only one to correctly vote for the picture. Regarding your comments, "I am a somewhat surprised that you chose to spend your time photographing the scenario instead of actively dealing with the situation," well.. let me just say I would not have helped much (too many cooks...) and I was better off doing something to share my experience.

Taking into consideration Slaunger's reasons I withdraw my nomination --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Valle Interandino Ancash.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: not a sufficiently good composition and is unsharp 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 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Short description 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Anatomy of a Housefly with numbered key.

 Oppose per Adam Cuerden. --Aqwis 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note : please be very careful when using information from infovisual.info : I know this website can contain many mistakes, I have seen quite a few for ships and related topics. ut I don't know much about flies :-) le Korrigan →bla 12:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I always try to complement with other information such as glossaries and studies. --Al2 16:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wings are displayed that way in order to make the wings of various insects consistent: basically, in a dragon fly, the wings are like this, as seen from above (You'll have to look at the source in the edit field, and I've left out the second pair of wings)
     O

COSTA | COSTA \_____|_____/ 

     |

But a fly holds its wings something like this, as seen from above (actually,t hey tend to overlap a bit, but this will do. 


  O

C// \\C O | | O S X S T / \ T A/ \A

</nowiki>


The fly's wings are generally found at rest atop its back, parallel to the surface it's standing on. You might be able to fix it by moving the abdomen to the front and adding slight foreshortening, so that we're seeing the wing from below. But this is unacceptable and unreal. The costa is traditionally shown at the top when showing just the wing, because of dragonflies and the like.

By the way, I'm sitting an exam on this sort of thing tomorrow =) Adam Cuerden 14:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and will fix it. thanks --Al2 12:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Info New version of the file, following recommendations by Adam Cuerden, good luck with the exam! --Al2 12:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a lot better. Two things: the mouthparts and other parts of the head are still slightly off - the labrum and hypopharynx are missing, for one - see [7] or ,[8]) - though note there's a bit of cheating going on there: They've been spread out so they can be seen, whereas, in reality, they're part of the food canal. Also, the accuracy of the labelling of the mouthparts are a bit off - the pseudotracheæ are grooves in the labellar lobes, for instance. If you want, I could e-mail you some textbook scans. The haltere is generally a creamy white - which would also make it show up better, and it'd probably be best to move the abdomen (not the thorax) to a higher layer so that it blocks the tiny bit of the wing that's now in front of it, which would help the perspective. The colouration of the body is technically a bit off, but I wouldn't worry much about that. It's getting there. Oh, also, if you wanted, I know the names of the veins in the wing. Adam Cuerden 10:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scans would be great (gmail:fiestoforo). Thanks for the information! I've noticed that models in these diagrams and pictures are altered somehow to depict its particular better. Not sure if that should apply in these kinds of diagrams. --Al2 11:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zigouillonbourdon.jpg, delisted

edit

Short description

  •  Keep Yes it's a bit scary how it changes. If this continues the images we feature today might be delisted in two years again. I would like if FP images got marked for example as FP2005 which could not be revoced. Thus you could see that yes this is not up to the standard of today but it was a FP2005 and I still think this image is good although it's far from perfect and I would not support it now. To make some kind of point I vote keep for this. /Daniel78 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scary? It's amazing how this process has encouraged such high quality picture taking. -- Ram-Man 17:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
High quality is not the scary part, I mean that we lose the information about the old images, not that we are getting better on the new ones. /Daniel78 17:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't lose them. They get a label stating that they used to be FP (so they are always part of FP history) and they surely are not deleted. Lycaon 20:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know they are not deleted :), I did not know about the label however. Are they in a category so you can easily find them ? /Daniel78 22:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can find them easily in Category:Formerly featured pictures. --Javier ME 22:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 Delist, 2 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 09:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Antinous Mandragone profil.jpg, delisted

edit

Short description 

result: 6 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 09:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg, not delisted

edit

A Persian Astrolabe

Lycaon perhaps you can spend some quality time reviewing your list of disqualified images then -- carol 12:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 Delist, 7 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 23:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Windmills in Campo de Criptana, Spain. 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

  •  Oppose Sorry, sure this is a great picture, but the shadow has issues and a studio shot needs to be greater than 1600x1200. -- Ram-Man 22:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done Shadow fixed and minimized. It's within the res limit, the guidelines don't mention anything about certain subjects needing a higher resolution than others. Benjamint 09:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding size, it is a guideline and it also says that For 'easy to take' images, reviewers may choose to demand more if the image would benefit from it., and I guess this is what Ram-Man is referring to. -- Slaunger 11:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I demand more than the bare minimum when it comes to studio shots. We're trying to build a collection of best possible, not merely adequate images. This image could conceivably be redone by another photographer with little effort and larger resolution, thus it is not special enough for me. -- Ram-Man 12:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But until someone does take a better picture, is this our best studio shot of a strawberry? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the best studio shot currently available, but if we have to feature every 'best' shot of every item available on Commons, then we're not done yet... ;-). Lycaon 08:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Ram-Man. Moreover 50% of the picture is pure white, so one could argue that the image is only 1Mpx. The technique and the quality however, are quite good, so please provide us with a huge STRAWBERRY ;-). Lycaon 15:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Great shot. I'd support a version with higher resolution. I took the liberty of editing the cats on the image page, see my edit summaries. -- Slaunger 22:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

The ancient desert town of Ghadames

 Comment What you see in the picture is a covered path of the city of Ghadames not a house. The doors on the left side are entrances of houses. This Berber man was walking, when he stopped to look the desert outside, I shot handheld in the dark alleyway (1/8s f/4 400ISO) thank to stabilized lens. Sure not a High QI but the man was not posing. --LucaG 16:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Peruvian Pisco Sour 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 10:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

(Part of) the Sheraton Hotel at El Gouna, Egypt 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 10:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 10:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

A classic saltbox, outside of Concord, MA. 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 10:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Don't abbreviate as Wiki (English version).png

edit

Don't abbreviate as Wiki.

edit

Short description 

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Jodie Foster, 2007

  •  Info Image is of Jodie Foster, an American actress and film producer, in Berlin in 2007. Apart from quality which is remarkable for a person of this stature, thanks for pointing out that out so the notability that was absent could be added (done). -Susanlesch 12:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... and she killed her hairdresser? ;-) --Herrick 10:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 10:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Ruines of the carthusian monastery “Cartoixa d’Escaladei” 

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 10:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

  •  Oppose I seems like a figure with significant value and information content, but it is not exceptional enough for me to consider it FP-worhty. The general simplicity of the figure correlates well with what it describes: The general anatomy. Despite that I think more "bells and whistles" could have been utilized. For instance, the figure is very 2D-like and lacks depth to make it more interesting for me. I am unable to verify the information content itself due to my lack of knowledge of the domain. In my review, I have assumed the information is correct - it usually is from this contributor. -- Slaunger 11:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I know Lycaon's preference for sienna and beige colors but this illu could be drawn more plastically with nicer gradients and colors, like now it looks a bit sad. --Richard Bartz 14:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 10:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Big turtle in the zoo of Sharm el-Sheikh (Egypt).

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: overexposed with blown highlights. Animals proposed for FP status also need to be properly identified ('big turtle' is not enough). 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 17:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Short description

  • * Comment I am sure there are! And considering the importance of the topic and the power of the image to sensibilize people of this grave world problem, please nominate them in order to make them more accesible to people. And let the people decide. --Tomascastelazo 20:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 02:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This picture reminds me of a joke a french friend told me about a belgian who thought the lake was shallow because the water reached up to the duck's belly only --Tomascastelazo 02:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Can these ducks be just a smidgin whiter? -- carol 09:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Carol - I cannot tell if you are joking! In case you are not... white subjects are difficult to represent because they fall between the end of the texture range and the end of the dynamic range, in the high luminosity end (in zone system photography, which I use for representation of subjects). That means that subjects that fall within this range will have tonal differences, but no texture on their surfaces, as it is the case here. If we were to increase luminosity or contrast, their entire bodies will block out in white. Now, there might be a color cast, but that is greatly dependent on output or display, which can be corrected (even the file itself can have a color bias within its information, but digitally speaking, I cannot tell, and I correct for that in output anyway). Regards, --Tomascastelazo 19:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was joking, and it was probably not a good idea to use a joke like that in a multi-language situation (this was a few shades of sarcasm) to point out that it is a great photograph, with the inky blackness of the water and still showing details of the white of the ducks. For some reason which I am not able to remember right now, the sarcasm seemed to fit with your statement about the depth of the water as well. I should apologize and take the proceedings here more seriously. Some situations have made that latter goal a challenge, however. -- carol 02:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Mallard drake standing 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Santes Creus monastery in Spain. Picture taken this summer

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: underexposed in most areas, but with overexposed, blown-out areas as well 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 18:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Info If I have nominated this image, it is presicely because there is a contrast between the darkness of the church and the colored glints of the stained glass that I found interesting. Kuxu76 20:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It's an interesting image for sure, but it's not really featured quality in my eyes. I wish the other opposers gave more constructive feedback other than meaningless question marks. Thanks. Redrocketboy 08:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This picture would probably be better at the end of a cloudy day and if the lights were turned on. That way, we could see both the stained glass clearly and the interior of the monastery, which imo would end up looking much better. Freedom to share 13:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Contestants in the Gerewol beauty contest, Niger 1997

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 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.

. Is this a joke? --MichaelMaggs 21:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Three young Wodaabe women at the Gerewol festival in Niger, 1997

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

.--MichaelMaggs 21:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit

The Colorado river next to Page,AZ 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit 

result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured --Simonizer 10:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

{{FPX|too small - [[User:Rocket000|Rocket000]]}} – It is large enough now. Lupo 08:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Steigenberger Hotel at El Gouna, Egypt 

result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Tartan ribbon

The first color photograph ever taken. Created in 1861. Nominating because of historical importance.

  •  Info Photographed by James Clerk Maxwell. - uploaded by Janke - nominated by Durova --Durova 07:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Durova 07:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment That is a cool image! This is the kind of thing that if it were to be considered FP should have more in the summary as well as making the Image page look nice by using the {{Information template}}. Thanks for posting it here. -- carol 07:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I had more information available I'd certainly expand. I was sorting through portraits of physicists when I stumbled across this. It completely surprised me to see it had never been nominated before. Durova 07:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Of very important historical value. I remember having supported some other landmark photos, too. Freedom to share 08:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose  Neutral I'm not sure yet. Rocket000 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC) It is cool and historical (considered the first colour photograph), but for something like this, I need more context since it's obviously graded on a different scale. Rocket000 08:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It looks like an upsampled version of any of the many smaller (reasonable quality) copies found on the internet. Lycaon 11:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't remember ever seeing this photograph in any of my textbooks or in any of my dads photography books. The wikipedia page makes it look like in the time that this man was supposed to be taking this photograph, he was instead receiving awards. That would itself be a difficult task as they did not have motorized vehicles then. This 'graph smells funny. -- carol 15:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of Wikipedia articles tell what day the image was created on (and Maxwell wasn't the photographer himself), nor does any article describe what Maxwell was doing on every day of 1861. Where does this complaint come from? Rmhermen 19:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This has been a featured image on the English language Wikipedia for a year.[9] See also this statement from the James Clerk Maxwell foundation. The text description on that project reads Tartan Ribbon, photograph taken by James Clerk Maxwell in 1861. Considered the first colour photograph. Maxwell had the photographer Thomas Sutton photograph a tartan ribbon three times, each time with a different colour filter over the lens. The three images were developed and then projected onto a screen with three different projectors, each equipped with the same colour filter used to take its image. When brought into focus, the three images formed a full colour image. The three photographic plates now reside in a small museum at 14 India Street, Edinburgh, the house where Maxwell was born. I hope this satisfies? Durova 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment So clearly he didn't produce the first colour photograph, just three black and white transparencies. So this is a relatively modern photo taken some time later (when real colour photography had been developed) of the three overlapping images projected onto a screen through coloured filters. Less excuse for poor quality, the image we're looking at is not from 1861. :-) --Tony Wills 00:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would you call it then, the first color slide projection? And would you consider a better copy of this image if one could be found? This is a scan from a textbook. From my reading of the English Wikipedia material, a scan from the 1961 Scientific American article might yield a better result. I'm considering heading over to a university for assistance with that, if it would make a difference to the outcome of the discussion. Durova 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you follow the comments and votes for images like this, the people delivering their opinions consider poor quality scans to be a 'historical fact' and worthy of being maintained all on its own merit. -- carol 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Dalai Lama by Luca Galuzzi

  •  Info Mr. Gyatso and his chair were on a stage, I was standing 5m from the stage and under it, so I couldn't see chair's legs. The hall was poorly enlightened and I used full flash, as every other photographer attending the conference. I uploaded these 3 pictures because I didn't find any high resolution photograph of Mr. Gyatso on Commons. --LucaG 21:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

1876 artwork sshowing the artist's ideal aquarium experience 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Escombo - Robert Ksiondz 01.JPG, not featured

edit

Robert Ksiondz from Escombo blues band. 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Nina Tower

Issue fixed. Thanks for the votes and comments. Please continue your votes. Baycrest(Talk) 07:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Autumn in Valsassina, Italy, October 2005 

result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chess in black -wmark.jpg, not featured

edit

Short description 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Albert Einstein 13:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Geodetic monument on the top of mountain Śnieżnik (Glatzer Schneeberg) 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Luzern old part of town.JPG, not delisted

edit

Short description 

result: 2 Delist, 5 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 10:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Loch Fada Storr Skye restitch 2007-08-22.jpg, not delisted

edit

Short description 

result: 1 Delist, 5 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 10:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Louvre 2007 02 24 c.jpg, not delisted

edit

Short description 

result: 4 Delist, 8 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 10:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MuseeDOrsay.jpg, not delisted

edit

Short description 

result: 1 Delist, 5 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 10:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Monumentvalley.jpg, not delisted

edit

Short description 

result: 2 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 10:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Seine wide.jpg, not delisted

edit

Short description 

result: 5 Delist, 6 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 10:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Toledo Skyline Panorama, Spain - Dec 2006.jpg, not delisted

edit

Short description 

result: 1 Delist, 10 Keep, 1 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 10:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sossusvlei south view.jpg, not delisted

edit

Short description 

result: 1 Delist, 6 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 10:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Regensburg Uferpanorama 08 2006.jpg, not delisted

edit

Short description 

result: 1 Delist, 8 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 10:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Field of hay bales - omeo.jpg, not delisted

edit

Short description 

result: 2 Delist, 4 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 10:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tagebau Garzweiler Panorama 2005.jpg, not delisted

edit

Short description 

result: 4 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 10:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lightning striking the Eiffel Tower - NOAA.jpg, not delisted

edit

Lightning striking the Eiffel Tower, June 3, 1902, at 9:20 P.M.

It was changed when it was scanned. The fact that it is here makes it a cheesy copy, especially if you are unwilling to repair the effects of the technology that produced it. Perhaps only untouched raw images should be accepted here for consistency? -- carol 02:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This is seriously a terrible scan. Pathetic and embarrassing to me. -- carol 02:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 Delist, 8 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 10:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Golden Gate Bridge Yang Ming Line.jpg, delisted

edit

Short description 

result: 7 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer 10:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Countryandcitydaegu.jpg, delisted

edit

Short description 

result: 6 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer 10:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GlockSousafonMG2003Cont.jpg, delisted

edit

Short description 

result: 7 Delist, 0 Keep, 1 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer 10:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Reims Cathedral was hit by shells in 1918. It has since been restored. Alternate version after minor cleanup.

  • You'd have to ask the uploader to be sure. I just addressed the obvious artifacts and adjusted the histogram. From the appearance it looked like a scan of some sort, although at 90 years old with no yellowing and only one crease I doubt it came from a newspaper. Durova 16:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Opposetoo grainy, is this a scan of a newsclipping? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'd love to support this picture, but would like to know if there isn't chance of rescanning it? Meaning, I think it's a great picture, but would like to know what the chance is of getting an improved-quality version. Is it my imagination, or does the picture lean somewhat to the left after the Photoshopping? Anrie 11:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't rotate it at all. Possibly the dark line provided visual balance for the uneven roof heights? I'm thinking of making a proposal at Village Pump for landmark images that don't meet our featured picture standards. Durova 17:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose low quality and moir pattern. --Pianist 16:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

  •  Info created by US Air Force - uploaded by Sagqs - nominated by Anrie
  •  Info Joseph Kittinger jumps from a record-breaking altitude of 31,3 km (that's in the stratosphere) on 6 Aug 1960, to test the Beaupre multi-stage parachute system created for air crew who were ejecting from increasingly high altitudes (en:Project Excelsior). My reasons for nominating are purely the "wow" factor and value: I know this isn't a technically excellent picture (not very sharp, etc.) but this 47-year old picture shows someone doing something that has never been repeated since. After seeing the videoclip of this on BBC's Earth: the Power of the Planet, I immediately searched the Commons for pictures of it and was surprised that this picture was never nominated before.
  •  Support --Anrie 12:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm not surprised it never got nominated: the quality is substandard. Lycaon 12:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's not like they could've gotten a human photographer to go up there with him, wait until lighting, etc. were perfect and then tell the guy "Okay, jump!" You really don't think that the historical value of this pictures overrides the lack of technical quality? Anrie 12:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To rephrase: I really don't think they could've done any better given the circumstances (extreme conditions, etc.) and the situation is not at all likely to be recreated. Anrie 12:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I agree with Anrie. The historical value overrides technical considerations, since it is a milestone in human achievement, even though it not may be of personal interest. The "quality" aspect of it must be evaluated according to the technical means of the times, not according to today´s standards. We cannot go back and reshoot once in a lifetime events. I can just see disqualifying Timothy O´Sullivan´s photographs of the US civial war, Gustavo Casasola´s photographs of the Mexican Revolution, Robert Capa´s photograph Moment of Death of the Spanish civil war or his work, on a silly argument about "technical quality". Technical quality takes second place in such extraordinary cases. To disqualify this type of work on such grounds is almost like disqualifying Galileo´s legacy based on the quality of his instruments. Like Newton said: I was standing on the shoulders of giants." Likewise, photographers today stand on the shoulders of giants. --Tomascastelazo 15:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Fully agree with Tomascastelazo. Great explanation, Tomas! Freedom to share 16:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support ack Anrie and Tomas Dori - Talk 17:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Technical flaws mitigated by value. -- Slaunger 21:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • * Comment I stared at the photograph for a few minutes, in silence... thinking about that moment... about Kittinger's state of mind... the preparations... the anticipation of the feat... the commitment... the courage... I saw the tape on the box, last minute adaptations?... clearly a lot of unknowns... the noise... the wind... the solitude of the act... and then he jumps... his back to the safety of the world... his face to life... that, in Mexico, we call testicles. 31.3 kilometers of them. This picture is a window into the human spirit. --Tomascastelazo 22:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.."that, in Mexico, we call testicles. 31.3 kilometers of them"... Now, that's a statement, which made me smile ;-) -- Slaunger 23:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Flower of Alpine Saxifrage

  •  Info created by Slaunger - uploaded by Slaunger - nominated by Slaunger --Slaunger 21:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I have contributed with more than 100 photos of more than 30 arctic plant species to Commons. Among those my favorite photo is of this flower of an Alpine Saxifrage (Saxifraga nivalis). I found this individual by coincidence on a steep cliff facing north near Upernavik, Greenland. The Saxifrage family is known as being specially adept at surviving in cracks of cliffs. The particular species shown here is furthermore specially adept at coping with a medium to high arctic oceanic environment. A plant, which exists despite all odds. The flowers are very small and you barely notice them in passing. I estimate the diameter of the flower on the photo was about 6mm. Thus, I have had to crop the image to a resolution which is below the normal 2MP guideline in order to have the subject fill the frame reasonably. The flower is not yet fully developed. There are no other contributions of this species on Commons.
  •  Neutral As creator. --Slaunger 21:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Ah!!! Visual caviar... nice... --Tomascastelazo 02:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support AKA MBG 08:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Merlijn 09:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Sorry, Slaunger, it is really a very nice picture in thumb size but that is not enough to mitigate the poor resolution and technical flaws, like the low DOF and noise. Most insect pictures have the same kind of problems and still the bar has raised very high for them. Also, the overall sharpness would be a lot better with another exposure choice: lower shutter speed and higher f number - Alvesgaspar 12:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to say sorry. I am very much aware of the sub-optimal technical conditions of the photo and the equipment used. I only nominate it because for this particular photo I see a chance that for some users the value and beauty and symmetry could mitigate the technical flaws. And the quality is IMO absolutely top-notch considering the camera used, the small subject, and the conditions (handheld on an overcast day while standing on a slippery cliff). It is by the way not possible for me to manually and independently control the aperture and shutter speed with the particular camera (very amateur-like, I know). Too bad the investment in a much better camera has such a low WAF:-( -- Slaunger 12:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment -- Perhaps if the image was not square; perhaps the uncropped version is better in a lot of ways. -- carol 13:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Info The square image size and centered composition is in this case a deliberate choise of mine, which IMO, match well with the almost perfect three-fold rotational symmetry of the flower. Normally, I avoid (and also oppose) centered compositions as they can seem boring, but in this case I find it justified. The original uncropped photo is, by the way, not available. I usually keep all my originals but in this case I erroneously saved the cropped file under the same file name as the original. -- Slaunger 13:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Of the whole vision of the human eye, only 1% or less is critically focused. That is, of what we see at any given instance, only 1% is in focus. Cover one of your eyes with one hand, and pick a text with 10 point size letters. bring the text to your face to the closest distance before it becomes blurry, that is, to the closest focusing distance. Pick any letter of a word and focus on it. Then, without moving your eye, looking directly at that particular letter, with your peripheral vision look at the letters beside it and you will see that maybe the immediate letters to the left and right will be in focus, but not from the second on. In spanish, this area of critical focus is called the FOVEA. Now, the reason we think we see everything in focus is the result of the brain, not the eye. The camera focuses in two ways, one with the focusnig rack, moving lens elements back and forward, and the other via aperture.
Why this explanation? Well, in this picture the depth of field is in fact shallow in general, but it has several important elements in critical focus, like the pairs of the jelly-like tips, part of the petals and the tips of the yellow whatever they are called in english. The eye moves from criticaclly focused parts to unfocused areas and back to critical focus, centering its attention on the focused elements, coming to rest and appreciating the image as a whole and mentally, in an unconcious manner, completing or focusing the rest of the image in the brain. It is indeed a visual pleasure to look at this image without the need to have to have everythng in focus. This is a zen image. Nice, simple, colorful, delicate, with a flow between focus and unfocused movement. --Tomascastelazo 14:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was an interesting exercise and enlightnening, encouraging remarks. Thank you. -- Slaunger 23:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I call them as I sees 'em... ;o) --Tomascastelazo 05:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, just for the reasons Tomascastelazo gave, I would almost have opposed this image. Our brain has a very efficient stitcher included, which unlike most stitching software works in 3D. I can focus back and forth through a scene in the ways my visual system suggests, and I will build myself a very sharp representation of whatever object I look at inside my brain. This does not work when my eyes are exploring a 2D image with a shallow focal plane, thus shallow-DOF images do not appear natural to me. However, the the DOF in the image is not catastrophic, especially when it is the only image on commons of this plant (I didn't check, I will trust Slaunger...). ps, while the visual field covered by the fovea may be just 1%, the informational content collected is 'way' more than that - over 50% of the visual cortex gets primary input from foveal receptors, and among other things color vision is severely reduced outside the fovea. --JDrewes 00:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • JDrewes Sometimes one one tries to cram a lot into a small paragraph, a lot of things are left unsaid. For me, shallow DOF images work fine, for it helps to focus attention on the subject. In this particular case, if works for me because my eyes rests on a few elements, rich in detail, without having my eye dart from here to there in a hurry... contemplating in an unhurried manner. I focus my attention on those elements, and the rest falls into place unobtrusively. If there is one thing I do not like about digital cameras is the fact that they yield too much DOF. I've adapted a Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.4 lens to my Canon 20D, which becomes a slight telephoto, and I shoot as wide open as I can. I am a shallow man I guess!!!--Tomascastelazo 01:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It's so beautiful / Es muy hermosa --Dtarazona 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gracias ;-) -- Slaunger 23:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Ack Alvesgaspar. Dori - Talk 17:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose A beautiful picture but Alvesgaspar is right. --MichaelMaggs 17:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Beautiful and usable picture and Alvesgaspar is wrong because he gives too much importance to technical analysis (if so a robot could choose the featured pictures !) --B.navez 10:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment I may be shooting myself in the foot with this comment, but I would actually like to say that in my opinion the statements you put forward about Alvesgaspar review is unfair, like stating that "...Alvesgaspar is wrong". If you go through Alves statements he is correct in every one regarding the technical conditions of the photo and the settings on the camera. And with his preferences he just cannot mitigate for those flaws. That is IMO a perfectly sound argument. It is a matter of opinion, not absolute truth. How you cast your vote depends in the end on your knowledge, your cultural background, personal preferences, etc., etc. I certainly do not agree with your analogy of letting a robot choose the featured pictures. I do not consider Alves review robotic. I find them qualified. -- Slaunger 21:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment I agree with B.navez in general terms. Fault can be found in most pictures in this forum and using the criteria that he points out, no picture could survive and could be done strictly in cuantitative terms. In fact, most pictures get selected by qualitative criteria, as well as disqualified. Fair judging must be done considering both aspects, cuantitative and qualitative criteria. Problem here is that the criteria around seems to have been extracted from Alice in Wonderland (sometimes), up is down and down is up. Also, B.navez statement "Alvesgaspar is wrong" is just as valid as "Alvesgaspar is right" per MichaelMaggs. Alvesgaspar himself uses words like "poor resolution" and "technical flaws" that while for him are valid arguments and apparently cuantitative in nature, they really are qualitative statements and with a negative connotation. If we were to ask Alvesgaspar how to measure either "poor resolution" or "technical flaws" first of all, he could not find a measuring scale or instrument applicable to all images and second, it would have to depend on a specific reproduction size, applicable only to this image in particular and its final destination. And it is a beautiful image, even if it has flaws... In spanish there is a saying about women, and think it applies here: "There is no beautiful woman without fault nor ugly one without grace." Grace takes the day. --Tomascastelazo 22:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Of course what I meant was just I disagree with Alvesgaspar. He is not more wrong than he is right. It is just his opinion, respectable, anyhow technically accurate. But we are not rating photographs, we are featuring pictures, so what is pictured is also very important and making such a shot of Saxifraga nivalis in the wild is not the same than photographing daisies in one's garden. Let's take care of the rarity of the subject and how the picture could be usable (here remarkable to show the typical (but small) characteristics of the family of Saxifragaceae).--B.navez 14:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I am glad you passed by to clarify your stance. I, of course agree with your conclusion to support he photo, but I also respect Alves POV. -- Slaunger 16:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar. (We're not rating flowers here but photographs) Rocket000 15:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like it. Basik07 21:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Lerdsuwa 10:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose AS Alvesgaspar. --Karelj 15:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As Alvesgaspar said. Sorry. --TM 10:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Winter in Tyrol 

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit

Two galaxies embrace

  •  Info created by NASA/HST - uploaded by Clh288 - nominated by me -- Anrie 11:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Before anyone dismisses this as "yet another picture of a galaxy", I would like to point out why I think this deserves FP-status. As with some of my other nominations, the value, for me, lies in what is happening on the pictures, rather than the technical excellence of it (although, here, I don't think the technical quality should be scoffed at). The picture shows Arp 87, a system of two galaxies, NGC 3808A and NGC 3808B. These galaxies (located some 300 million light years away) started passing each other about 200 million years ago and their current embrace is due to the galaxies' gravitation pull. Over the next millions of years, these galaxies might seperate, or, if gravity wins the day, get pulled into each other.
  •  Support --Anrie 11:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - When I compare other pictures of interacting galaxies, like Image:APG107.jpg, en:Image:Arp299.jpg and even Image:NGC4568.jpg, this particular one seems like very good quality. Anrie 14:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, there are better pictures of interacting galaxies. --Aqwis 18:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment - Yes, but this is specific one is quite special, as it shows the material being taken up by the one galaxy (the tentacles) and that that material is revolving around the other galaxy perpendicular to that specific galaxy's rotation. Not a common occurence. Anrie 08:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet another  Comment - I must admit I do not understand why you consider the linked image (Image:Messier51.jpg) "better". That one does show one galaxy in great detail, but the second one doesn't look like much more than a bright spot. Also, the "interacting" part isn't as clear on that picture as it is here. I mean, c'mon, NGC 3808A has NGC 3808B lassoed! Anrie 14:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit

A Bold GNU Head

I withdraw my nomination 68.216.187.41 03:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]

Image:Cranes made by Origami paper.jpg

edit

Origami cranes

edit 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit 

result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit

Reichstag building in Berlin, Germany 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 12:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

Supporting a picture because it lacks wow... interesting. :) Rocket000 16:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:-) One could create a boring picture of an interesting subject, no? I find this an interesting picture of a boring subject. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Portrait of United States Civil War general William Tecumseh Sherman, taken between 1865 and 1880. 

result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 12:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

A full moon and 25 second exposure allowed sufficient light into this photo taken at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station during the long Antarctic night. The new station can be seen at far left, power plant in the center and the old mechanic's garage in the lower right. Red lights are used outside during the winter darkness as their spectrum does not pollute the sky, allowing scientists to conduct astrophysical studies without artificial light interference. The green light in the sky is the aurora australis.

An edited version of this is a featured picture on the English Wikipedia. Sorry for the late comment. -- Avenue 11:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

 Comment EXIF data available in original picture page. --LucaG 23:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 14:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 14:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sun behind the Heel Stone.jpg, delisted

edit

Short description 

result: 5 Delist, 2 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 00:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (Last two votes were posted to late)[reply]

Image:Helicopter rescue sancy takeoff.jpg, not delisted

edit

Short description 

result: 4 Delist, 7 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 00:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Topographic map of Scotland

  • That's a question I've already asked myself : make a detailed map with fewer labels in order to see better the topography ? It might look a bit naked I think, loosing part of the information and so, the detailed side. Upload another « light » version ? But will it be used ? May be I can decrease the font size, specifically for this one as I uploaded a JPG version to ease the viewing (the SVG one is really heavy) and so it's not limited with the bad rendering of the font using a size below 18. Sting 19:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The SVGs have embedded bitmaps anyway. Rocket000 16:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question As Scotland is an English-speaking country, should we not vote on the English version? If this were a map of France wouldn't we prefer the French version? --MichaelMaggs 06:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It could actually find this one practically useful one day. I'll forward it to my Geography teacher. :-) Any chances of doing one for the whole of Britain, or better still for the whole of Europe. (If you took the time to do one for the whole of Europe, Commons would have to be renamed to "Sting's map masterpieces with some other media too" in your honour :-) Don't, however, do that on Christmas. Spend it with your family, not inkscape)Freedom to share 21:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 00:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Map of Scotland 

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 00:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 00:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Allegory of war and Law - Prunksaal - Austrian National Library.jpg, featured

edit

Short description 

result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 00:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 00:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit

The picture captures well the movement of the dance, Taepyeongmu.

I like here: action, color, and the dance. AKA MBG 08:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit

Le moulin de Valmy 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 00:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit

MP4/22 of Fernando Alonso

To the being a sponsor I do not violate the copyright. Sorry for my inglish. --V.J.Tornet ¿Es conmigo? 14:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 00:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit

MP4/22 of Fernando Alonso With retouched sponsors.

But you have not made this photo. --V.J.Tornet ¿Es conmigo? 22:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely not, I'am a nature photographer --Richard Bartz 22:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot then to put the species name on this.
This is a unknown species --Richard Bartz 14:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 00:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]

Image:Slottet - framsida 1.jpg, not featured

edit

The Royal Casle in Oslo, Norway 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 00:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit

Old locomotive in mine. 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 00:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
edit

'Jaffles' or 'Toasties' 

result: 1 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 00:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/December_2007&oldid=94200023"