Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2007

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

Vintage catalogue of corsets and one early bra - not featured

Info uploaded by Haabet - nominated by Diligent --Diligent 18:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 18:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pic isn't my cup of tea - MPF 14:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 19:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 23:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alipho 23:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GranTelescopioCanarias_GTC.jpg - not featured

Info Gran_Telescopio_Canarias from Benutzer:Schwenn
Support Excellent composition, nice colours --Ikiwaner 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; composition. Sign is distracting. Would be better without sign, or with sign as focal point. Dunc|☺ 12:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is good, especially in full size. Rama 13:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting composition, very poor quality: pixelation clearly visible in building and trees. - Alvesgaspar 14:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Dunc on the distracting sign - MPF 14:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC) closed[reply]

 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 05:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Okonjima Lioness.jpg - featured

Info Lioness from Benutzer:Falense
Support Excellent composition, high resolution, sharp, and not too much contrast in the head. This guys lucky shot! --Ikiwaner 22:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply a great picture! --Leyo 23:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 06:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atoma 07:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 14:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --You obviously need skill for photography, but I've found you also need some luck when your subject is wildlife. Great photo! Jnpet 17:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support no question abt it --AngMoKio 20:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 08:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking at the other pictures, both luck and skill --Digon3 02:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not FP material for me. Lycaon 09:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me neither. Tbc 12:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nor for me. norro 16:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think she is pregnant. --SvonHalenbach 21:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Luck? For a photographer, there is no luck, just skill. Freedom to share 17:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like it, but it doesn't "inspire" me... --Ibn Battuta 05:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 21:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's not from zoo and everything is perfect. --Arad 21:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 22:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 14 support, 4 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 05:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Young grasshopper on grass stalk03.jpg - featured

Info created by Fir0002 - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by MichaelMaggs --MichaelMaggs 08:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 08:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer 09:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dunc|☺ 12:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ziga 14:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the 'grass stalk' looks like Triticum aestivum (wheat) - MPF 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not too bad a subject, yet the definition of the words 'in focus'. Try to submit it Quality Images as well. Freedom to share 16:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 17:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support no question abt it --AngMoKio 20:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 08:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps a little more depth of field would have been good, but it's very hard in macro... David.Monniaux 16:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Camster2 20:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nemo5576 11:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Olei 12:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic Legendry 13:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Legendry[reply]
Support / tsca @ 21:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 14:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 22:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 17 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 12:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TokioShibuya-Kimono.jpg - not featured

Info created by Sl-Ziga - uploaded by Sl-Ziga - nominated by Sl-Ziga --Ziga 14:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 14:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrejj 14:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ladies are nice but the picture quality is very poor. Please note that the guidelines about image quality apply to the pictures in full resolution, not in thumb size. - Alvesgaspar 14:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: if 3543x5315 is poor, how much is not poor? --Ziga 18:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please try to downsample the picture, like Dschwen is suggesting. It is clear that the actual size is too high considering the image quality - Alvesgaspar 19:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar -- Simonizer 15:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment obviously a scan. The resolution is too high for the film grain of the original. But the grain should be considered in relation to the image size. Downsampling would increase percieved quality considerably. So the pic is fine by me. Not ok is the signature on the picture, those are strongly discouraged! --Dschwen 15:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: yes, a slide scan (TIFF was 58MB) --Ziga 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I´m not very firm in that, but whats about the copyright status of the seen Logos (e.g. McDonalds)? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Simonizer (talk • contribs)
- Irrelevant as they are only background and not central subject of the image. --Dschwen 16:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the picture as it brings back memories of my Tokyo days, but not sure how this could be used. If it's an article on kimonos, you could probably find better samples, and if it's about Shibuya, I can think of other images which would show the more typical aspect of that Tokyo district, like the Shibuya crossing, or the Spanish steps for example. I do like the image though so I'll support it. Jnpet 18:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Alvesgaspar - MPF 21:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 21:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems odd to me that high resolution is suddenly interpreted as a disadvantage of the picture. A simple downsampling shows that little grain is visible at a still high resolution. --Dschwen 09:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noise levels - Lycaon 09:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose grain Lestat 17:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the version edited by Dschwen has far less grain. Fg2 05:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad contrast - Les contrastes sont trop mauvais. -- Pseudomoi (to chat on WP) 16:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Signature on the picture. Yann 21:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 9 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 15:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Reinette grise du Canada p1160060.jpg - not featured

I tried to get a good rendering of the surface and the colors of the apple.

Info created/uploaded/nominated by David.Monniaux
Support --David.Monniaux 11:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would promote the picture to QI with no hesitation. But for FP a touch of magic is needed... Why a crop so tight? Alvesgaspar 13:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original is here, would you think a larger cropping would be neat? In any case, if you feel like proposing to QI, feel free to do so... :-) David.Monniaux 14:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the original is much better in my opinion -- Simonizer 07:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ack Alvesgaspar --Atoma 16:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Alvesgaspar norro 16:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral agree with Alvesgaspar --AngMoKio 19:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 12:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:OpelPic.jpg - not featured

Info photo taken by flickr user extranoise - uploaded by Quadzilla99 - nominated by Quadzilla99 --Quadzilla99 18:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quadzilla99 18:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like this photograph due to its composition and athmosphere, but there are some aspects that let me oppose: 1. duration of exposure causes motion blur on the people 2. noise in the shadow of the car and on the covered (left) front wheel (why only there?) 3. strange green glow around the left front wheel. norro 19:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Norro --Uria a 22:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the blurriness on the people is a desired effect. Quadzilla99 23:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be an excellent image without characters in the image. Looks surrealistic, like it was rendered (reminds me of the film Cars) --Atoma 13:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 15:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Jacopo86 11:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- copyright issue needs to be resolved, the people are to distracting so I would oppose anyway. Gnangarra 13:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the flickr source page. The image is released under CC-2.0, therefore appropriate licensing. norro 14:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This seems to bee a tone-mapped HDR image, composed from several (2?) bracketed exposures. So it is not blur you on the people but multiple exposure. I seriously doubt this effect is desired, but is is hard to avoid with this technique. A solution would be taking several shots at each exposure and combine them with manual masking to remove all moving objects and people. --Dschwen 12:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 7 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 23:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fk-040.JPG - not featured

Description:Fractale
Source:User:Avi kedmi
Proposer par:Wiki-MG**** @@@-fr Accueil fr:Accueil 09:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWiki-MG**** @@@-fr Accueil fr:Accueil 09:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atoma 10:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you oppose, please give reasons, per the guidelines above. --MichaelMaggs 18:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read the guidelines above before nominating. Pictures should be, at least, 2000x1000 pixels - Alvesgaspar 10:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution Lestat 15:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto on resolution; 46KB is much too low. Would like to see a hi-res version, though. - MPF 22:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ sorry but too small, would love to see it at a larger size as it is very interesting. 74.132.173.188 23:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC) No anonymous votes, please Alvesgaspar 23:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 12:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Image-Festiwal Sztuki Ludowej Iława 3 23 lipca 2006.jpg

Image:Bagger-garzweiler.jpg - not featured

Info created by Martinroell - uploaded by Snorky - nominated by Atoma --Atoma 19:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great panorama, I'd categorize it in the XTreme machines category. --Atoma 19:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support there are some stiching-flaws...still a great picture --AngMoKio 20:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ This picture was rejected last month in the English WP FP candidates due to distortion and stitching errors. There are some minor flaws but they don't compromise IMO its overall quality and interest. The distortion is part of the image composition an shouldn't be considered as a flaw. It is an impressive picture deserving to be featured. - Alvesgaspar 20:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Changed my mind. The curved wires are too much! - Alvesgaspar 18:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I disagree. The distortion and stitching faults are a major annoyance. Nice as a thumbnail, but not FP material at full size. --Dschwen 20:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, some stitching errors, but the whole image (and the machine) still look impressive. --Atoma 20:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - have to agree, there are some awful stitching errors (particularly on the top right arm) and distortion (those curved wires are grotesque!) - MPF 21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 08:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support distortion indicates that it is only one "hand" moving --Ziga 18:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question sorry, could you elaborate on that please? --Dschwen 21:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - uups, observing more thorough, it's not moving, but bad siches on the 2nd from left and cut wires between 3 and 4 from left --Ziga 11:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose distortion - Lycaon 09:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Hi-tacks 13:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I don't think the stitching artifacts are distracting, they add some movement to the photo. Husky 21:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I agree with Husky. Besides, the overall composition more than makes up for minor flaws. --Ibn Battuta 05:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As mentioned above: too many stitching errors and distorstion. --Olei 12:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 6 support, 7 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 20:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Elm edited.jpg - not featured

Info nominated by Atoma --Atoma 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photo drew my eye. --Atoma 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a wonderful scene and composition...but the technical quality of the picture is unfortunatelly very low --AngMoKio 20:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really a shame... - Alvesgaspar 21:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ArtMechanic 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 08:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support great. --Jeses 11:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, even if it is blurred in the middle --Digon3 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack AngMoKio Lycaon 09:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Hi-tacks 13:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 21:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 5 support, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:100 3508.JPG - featured

Info created by Henri Camus - uploaded by Stevage - nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The first feeling is just ... WoW. But then we open the image in full size and realize that the photographic quality is quite low. Still I can't vote against this perfect composition. I'll wait for someone with some expertize in "photoshopping" - Alvesgaspar 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 08:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - gobeirne 19:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some flaws but minor until viewing at very large size -- Lerdsuwa 09:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 09:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but rename the picture, please! --MRB 13:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 18:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition --MichaelMaggs 21:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Alvesgaspar is right --Jeses 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 10 support, 2 neutral >> featured Alvesgaspar 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The missing square puzzle - not featured

Info This is a simpler variation of the missing square paradox, popularized by Sam Loyd and Martin Gardner. I made this puzzle more than twenty years ago (in wood) and haven’t found till now any written reference to it. However, and because its principle is quite simple, I believe it might be hidden is some 19th century puzzle book. The aim of this animation is to deceive and puzzle the reader, not to explain the apparent paradox. That way, maybe he/her will become interested in the full explanation. Animation created, uoloaded and nominated by Joaquim Alves Gaspar
Support --Alvesgaspar 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --I can see the importance of it, but the graphics is not that good. Uria a 04:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 08:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 17:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very interesting animated GIF image. Highly informative yet simple enough to be understandable. Freedom to share 22:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the wide border and the illustration doesn't point out that the perimeter of the big square changes during the process. norro 18:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and understandable with the explanation. Nl74 08:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sossusvlei desert in Namibia afrika.jpg

Sossusvlei desert, Namibia Sossusvlei desert, rotated 2°CCW Sossusvlei desert, rotated, but without loss of sharpness

Original version - not featured

Info created by Martin van Triest - uploaded by Petrusbarbygere - nominated by Leyo --Leyo 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leyo 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A striking image, perhaps overdone in Photoshop, but no doubt deliberately made to resemble a painting. I like it. --MichaelMaggs 22:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now supporting edited version --MichaelMaggs 22:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support some digital Velvia is OK --Ikiwaner 22:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support fantastic norro 23:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 06:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo && Comment It would be nice if you uploaded it in more than 2 MP. --Atoma 07:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Please check the license of this photo, doesn.t seem right. - Alvesgaspar 08:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose License is not ok. DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS! -- Simonizer 08:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I'm afraid I don't agree with Simoniser.. The wording you have quoted is from the standard web-site licence terms, which presumably you found by clicking on the 'view image license' link below the photo on http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=view&id=270109. But these terms explicitly say the "All Images on the Website are copyrighted and they are the properties of SXC or its Image providers." (my emphasis). In this case, copyright lies with the photographer, Martin van Triest, not the owners of the website to which the image has been uploaded. And the photographer has explictly stated that "There are no usage restrictions for this photo": in other words, that he has released it into the public domain. The quoted words simply do not apply. --MichaelMaggs 10:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info OK, on reconsideration, maybe things aren't necessarily as clear as I suggested above. One possible interpretation is that the words "There are no usage restrictions for this photo" should be read as a statement by the photographer that he is reserving no additional rights over and above what is stated by the standard web-site licence. To be on the safe side, the photographer should be contacted to indicate his intentions. I haven't done that as it requires registration on the SXC site. --MichaelMaggs 11:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't question the freedom of use of this image but only the terms of the licence: "I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide". Since the image was not uploaded by its author (who probably doesn't even know), the text seems inappropriate. - Alvesgaspar 12:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ziga 14:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice pic, but it looks tilted; would be better if rotated 2° or 3° CCW - MPF 14:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support An image that deserves FP status. Freedom to share 16:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ it reminds me of a scene in the movie "The Cell" ...great photo --AngMoKio 20:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 1 neutral >> not featured (see other version below) Alvesgaspar 10:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotated edit - featured

Info Rotated 2°CCW to make the foreground plain level - MPF 10:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - MPF 10:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support both versions --Atoma 17:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AngMoKio 19:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 21:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support both versions -- Lycaon 09:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The thumbnail lost lots of sharpness. What happened? norro 16:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, no idea. All I did was rotate, crop to remove the white edge triangles so created, and save. - MPF 22:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not only the thumbnail that has lost sharpness. Also the full size image seems less sharp to me. Maybe the 2°CCW rotation should be done with another program. --Leyo 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Changed to the edited version. --Leyo 16:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 18:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tatooine, here we come! Freedom to share 21:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC) (By the way, this joke refers to Star Wars in case you did not get it. It was meant as a compliment that he produced something as wonderful as we usually only see in high-budget productions :-) )[reply]
Oppose and delete. The image is from an unacceptable source, it's also tagged incorrectly (with a -self tag when the uploader was not the copyright holder). SXC claims that their license applies to all images, just as Wikipedia claims that all text is available under the GFDL. It only takes a moment to visit their message base and see that many of their contributors expect the images will be used only in accordance to the license agreement there. --Gmaxwell 17:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 8 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 10:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotated edit (sharp) - not featured

Info Rotated, but this time without a loss of sharpness. Colors slightly enhanced. --Leyo 12:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The sharpness is good but the oversaturated colours now spoil the effect, for me. --MichaelMaggs 18:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this version, it looks more surreal. --Atoma 00:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (see other version above) Alvesgaspar 10:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry the Navigator with a caravel - not featured

Info Padrão dos Descobrimentos: Monument to the Portuguese Discoveries (detail). Lisbon, Portugal. Created, uploaded and nominated by - -Alvesgaspar 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (please see in full resolution) --Alvesgaspar 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 08:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - very nice, but . . . cropped at the left, part of the sculpture is missing - MPF 11:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition. MPF is more or less right abt the cropped guy on the left...but as the momnument is a lot bigger than what we see on this picture i accept that. Otherwise a a detail-picture of that monument wouldn't be possible. --AngMoKio 19:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --chosovi 11:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support = ditto AngMoKio --Diligent 23:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 23:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- sorry, I don't like the light. Lycaon 17:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with MPF and Lycaon norro 23:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That really bad, the picture is good, but I do not like the light. Romary 10:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too bad it's cropped on the left. Light is flat. --MassimoL 09:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 23:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 10:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:USS Pennsylvania moving into Lingayen Gulf.jpg - not featured

Info created by United States Navy - uploaded by W.wolny - nominated by TomStar81 --TomStar81 00:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TomStar81 00:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 08:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can you state why you think this should be a FP? I somehow have a problem to see sth in the picture that would justify a promotion to FP. It is for sure a interesting historical picture, which is of value especially in the wikipedia. But as FP...i dont know... --AngMoKio 19:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be completely honest, I nominated the picture because it is a personal favorite of mine. IMHO, this is an execelent example of black and white photography, and its location here on the sea creates a powerful and moving picture, which may or may not be proper justification for promotion. TomStar81 22:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good picture that also has historical value. Freedom to share 22:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 01:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 15:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The picture looks nice and has historical value, but I don't see FP value. The composition sets the main ship almost right into the middle and then leaves much room to the right that IMHO in this case doesn't fit perfectly. Also, I'm not convinced of its, uh, "wow factor"... --Ibn Battuta 15:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree. Historical value not enough to ignore quality issues - Alvesgaspar 20:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality, resolution and compositon -- Gorgo 16:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Heh, this photo is so iconic it's the cover image for one of the books on the Pacific War. But no, it's not a 12-megapixel art image. For an en: version I uploaded ages ago, I cropped on the bottom and right to emphasize the ships more. Stan Shebs 18:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 08:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Ibn Battuta - MPF 22:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Wing-Chi 21:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 6 support, 7 oppose  >> not featured Alvesgaspar 11:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glacial lakes, Bhutan.jpg - featured

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Brian0918 - nominated by Jon Harald Søby. Featured in the English Wikipedia.
Support --Jon Harald Søby 08:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 09:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Alvesgaspar 16:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 18:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Freedom to share 22:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How many NASA pictures appear that we did not pass as FP? Just wondering... Freedom to share 22:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 20:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 23:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 23:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wing-Chi 21:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 11 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 11:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ramphastos toco2.jpg - not featured

Info created by Mateus Hidalgo - uploaded by Mateus Hidalgo - nominated by Mateus Hidalgo ---- Mateus Hidalgo 02:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---- Mateus Hidalgo 02:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to much cropped. it would be better if the beak is visible. --Jacopo86 11:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Jacopo86. Lindas cores, tente outra vez com o bico e cabeça inteiros! - Alvesgaspar 14:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cropped too much and a large empty area in the upper RHS and lower LHS --Benjamint444 23:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionSorry, what's "RHS" and "LHS"? -- Mateus Hidalgo 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentRight Hand Side and Left Hand Side --Jacopo86 10:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --medium69 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 11:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Aalst Belfort 3.jpg

Image:Groupe piles LR6.jpg - not featured

Info created by Alipho - uploaded by Alipho - nominated by Alipho --Alipho 21:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alipho 21:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest you review the guidelines. This picture has too low a resolution, and the depth of field is much too small. Perhaps you could have another go? --MichaelMaggs 22:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose read guidelines concerning resolution please....apart of that, nothing in focus, composition seems quite random to me --AngMoKio 22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems like a random bunch of batteries. The resolution is too low. --Digon3 23:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad quality -LadyofHats 08:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 16:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flower head.jpg - not featured

Info created by nl74 - uploaded by nl74 - nominated by nl74 --Nl74 00:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support botanical illustration with detailed description --Nl74 00:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shallow DOF. --Atoma 13:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shallow DOF helps to focus the main subject: the stigmas and pollens, illustrating spatiotemporal sexual dimorphism of disc flowers. Thanks for your vote. Nl74 10:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --medium69 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ford Field Super Bowl XL night.jpg - not featured

Info created by flickr user ifmuth - uploaded by Quadzilla99 - nominated by Quadzilla99 --Quadzilla99 00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quadzilla99 00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too crowded, no obvious subject --Wj32 06:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed -- Simonizer 11:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Wj32 and Simonizer. Furthermore quality is not too good norro 16:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, too crowded, wrong angle--Digon3 22:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-LadyofHats 08:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I really like the colours, but the overexposure and the composition made me give an 'oppose'. Husky 12:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 7 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1959 Ford Thunderbird Convertible.jpg - not featured

Info created by Morven - uploaded by Morven - nominated by MG --Wiki-MG**** @@@-fr Accueil fr:Accueil 10:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wiki-MG**** @@@-fr Accueil fr:Accueil 10:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice car, but the picture is just a snapshot, so nothing special. And the quality could also be better -- Simonizer 11:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Boboseiptu 13:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you oppose, please give reasons, per the guidelines above. --MichaelMaggs 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Simonizer norro 16:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 16:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Light dispersion conceptual.gif - not featured

$diffraction of white light in a prism.$

Info created by Kieff - uploaded by Kieff - nominated by SvH
Support Phantastic!--SvonHalenbach 22:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I like this way of showing light refraction and dispersion. However the size of the animated picture is too small and the light "corpuscules" of diferent wave lengths are too big. Alvesgaspar 00:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I wasn't expecting this to be nominated! And I uploaded it just a few hours ago! Anyway, since this is now a FP canditate, then I guess we do need it at a larger size. It is now 450px wide (that should be enough), and the "photons" are a bit smaller too. I don't want them too small, otherwise the rainbow effect won't be very effective. — Kieff | Kieff_Wikipedia | Talk 05:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another suggestion: the stream of "photons" should be continuous from the begining of the animation, the feeling of motion wouldn't be lost. - Alvesgaspar 11:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Purge your browser caches. I also made it 700px wide, the photons slower and even smaller. The file is actually smaller now as well, I just needed 8 frames for the animation. — Kieff | Kieff_Wikipedia | Talk 17:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Agree with the above. Hope that it would not be too difficult to fix. What software did you use? It would be a good idea to write that down as well. Anyways, it is amazing that it was put up as an FP candidate so quickly after upload. Freedom to share 13:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not at all, I still have the code, it's just a matter of changing the parameters :) ... I actually did this (and several other animations for Wikipedia) using mIRC. I love how it's so easy and quick to code graphics ("picture windows") on it, so I use it all the time. I won't be releasing the code, though. Can't be bothered to clean it up and write a documentation for it :P ... And I don't really see anyone being seriously interested on it anyway.... — Kieff | Kieff_Wikipedia | Talk 17:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bom trabalho, acho que está bastante melhor agora (good work, I think it is much better now). Só uma pergunta: as relações entre as velocidades de propagação associadas a cada uma das cores são as reais, ou houve algum exagero para tornar a animação mais clara ? (just one question: the ratio between the velocities of propagation of the various colours is the correct one, or was it exaggerarted to make the animation more clear?)- Alvesgaspar 18:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They were exaggerated and fine-tuned for effect, otherwise there wouldn't be a noticeable difference and the model wouldn't be as effective. — Kieff | Kieff_Wikipedia | Talk 19:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice work! - MPF 22:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! Jnpet 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 18:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 20:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jeses 23:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I really, really like this illustration since it is very nice and clear, but I have to oppose due to physical reasons. Let me explain:
1. The dots indicate that light consists of particles, which is not right. Light is electromagnetic radiation (although there is the w:Wave–particle_duality). I would like to see waves behind all the dots or even just waves.
2. The dots (indicating the light) move with different speed inside the prism, but the speed of electromagnetic radiation does not depend on the frequency/wavelengths.
I'm not a physicist, but this is my state of knowledge as electrical engineer. Probably most of wikipedia users won't recognise that, but I think that featured pictures should be absolutely correct. I will love supporting, if this is done. norro 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's why I called it conceptual. It's not meant to be entirely accurate, it's just a simple model to explain a certain concept. Like I've stated before, my goal was to show how different wavelengths (colors) of light behave as they travel through a medium, and how that's related to the phenomenon of refraction and dispersion. The dots serve this purpose pretty well, I think. I understand it can be misleading, but if this image is used in an article, and if it has a decent explanation on the image page (gonna work on that now), it should be enough to avoid most of that misconception. I could (and I will) make a similar version involving little waves, but I'll have to find some time for that one, since it'd be a bit more complicated. Also, light DOES slowdown when travelling through a medium, and the shorter the wavelength, the slower it will travel. The only place where light (of any wavelength) travels always at the same speed is in vacuum. Things can travel faster than light in a medium, though, and that's where Cherenkov radiation comes from. But back to the model, you can see that once the "photons" leave the prism to the black vacuum, their speeds are once again the same, so the model is correct in that aspect as well. — Kieff | Kieff_Wikipedia | Talk 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, see the alternate image posted here. Nothing against it or anything, but I must admit, I think it conveys little information about dispersion except the fact that it happens! There are little clues in the angle of light while it is inside the prism (though it gets wrong on the exit), but you just can't expect someone to look at it and understand what's going on, especially if the person isn't already familiarized with refraction and dispersion. For all educational purposes, it's just as good as a static image. This is what I was trying to avoid. I wanted something to show, conceptually, what goes inside the prism, and for that I needed individual parts moving, so I picked dots (mainly because it was easier to understand and follow - as well as code! - but also because I thought it would work reasonably well.) It works, but it is not entirely accurate. But again, isn't that how it usually goes? We always use simplified and inaccurate scientific models in order to teach people new concepts (Newtonian physics and gravity instead of General Relativity, frictionless systems, point masses and charges, electrons as particles in orbit, etc.)... I believe that as long as we make the inaccuracy clear, we shouldn't have a problem with them. I think this applies to this image. We teach a concept, and we filter out the inaccuracies later on with a more in-depth explanation. Anyway, I'll try making a version with little waves, but I don't think complaining about inaccuracy is a valid point against the model. It's nothing a bit more of insight can't fix, and by then the model will have done its purpose, and it would have done it well enough. — Kieff | Kieff_Wikipedia | Talk 22:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What causes the dispersion of light in the prism is precisely the fact that different wavelengths have different refraction angles, due to small differences in phase velocity. Alvesgaspar 20:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support pink floyd forever! ;-) --AngMoKio 19:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this gives the wrong idea that the photons (big and white) are split into smaller colored photons when entering the glass surface of a prism. wrong didactic image in that sense. --Diligent 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If I were to judge the mere beauty: Sure, the colors are nice, the idea with the dark background is both helpful and pretty. But I'm distracted by the little "dots", similarly to Norro. It's not that this picture is inaccurate in terms of "too rough", but inaccurate in terms of "abstracting into the wrong direction": If I see light, I don't see dots. If a model shows me dots, this is novel information that should be accurate (and meaningful). Looking forward to the wave version, Ibn Battuta 05:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack other opposers -- Lycaon 13:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I, too, am concerned about the potentially inaccurate impression that this gives a viewer who doesn't understand the underlying physics. There's too much that will tend to mislead. But I do think it's a very nice idea. --MichaelMaggs 13:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Prolineserver 15:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack other opposers, especially Diligent. --Leyo 15:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 23:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 10 support, 1 neutral, 7 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Malpighia glabra2.jpg - not featured

Info uploaded by Mateus Hidalgo - nominated by Mateus Hidalgo -- Mateus Hidalgo 23:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mateus Hidalgo 23:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice, well focused --Jeses 23:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lugusto • ҉ 00:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture, may well qualify as a Quality Image but lacks the wow factor for FP. Branch in foreground is distracting. Alvesgaspar 08:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a good compostion, cause subject is centered -- Simonizer 09:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the technical quality of the picture is really good. ...but the wow-factor is missing ;) --AngMoKio 19:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --norro 12:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Catinaccio dal Guncina.jpg

300px|Catinaccio/Rosengarten from Guncina/Guntschna

Info created by Boboseiptu - uploaded by Boboseiptu - nominated by Boboseiptu --Boboseiptu 13:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original version(left) - not featured

Support --Boboseiptu 13:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice landscape, but centered composition makes the pic boring. The snow of the mountains is overexposed and the overall quality is below FP standard. -- Simonizer 15:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Simonizer norro 16:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Derbeth ^talk 16:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version(right) - not featured

Comment i tried to touch up the image -- Boboseiptu 18:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Centered composition, and the trees are disturbing. I would like to see more of the mountians in the background. --Digon3 22:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Derbeth ^talk 16:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dog (Pavlemadrid).jpg - not featured

Dog in Spain

Info created by Pavlemadrid - uploaded by Pavlemadrid - nominated by Pavlemadrid --Pavlemadrid commons 16:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pavlemadrid commons 16:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not a high quality picture, not a high quality object. --Hedwig in Washington 18:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - very blurred - MPF 23:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose horrible quality ~ <3 bunny 00:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality unsuficient -LadyofHats 07:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 10:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very blurry, grainy and overall not good quality. ~ Arjun 19:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Noisy, blurry, bad colours. Husky 12:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Image deleted >> nomitation withdrawn (not featured) Alvesgaspar 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Infant smile.jpg - not featured

Info created by my mother: Mehregan Javanmard - uploaded - nominated by Arad --Arad 04:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support No FP on human infant right now and this one is very good. I't also has artistic value, the smile of the Infant and the direction of it's eyes (looking at brightness) and encyclopedic value (Infants, when doing nothing, look at bright objects). I also had a question. Why the image look so differently on IE than when I view normally? It look more bright on Internet explorer. It's probably because of Proof colors. But which one is the right color? --Arad 04:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the image is nice but resolution is too low. Also the right arm is cut. --Jacopo86 10:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We need more resolution for a baby's face? It's useless if we have to scroll all around to see the whole face. I think the 2 million pixel rule is way too high, as discussed in the talk page. Anyway this one is actually big enough (in my opinion). --Arad 13:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose composition (arm cut off) -- Gorgo 15:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not quite sharp enough for a FP, I'm afraid.--MichaelMaggs 16:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it qualify for Quality Image? Because it passes the requirements. --Arad 21:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this image Image:Senescence.JPG can make it (with much lower resolution), this one also can. --Arad 22:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That image was voted on a long time ago, when much lower resolutions were the norm. - MPF 23:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - October 2006. This is not a "Long time ago". It's very recent. --Arad 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree, Arad. This image Image:Senescence.JPG has a strong expression, which is missing in the nominated picture in my opinion. norro 23:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose I agree, the other picture is sharper as well and the contrast is impressive ~ <3 bunny 01:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems expressionless to me. Quality not too good. norro 23:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's too tough to say expressionless. So it seems it's rather personal taste. --Arad 23:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I love babies and they all seem beautiful to me. But this photo looks like a common snapshot, composition is poor (distracting foreground and background, harm cropped off) and sharpness in on the soft side. Not a FP for sure. Alvesgaspar 00:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose beautiful baby, but very distracting backround unfortunately. Improper perspective, it looks like there is coming some kind of antenna out of the babys head -- Simonizer 09:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - aha, a teletubby!! :-) (sorry, couldn't resist!) - MPF 21:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please be civil. That teletubby is me. (jk). --Arad 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 7 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 10:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Silvretta Panorama wiki mg-k.jpg - not featured

Info created by Mg-k - uploaded by Mg-k -

Nominated by MG --WikiMeGa**** @@@-fr Accueil fr:Accueil 08:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --WikiMeGa**** @@@-fr Accueil fr:Accueil 08:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose size, signature -- Lycaon 08:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Lycaon, otherwise it is a nice pic -- Simonizer 12:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with opposers. It is a shame it is too small. --Digon3 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 10:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kimono-obi.jpg

Original (left) - not featured

Info created by Ziga - uploaded by Ziga - nominated by Ziga --Ziga 19:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 19:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: Ok, another kimono with belt (3543x5315, 8921 KB). Somehow, images of people are not very popular in the Featured nominations? Ziga 19:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral that picture is great. An interesting scene and good composition... But the resolution of that picture is way too high. Can you or someone else reduce it a bit? If this happens i give you 100% pro. :) I always love pictures that mix the traditional and the modern world --AngMoKio 19:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: Hm, yes, 10 pics below, there were complaints about lack of resolution, so I uploaded a new picture, which I made even larger. --Ziga 23:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment The resolution is too high it exposes all the flaws of the image. 2 megapixels image is the current guideline here. But you are uploading 18.8 MP which I don't think was actually produced by camera. Scaling the image size beyond the camera resolution actually degrades image quality. -- Lerdsuwa 08:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose extremely noisy Lycaon 09:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but maybe less noisy if you resize it lower - Ceridwen 18:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose support for edited version -- Gorgo 16:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not interesting enough to become a featured picture. --Derbeth ^talk 17:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version (right) - not featured

Info the right version is downsampled and denoised. I removed the signature. --Ikiwaner 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Someone did it finally! Now I can support for the composition and colouring and despite not being in perfect focus ;-) - Alvesgaspar 00:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 19:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good. it is a cliché (east meets west, past meets future) but a perfect illustration of the cliché. --Diligent 23:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors, and lovely blend between old and new (kimono vs mobile phone) --Atoma 12:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition, even though that pole on the right is a bit disturbing -- Gorgo 16:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - composition, don't like the pole on the right - MPF 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The colors on the cloths are nice but there is blur and it's not up to FP. Quality Picture maybe. --Arad 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (--Ziga 14:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC), if my vote counts for this pic.) Pole is there on purpose.[reply]
Oppose good colours, bad focus -- Lycaon 16:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not interesting enough to become a featured picture. --Derbeth ^talk 17:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral would suport at this resolution only (the 1st was just emphasizing the noisy dots), but noise is still present and visible; Verdy p 02:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC) - note there's a hidden ad in the image (look for Mercedes-Benz in the neck of the girl!) Verdy p 02:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's the strap of her cell phone ;) -- Gorgo 15:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 6 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Phalacrocorax-auritus-007.jpg - featured

Info created by Mdf - uploaded by Saperaud - nominated by Leyo --Leyo 17:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leyo 17:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Jnpet 18:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 18:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 19:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Camster2 21:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 21:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd like to see some higher resolution (like your previous posts Mdf!) && Info You have (at least) one big, visible dust-spot on your CCD. Some cleaning should be done. --Atoma 23:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uria a 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a unique shot, beatiful bird! (Why does Mdf crop the pictures so tight?) - Alvesgaspar 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a less cropped vresion? norro 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AngMoKio 19:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 23:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 14:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 21:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 14 support, 1 neutral >> featured Alvesgaspar 19:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glarus Stadtkirche Langhaus_edit.JPG

Short description

Left version - not featured

Info created by Ikiwaner - edited and nominated by Alvesgaspar 18:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Delicate colours, perfect composition - Alvesgaspar 18:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The one on the left, perfect colour --Digon3 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support i had spotted it as a very nice picture - nice improvements. --Diligent 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where do you see improvements? To me who has been there the colours in the left look awfully blue tinted. The ceiling lacks detail. The right version shows more detail, is with original white balance and no saturation encancement. It's how it looked like to me. --Ikiwaner 21:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 18:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 0 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right version - featured

Info I prefer the version without colour correction but denoising. (right) --Ikiwaner 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atoma 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uria a 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version is much better than the edited left one. --BLueFiSH 18:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quadzilla99 09:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 19:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 6 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hawk eye.jpg - not featured

Info created by Steve Jurvetson (Flickr user) - uploaded by Sandstein - nominated by Husky
Motivation: Sharp shot, great detail. Maybe bit low in resolution (940x940).
Support --Husky 19:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support How did you get that close? --Atoma 22:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not my shot unfortunately :). Husky 23:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great picture, bit I'm not shure about the low resolution. If most of you think, the picture is so gorgeous, that it's enough for making an exception on resolution, i'm going to change to pro. --Jeses 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the reflections and the white stain in the eye - Alvesgaspar 00:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reflections, otherwise a good photo --Digon3 14:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reflections, furthermore i think the focus should be in the middle of the eye --AngMoKio 19:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 10:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it anoys me that the upper part of the eye is out of focus. i could live with the reflections-LadyofHats 08:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 20:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 5 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mule Deer on Clearwater 1.jpg - not featured

Info created by Eddie - uploaded by Anomity - nominated by Anomity --Anomity 21:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Anomity 21:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting (shadow of the head), subject blurred - Alvesgaspar 00:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution is okay but the details aren't ~ <3 bunny 00:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much of the image is blury. missing contrast -LadyofHats 07:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 10:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Alvesgaspar on the blurring - MPF 11:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 14:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Post-sunset horizon from aircraft.JPG - not featured

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Kprateek88 --Kprateek88 11:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kprateek88 11:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose really nice atmosphere, but your picture is tilted, noisy and the composition is boring. Too much unintersting black areas at the bottom. -- Simonizer 11:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture is boring because there is no subject either than the sky and sea. Something in the foreground is needed to give depth to the image. Besides, thechical quality is quite poor. Please read carefully the guidelines above (English version) and try again. A better place to start is in Commons:Quality images candidates - Alvesgaspar 12:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too much black, and there is no depth to the picture. --Digon3 15:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would be more interesting if taken 15-30 min earlier.Freedom to share 17:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 10:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- as said above, there is a subject missing and its too dark -LadyofHats 19:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 14:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Toledo Skyline Panorama, Spain - Dec 2006.jpg - featured

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 18:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice--Digon3 18:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support what a picture....great --AngMoKio 19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, reminds me the time I went there. --Atoma 20:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support astonishing Richardfabi 21:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uria a 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jeses 22:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support thats special. --SvonHalenbach 22:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 00:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer 09:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - rather drab and dark with poor light. Would have been a lot better taken half an hour or an hour earlier. The large crane also spoils the aesthetics rather, but I guess that's unavoidable. - MPF 13:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose could 've done with a bit of sun... -- Lycaon 13:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ The lighting gives it atmosphere, I like that. ~~But at least on my screen, the picture looks rather edgy in high resolution.~~ --Ibn Battuta 15:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ibn Battuta 16:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the atmosphere and the sharpness, which is one of the "trade marks" of Dilif. Alvesgaspar 15:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love panoramas. And this one too, despite I would love it more if there was a mit more light and it was made of more pieces. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 20:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice indeed -- Gorgo 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too cloudy. Does not look good in small size. --Derbeth ^talk 17:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just beautiful and very intersting - Ceridwen 20:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great image! MaiDireLollo 12:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 16 support, 3 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 19:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:US Capitol Building at night Jan 2006.jpg - not featured

Info created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Arad --Arad 00:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arad 00:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very flat and formal composition, front building is dark. David.Monniaux 08:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is, by far, the best Capitol picture in Commons showing the whole building. Excellent detail in the illuminated parts. Alvesgaspar 09:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to David.Monniaux on front building being too dark - MPF 13:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 10:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AngMoKio 20:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting photo with nice colors. --nl74 10:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rather dull composition -LadyofHats 08:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like the sharpness of the whole thing. Husky 12:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special in this photograph. --Derbeth ^talk 17:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this is not special, just to let you know, we currently have a FP of onlt the dome of this picture. It's exactly the same but cropped to the white dome and this is by far better. --66.36.145.42 18:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose night pic --Lycaon 20:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 20:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MaiDireLollo 12:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 8 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 07:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mangalarga Marchador.jpg - not featured

Info created by Ivan Machado - uploaded by Pbicalho - nominated by me. --Ibn Battuta 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ibn Battuta 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support David.Monniaux 10:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting is far from good, poor quality in full resolution (highlights, white dots, unsharpness) - Alvesgaspar 11:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - very nice capture of the horse's motion. Comment I think the white dots are bits of dust/grass kicked up by the horse, not photo flaws, so are natural and belong. - MPF 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC) . . . changed my vote, hadn't noticed the bad editing of the grass (top right) pointed out by AngMoKio - MPF 21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low quality at full res: overexposed, noisy, unfocused, ... Lycaon 13:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Lycaon -- Simonizer 14:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the picture is noisy, cf. for instance the upper part of the fence in high resolution;

as for the dots: I've now seen two truly tiny dots that *I*'d guess are flaws (one in front of the fence between the horse's legs, and one in front of the horse's right hind leg)--unfortunately, I don't have time and/or knowledge to remove them myself; let me know if there's any forum of the commons where I can find help for issues like this

out of focus: At least *I* can't see that--looks like only the background and the horse's legs aren't perfectly in focus, the latter gives just a hint that the horse is moving (which for me makes the picture interesting; but that's my POV of course); well, and then there's the dust of course, which also belongs. --Ibn Battuta 15:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ack Lycaon --MichaelMaggs 18:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice composition...nice capture. Unfortunatelly there is really a focus problem and it is overexposed. Furthermore there is sth else wrong with the picture...check the upper right corner, there went sth wrong with the photoshopping --AngMoKio 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hopeless cloning on the background --Fir0002 www 09:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose viewed at 100% the upper part of this image is riddled with odd lines, repeated patterns in the grass, noise, and a sharp halo around the horse, was the clone tool was even used? The selection tool and a simple copy and paste perhaps?--Benjamint444 00:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strongly. I really can see the odd rectangular bands even at low resolution! This is not just contrasts on their borders, but really a bad adaptation of the camara filter when it creates the JPEG. The camera certainly has a bug in its compression algorithm, or it is your software which uses very cheap conversion/compression algorithms with poor quality! For such noisy image, you really need an excellent edit software with state of the art programming of filters. Most of the defacts don't seen to come from the lense or sensor, but really from bad numeric handling after the shot! Verdy p 01:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that you have used PhotoShop 7.0 to edit the original. I suggest you restart the edit from the original, using a better quality software, and that you use the filters consistantly instead of using it by bands. This may require more memory in your system to compute the filters without using sub-bands. If you don't know how to do it yourself, reload your original here under the same name, and ask to someone if he can perform the corrections for you.
- Note: white dots between the legs near the fence are not bugs. This is really true sand spread by the walk of the horse (evident at high resolution). But the very visible bands in the grass in the background are really a severe defect(or incorrect use of your edit software). Verdy p 01:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 10 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 07:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Male and female superb fairy wren.jpg - delisted 05 March 2007

Info Uploaded and nominated by Benjamint444 (self nom)
Support --Benjamint444 05:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think there are "strong mitiganting reasons" for ignoring the small size (please see the guidelines above). Could still try QI - Alvesgaspar 09:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Olegivvit 11:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think that there are "strong mitiganting reasons" for ignoring the small size: at full screen, the birds are rather larger than life-size, and bird photography is not at all easy. - MPF 13:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice pic and good composition. But I think the turquoise colour (above the eye and on the left side of the bird) are a little bit oversaturated and I don´t like the dark bg. It gives me a burdensome feeling. So i cannot ignore the small size. Sorry! -- Simonizer 14:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Looks to me that the flash was used to take this shot. Is it correct? If so, those birds are pretty domesticated !! This gives a pretty unnatural look to the photo. --Atoma 15:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think Atoma is probably right. Could the proposer please post the EXIF information for this image? --MichaelMaggs 18:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral i am also not so sure abt that pic. On the one hand it is a great shot....but sth seems unnatural to me. The use of a flash might be an explanation --AngMoKio 19:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 10:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wiki-MG**** @@@-fr Accueil fr:Accueil 09:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
InfoThe EXIF data was lost when I edited the image. I did use a flash though, the birds are quite tame as they have been nesting near my home for about eight years.
Support / tsca @ 21:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -LadyofHats 08:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WWWOOWWW they are so cuteeeee!.. :P-LadyofHats 08:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very cute. --Arad 21:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quadzilla99 09:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wing-Chi 21:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeMetoc 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of unnatuaral effect of strong flash. If they are tame why not try again? --MichaelMaggs 23:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not convinced Lycaon 21:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Amrum 22:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info They have finished nesting now, I only get a few weeks each year to get a got shot and they rarely stay put for more than a few seconds in direct sunlight, thus the flash. It's also not very common for them both to be on the same perch for long enough to get a photo - their so hyperactive! --Benjamint444 00:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image is really pretty! --MaiDireLollo 15:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info I have pasted some EXIF info from the original onto the image page --Benjamint444 01:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 12 support, 3 neutral, 6 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 07:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trophee.jpg - not featured

Info created by Jmdesfilhes - uploaded by Jmdesfilhes - nominated by Pseudomoi -- Pseudomoi (to chat on WP) 09:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pseudomoi (to chat on WP) 09:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read the guidelines above before nominating your pictures. Size should be at least 2000x1000 pixels. Another try? - Alvesgaspar 11:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 10:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i have problems with the composition...it is a bit confusing. --AngMoKio 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann 14:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Size should be at least 2000x1000 pixels, unless there were strong mitigating reasons, like it was an unique event and/or the picture was highly spectacular. In fact, here we see a news event -activist in a transgenic corn field. Unique? It doesn't happen everyday, and may not be widely anounced, but actions like this have been comitted several times. Composition is not the most spectacular -I understand the author didn't want to publish the face of someone committing an act that may be considered ilegal. It's a symbolic and useful photo for some articles, but I am not sur whether it should be featured in Commons. --Javierme 23:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with issue, but this picture is not excellent (compositon). Metoc 21:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 10:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:December Fog 01.jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Digon3

Original version(left)

Oppose Great atmosphere, but boring composition. Too much unintersting sky, some picture elements in the foreground are missing too, in my opinion -- Simonizer 09:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 15:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 23:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version (centre) - not featured

Support Note the warmer brown grades of the tops of the trees emerging from the dark. I like the atmosphere. Alvesgaspar 20:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one better --Digon3 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great atmosphere, but boring composition. Too much unintersting sky, some picture elements in the foreground are missing too, in my opinion -- Simonizer 09:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Simonizer; nice idea, but the landscape apart from the fog isn't a very attractive one. Try to find a site without any ugly buildings. - MPF 13:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and informative (fogs are ground-level clouds, this picture shows both of the fog and the cloud perspective). -- Nl74 08:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no "wow effect" --Ibn Battuta 00:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-ugly-building version (right) - not featured

Info I removed the ugly building --Digon3 17:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and informative (fogs are ground-level clouds, this picture shows both of the fog and the cloud perspective). -- Nl74 08:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I strongly suggest you keep the building as a feature that animates the image and gives a field depth to the image. The edit makes all the image too smooth with any contour for the eye, that's why it seems so boring: without it, you can't fix your eye to feel the light atmosphere, and you can't perceive the subtle color differences. Note also that white balancing is a bit strange (too much bluish, i.e. the white temperature is too high; this makes the greens too much grey, and it fades out all the colors). if you don't want colors, then use pure monochromatic grey images! Verdy p 02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Also the composition is bad: too much white shy on top (it's probably better to crop a significant part of it). Not enough subject at the bottom.[reply]

 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amiga500 system.jpg - not featured

Info created by Pixel8 - uploaded by Pixel8 - nominated by alexj2002

I believe this to be one of the finest computer related pictures on Commons, and meets the five guidelines for FP's - high resolution, no distracting objects, in focus, and is of value to the various wikimedia projects. In addition the subject of the photo is in good condition with no yellowing on the case.Alexj2002 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and Support Alexj2002 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info The thumbnail is cut off at the bottom on my machine. Do others see that? No idea why, as the image is OK in full size. --MichaelMaggs 18:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Looks like Mediawiki messed up when creating a scaled copy - fixed by increasing the thumbnail size by 1px. Alexj2002 20:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 23:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose upper left corner of the screen seems badly detoured. other than that, i think it would benefit to have a background, a table of some sort, this picture is stark naked. --Diligent 13:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 21:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- It has some problems full size... but, I think it's a very good product picture and it'd be nice if every computer had a picture like this. gren 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 23:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC) after close. -- Colin (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:High Resolution Solar Spectrum.jpg - not featured

Info created by Deglr6328 - uploaded by Timichal - nominated by Lestat --Lestat 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Lestat 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC) beautiful[reply]
Comment Sorry, this is not a spectrum but a depiction of absorption lines in the light coming form the Sun. Either we like it aesthetically or not but no exact information can be taken from the image alone (there is no frequency scale), and the text doesn't explain the meaning of the absorption lines. Alvesgaspar 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know how it's called in English, but in Polish it's spectrum of absorbtion. This image is enough for qualitative analisys of this physical phenomenon. --WarX 18:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scale is not needed; it is clearly explained at the NOAO source from which the image comes (it's about 70 nanometres per band). This image is generated from numeric data, it's not a photograph. You can ask any size to NOAO which will compute the image from their data. The only bad thing is that i's in JPEG format, so this creates artefacts when seen at its maximum resolution. The image would be much better in PNG format (because applying any filter to it would be completely inappropriate! unfortunately the JPEG format is itself a low-band pass filter within each 8x8 cell, and not so cute to see). The NOAO certainly has much better data but keeps it for its sales or scientific research exchanges, this image is just a demo of what they have. Verdy p 01:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by what Alvesgaspar wrote. -- 790 16:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great visualisation for this quite difficult subject. Good. Metoc 21:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lautaro Cañete.jpg- not featured

Info The bust of Lautaro, a very important Mapuche leader in the history of Chile.
created uploaded and nominated by GringoInChile 14:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support self nomination --GringoInChile 14:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very small, not "very" interesting either. ~ Arjun 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 14:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res. Lestat 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Low resolution and quality. Looks like it was taken with a camphone. Husky 12:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. --Derbeth ^talk 16:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 16:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Libellule-nature.jpg - not featured

Info created by Medium69 - uploaded by Medium69 - nominated by Medium69 --medium69 22:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 22:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution to low, subject out of focus norro 23:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- out of focus-LadyofHats 19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low resolution, no dynamism, due to the position of the libellule in the picture and the wings. The back of the bug is blurred, due to the focus.--Alipho 21:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very unsharp. --Derbeth ^talk 16:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nap.jpg - not featured

Info created/uploaded/nominated by Yann 22:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann 22:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this a joke ?? --Atoma 08:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We need more people in the FP show-case! This is a nice picture but IMO not special enough for being promoted. The composition is OK but the man's face is unsharp. Alvesgaspar 13:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 15:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you oppose, please give reasons, per the guidelines above. --MichaelMaggs 18:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm sorry. But this is great!!! --Jeses 09:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why sorry? This is un interesting picture. Alvesgaspar 14:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, because the sheets don't match. gren 19:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Totally uninteresting. --Derbeth ^talk 16:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 00:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:0201.jpg - not featured

Info created by User:Saltatempo - uploaded by User:Saltatempo - nominated by User:Saltetempo --Saltatempo 09:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Saltatempo 09:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture but poor image quality, more visible in the child's mouth and hair - Alvesgaspar 09:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Alvesgaspar Lestat 10:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did the parents of this child agree to publish this photo? --SvonHalenbach 11:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI worked as volounteer with this people, and I personally know them; I really think that, if they would know what are Internet or a pc, they would agree. (I'm sorry for my ugly english ^^)Saltatempo 14:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWhat is the subject of this image??? Ok, a child, but where from, etc. description tells nothing! --Jeses 18:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info is a child from the peruan puna, a region where people live until 4000 meters of altitude. the people (very poor, they haven't roads or eletric light) lives coltiving potatoes and cattling some sheeps and horses. The photo is from the puna near La Union, department of Huanuco, Peru. (be good...don't beat me for my english^^)Saltatempo 09:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ok.. --Jeses 09:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would also be nice if the image would be renamed. Tbc 11:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI'm a poor newbie....someone can tell me how to rename the img? Saltatempo 16:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reload the image with a more descriptive name; then edit the previous image and mark it as a {{duplicate}} providing the link to the new image. The old image will be deleted later by some admin, once all references to it have been resolved. (Note that this discussion page contains 1 reference which will need to be edited to show the new name).
- The next time, don't propose here any image with non descriptive titles, as they are easily erasable or overridable by others. First name your images in your local album before submitting them here. Verdy p 01:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Derbeth ^talk 16:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glarus Kloentalersee.jpg

Original (left) not featured -

Info created by Ikiwaner - uploaded by Ikiwaner - nominated by Leyo --Leyo 17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leyo 17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! Jnpet 18:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 22:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Finally some good pictures on FP candidates. --Atoma 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Support to the right version --Atoma 10:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice! Would be nicer if some brightness and contrast was added to the right middle area. Uria a 23:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice, but I have the feeling that the image is tilted. Maybe it isn't, but it is disturbing nevertheless. Alvesgaspar 23:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Indeed, it seems a little tilted to me too. It should be nice to have a version where the water level is perfectly horizontal. --Atoma 11:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think that the image is tilted. It just seems to be slightly tilted, because the surface of the lake is partially covered with ice. --Leyo 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is definitely a ccw tilt. Due to geometric perspective, the waterline at right should be pointing up, from right to left, and it is pointing slightly down. It is a small thing but our eyes are much quicker detecting tilts than our reason. Alvesgaspar 08:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shadow/lighting and composition are not that great -- Gorgo 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 5 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version (right) - featured

Support && Info: The image has been rotated 1° CW, unsharpening mask applied. --Atoma 10:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alvesgaspar 18:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either one --Digon3 23:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support same as Digon3: either one --Leyo 23:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 01:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same as above, shadow, composition -- Gorgo 15:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 19:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice image; both are fine, but comparing side by side this version is better oriented. Editor at Large 03:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 11:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DTI-sagittal-fibers.jpg - not featured

Info created by Thomas Schultz - uploaded by Thomas Schultz - nominated by Thgoiter --тнояsтеn ⇔ 19:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --тнояsтеn ⇔ 19:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Could you please upload a larger size version? According to the guidelines above images should be, at least, 2000x1000 - Alvesgaspar 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not the uploader so I cannot provide a higher resolution. But in my opinion, the image is excellent anyway. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 23:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, there are pictures with lower resolution and many votes, see Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#Image:Young_grasshopper_on_grass_stalk03.jpg. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 19:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution to low -- Simonizer 15:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Derbeth ^talk 16:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Corn- and weatherfront.JPG - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Simonizer 08:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer 08:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please look at full resolution. -- Simonizer 11:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed highlights, underexposed shadows. Lestat 10:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Composition is very good, as usual. But I agree with Lestat mainly on the underexposed parts. The foreground needs a bit more light and colour to emphasize the contrast with the menacing clouds. - Alvesgaspar 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition, but underexposed shadows --Digon3 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Neusiedler Lake satellite.png - not featured

Info created by Nasa - uploaded by PM - nominated by Gryffindor --Gryffindor 10:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gryffindor 10:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution too small -- Simonizer 11:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please check the guidelines, should be 2000x1000 at least. Alvesgaspar 12:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - NASA logo in bottom right corner (may breach copyright regs, someone please check) - MPF 19:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small --Jeses 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Logo removed by Editor at Large. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 10:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Egg-512364.jpg - not featured

Info created by Nevit - uploaded by Nevit - nominated by MichaelMaggs --MichaelMaggs 21:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support An interesting one, this. Slightly out of the usual line of FPs, but a stunning and perfectly captured low-key image. It's of professional quality, in my view, and a good example of the type of multi-use 'stock image' that we could do with more of on Commons. I'm just hoping that reviewers don't simply bash out "too dark" without giving this careful thought. --MichaelMaggs 21:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very interesting, but the outline of the egg is grubby and the artifical reflection is not really well done. norro 23:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not too dark, nor too golden or too weird, just poorly cut out. Sorry. Lycaon 23:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- as said above, the edge is strangely cuted like. and a bad reflection-LadyofHats 07:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mechanizm fortepianu wiedeńskiego 01.jpg - not featured

Info Fragment of piano with Vienna type mechanism photographed and uploaded by Lestath, nominated by --WarX 23:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 23:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sadly partly overexposed. Very well cut out (dark BG) however!! -- Lycaon 23:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose White keys overexposed, poor photographic quality most obvious in the black keys. Alvesgaspar 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dynapac.jpg - not featured

Info Paver during work, photographed and yploaded by Lestath, nominated by WarX 23:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Always loved pavers :P --WarX 23:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's actually a tarmac-laying machine, not for laying paving slabs - MPF 19:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- overexposed sky, slightly blurry -LadyofHats 07:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- ack LadyofHats -- Simonizer 09:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with LadyofHats. Furthermore the compositions looks like an every-day-shot. norro 14:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - useful pic, but have to agree with LadyofHats over slight blurring - MPF 19:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gdańsk - Pomnik Poległych Stoczniowców.JPG

Original (left) not featured

Info Monument photographed and uploaded by Lestath, nominated by WarX 23:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 23:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose night pic, unfocussed. It is also not clear that this picture is at the famous Gdansk Shipyards (my Polish is rusty at best ;-)) Lycaon 23:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tower not straight up. With a little bit of R&R (resize and rotate ;)) this could be improved. — JeremyTalk 00:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version (right) - not featured

Comment Ver. 2 - Straighten and sharpen. Lestat 10:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 10:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Katowice - Kopalnia Katowice.jpg - not featured

Original (left)

Info Mine photographed and uploaded by Lestath, nominated by WarX 23:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even coal mine can be beautiful --WarX 23:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to much noise! -- Simonizer 07:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version (right) - not featured

Comment I add ver. with reducted noise. Lestat 10:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image quality norro 10:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the scene has a great atmosphere....but the technical quality is really problematic --AngMoKio 19:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noise reduction in v2 has worsened the image: colors changed, less contrasted, fuzzy trees. I won't vote for v2, v1 is much more impressive, despite the noise in the dark sky. Verdy p 00:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite poor image quality. I don't believe that any manipulation can save it for FP. Alvesgaspar 14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I can see the "grids" in the background.Stewart~惡龍

 0 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)07:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AirbusA380 ILA2006 corrected.jpg - not featured

* Info created by Airwolf - uploaded by Airwolf - nominated by Airwolf --Airwolf 00:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Airwolf 00:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Surely a quality image, but I'm missing the special feature norro 10:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good image, but does not have anything to differentiate it from all of the other A380 pictures. Freedom to share 16:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral agree with norro --AngMoKio 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting angle, but very noisy --Jeses 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like JPEG artefacts to me. So perhaps can be improved with less compression. norro 17:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... I don't really know, what jpeg artefacts are, so I can't comment on this. But here, take a look at the original.Airwolf 14:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gymnothorax fimbriatus.JPG

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jnpet --Jnpet 08:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original version(left) - not featured

Support --Jnpet 08:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the background is out of focus. The subject seems flat. --Jacopo86 14:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't care if background or floating particles are out of focus, but the moray nose is blurry, too. --Javierme 17:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too low DOF --Lycaon 20:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very nice shot, but the DOF is quite low, and even the end of the snout is blurry. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 22:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 16:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 15:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version(right) - not featured

Comment i tried to improve the picture a bit. Anyway a great catpture..
Support great capture --AngMoKio 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too low DOF --Lycaon 20:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very nice shot, but the DOF is quite low, and even the end of the snout is blurry. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 22:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- as above -LadyofHats 08:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 18:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mercedes-Benz prototypes amk1.jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 20:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 20:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Alipho 21:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you oppose, please give reasons, per the guidelines above. --MichaelMaggs 18:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can u please state reasons.. --AngMoKio 22:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say why I voted against your photo, which is not so bad although. I think that the car at the first line is a very little to much facing us, it may have been better to see a little more the side of the car (side of the car is in the shadow). I also think that the light on the bottom left of the image is a little too high, the eye is disturbed by it. Maybe you should darken it a little to see if it is better. --Alipho 21:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where did you take this foto? -- Simonizer 15:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i took it at the Mercedes-Benz-Museum in Stuttgart, Germany. I went there early in the morning to take the picture without visitors around. I love the atmosphere there and the way the cars are arranged....of course the cars are also nice :) --AngMoKio 20:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

was it allowed to take pictures? -- Simonizer 08:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good composition, nice pic, but i´m not sure about the copyright. Can someone clear this up? -- Simonizer 08:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking pictures was explicitly allowed. It was written on TV-screens at the entrance. There are already several pictures from that museum Category:Mercedes-Benz museum on Commons --AngMoKio 09:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the architecture of the musseum and the way the exposition was made is really helping, yet in my opinion the image is rather dull. the composition too straight foward. it is hard to explain it, but in my opinion it misses composition quality -LadyofHats 08:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea. But the reflections on the left are distracting and disturb the otherwise nice composition. (Could you do something about those reflections... and maybe the background generally? ... not sure it would help sufficiently though.) --Ibn Battuta 00:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you please write a short comment...it is really helpful for all to get a written feedback. I dont have a problem with an "oppose". But without a comment it is somehow disappointing...--AngMoKio 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Composition is not that interesting. It would have been nicer to photograph just one car and make it more detailed, or more cars to also show something of the building. Husky 12:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting -- Lycaon 16:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Derbeth ^talk 16:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- you were lucky the museum is very well made. And I love the concept of two Mercedes Benz (one is an older model, the other newer) and they are both in relative focus. Can't demand more of a Car pic in a show case. --Arad 04:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 19:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 5 support, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oktava319.jpg - not featured

Info created by Gmaxwell - uploaded by Gmaxwell - nominated by MichaelMaggs --MichaelMaggs 18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is good, but I don't think this is FP material. Uria a 19:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is: Image:Knurling closeup.jpg - and it's even today's Picture of the Day. --MichaelMaggs 20:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This would be really good in an article (obviously). But not for FP. --Wj32 05:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to agree. This is a high quality picture of a high quality microphone, but i think that is not special enough to nominate as FP candidate. I would nominate it as a quality picture on the spot. Greetings --SvonHalenbach 13:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well, I think it is one of the best pictures of a technical item in here. --Jeses 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support / tsca @ 21:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality is amazing. Seems simple to do doesn't it? Alvesgaspar 23:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of appropriate resp. supporting background. For me a QI. norro 23:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked the same above, so feel free to answer only once: What do you mean here? I do not understand. Thanks! --Gmaxwell 23:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My english is not too good, so I can't phrase it better. I didn't find exactly what I mean, but I hope, these examples can give you a clue: [1], [2]. norro 18:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's a big difference between those pictures and the picture in question. The picture in question is the absolute best depiction of the microphone itself. It would be suitable for use in a technical article. The pictures you linked are very noisy and have distracting backgrounds. I just don't see how they could be used. If they were to identify the act of performing, then the focus on the microphone is very strange, and if they are actually supposed to just identify the microphone, well, they add too many other distractions. --Cyde Weys 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Where is the Meta-data (i.e. EXIF)? --Dschwen 12:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. I don't know where it went. I'll fix it. --Gmaxwell 14:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fixed now. Thank you for pointing out this omission. --Gmaxwell 04:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No FP material for me either. --Ibn Battuta 00:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lycaon 16:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not interesting. --MaiDireLollo 15:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 18:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FoxBassoon.jpg - featured

Info An excellent picture of a modern bassoon (Renard brand), a musical instrument of the woodwind family. Created and uploaded by Gmaxwell nominated by Alvesgaspar (thanks MichaelMaggs for showing me the site) --Alvesgaspar 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alvesgaspar 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment same as below, good for articles, not so good for FP --Wj32 05:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 08:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 12:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 13:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atoma 14:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support with Comment I would prefer a horizontal version which is easier to place on the pages of wikipedia (layouting of pictures). --Diligent 14:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AngMoKio 19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 21:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of appropriate resp. supporting background. For me a QI. norro 23:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain further? I do not understand your suggestion. --Gmaxwell 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's very clear. He means the background is not good enough. And it's not a FP for him. Would you stop pushing people? --Arad 12:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It wasn't at all clear to me what he intended. Thank you for clarifying. Could one or both of you show me a similar image which has a better background so I can understand what you are looking for in the future? (probably best to take it to my talk, I'm responding here only because I'm addressing multiple people.)--Gmaxwell 14:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good resolution, but for me, it's not FP. The subject is very easy to be captured, and all the quality goes to the camera. I can take the same subject and look at it from close and I'll get better detail. For me, photography must make the subject even more interesting, as it's the case with Dilliff's images. Indeed this is a very good image for it's article as mentioned above. --Arad 23:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- My comment wasn't clear. And people are offended. So just because I don't care, and this vote doesn't make a difference. I Support And let me make it clear, if this was nominated on Wikipedia I would support, not here. --Arad 12:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I think it is unfortunate that you think that way.. Because anything less 'documentary' and more 'artistic' would be less good for our educational purposes. Substantial work was required in the creation of this image, for example I welded a custom mount which extended out of the backdrop and attached safely to this expensive and heavy instrument to avoid the requirement of photoshopping out the background, and I am a little saddened that commons will only honor my work if I make it less professional, less informative, and less accurate with things like overblown saturation, bizarre angles which would hide the keywork or misrepresent the proportions, etc. I'm glad that I'm motivated by the benefit to our projects rather than by featured status, and I hope for our future that more of our contributors will adopt my indifference. --Gmaxwell 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't get mad just because a single user does not understand that this picture is much harder to get than it seems, and that recognizing beauty when it passes in front of your eyes is one of the most important skills of any photographer. Please go on with your excellent work. - Alvesgaspar 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gah, I'm not at all mad. I don't care. In my view, almost every FPC has objections that I think are foolish and which (if listened to) would decrease the quality of our project, but thats just my view. They also have a lot of useful and helpful comments as well.. We take the good with the bad. :) In any case it is nothing personal. --Gmaxwell 00:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're personal attacks (such as foolish comments) are seriously not accepeted. And you are mad. So I support and hope that'll make you happy. --Arad 11:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please be civil with your comments, there were no personnel attacks from nobody - Alvesgaspar 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -LadyofHats 08:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Elcairo 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wing-Chi 21:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cool. Husky 12:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 20:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's not easy to place it on screen with a sufficient resolution, unless we turn it 90 degrees, or you extract some detailed parts from the full image. But anyway the image is impressive. - Did you edit it to crop some parts of the background? I have the feeling that some parts of the instrument were cropped too tightly (because the rounded border should have a tangential smoothing near these borders. it gives me the feeling that on some places, the border was cropped 1 or 2 pixels inside, and in other areas, we see some pixels from the background. This may have been caused by editing and filtering. Anyway this image is good. -- Verdy p 01:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 16 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 00:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard's Pipit 'anthus ricardi' - featured

InfoAuthor and nominator --Benjamint444 00:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC) The Richard's Pipit (Anthus richardi) is a medium-sized passerine bird which breeds in open grasslands. This picture shows three chicks in the nest. I think it's of quite good quality, informative, and meets the standards, it has been promoted on wikipedia already Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Richards pipit but I want the opinion of the commons voters aswell.[reply]
Self Nom and Support --Benjamint444 00:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support strong mitigating reasons to size! Wow... --Diligent 01:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support a what??? --Wj32 02:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with Diligent. --SvonHalenbach 13:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not something we see everyday. --Atoma 14:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support great shot --AngMoKio 19:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - in many countries, taking a photo of wild bird chicks at the nest requires a license from the relevant bird protection authorities, to minimise disturbance. If this was followed as necessary, it should be indicated on the image page. Will support when this information is provided. - MPF 23:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC) - changed to support, now info provided - MPF 23:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support-LadyofHats 08:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 23:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wing-Chi 21:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow. - Husky 12:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anyway, if animal protection license was required and got, information should be provided. --Javierme 14:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 20:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Without a licence, taking this picture would be a criminal offence in some countries. I will support if the uploader can provide the information requested by MDF. --MichaelMaggs 23:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MPF and MichaelMaggs -- Lycaon 23:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info There is no such need of licencing in Australia but I always take care not to disturb the nest --Benjamint444 00:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support i believe you. -- Lycaon 21:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Ziga 09:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 16 support, 1 neutral >> featured Alvesgaspar 07:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DNA replication.svg - not featured

Info DNA replication created and uploaded by LadyofHats - nominated by Jnpet --Jnpet 05:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 05:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't judge the correctness, but apart from that it's great (even if I would replace those black arrows with black lines). norro 23:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment recently i made some corrections becouse of a mail i recived. as far as i know it is ok now -LadyofHats 08:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose --WarX 11:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Image beautiful, but position of descriptions disqualifies it to me. Probably best solution would be placing it vertical with numbered labels on both sides as close to object as possible (numbered version of this one has same placement of label, so is not better)[reply]
Support with labels -- Lycaon 23:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion It really would be much better to use numbers instead of the English description. tsca @ 20:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I am against numbered diagrams to be featured. in my opinion it looses all its illustrative value. without real labels it becomes just a nice Drawing. the image should be able to stand by itself. specially if it is going to be featured. (since this means it will often be seen without the article)if you wish a numbered version of this image you can find it here-LadyofHats 08:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with tsca, especially on many your images descriptive labels creates very large empty margins around core image, what reduces readability of it :( --WarX 11:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- for someone that sugest having no text at all readability shouldnt be your concern. the point here is that diagrams are there to explain a subject. and without text or labels diagrams become useless. i do not upload "nice drawings" to wikipedia. i do diagrams WITH labels. i make them svg so the labels can be adapted to any use. but i honestly think that a diagram without labels at all is useless.-LadyofHats 19:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't say you should remove labels, but would be nice if you put numbers not texts, especially when you put texts in very bad places. If I had monitor with 150 DPI your images 'as is' would be great, but on standard display (wikis optimized for 1024x768) on your images text labels because of their placement eat to much space and images are hard to read.--WarX 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 23:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 07:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sydney night 4.jpg

Info created by Wj32 - uploaded by Wj32 - nominated by Wj32. Also see Image:Sydney night 5.jpg for a shot at a slightly later time. The version on the left is the original, the version on the right is edited, removing some grain and correcting some colours. --Wj32 03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original (left) - not featured

Support --Wj32 03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and another night pic.... Lycaon 08:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment huh? just because it looks better at night... in fact, i can't see ANY featured night pictures on this page. --Wj32 08:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question What are the white dots all over the place on the image in full resolution ? --Atoma 08:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info (sigh) crappy camera or lens. maybe someone else could remove them? --Wj32 08:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Yeah, that's a pitty. 20 second exposition must be the cause ==> this caused visible noise, but I must admit, it is rather strage. Thanks to Fuji ! Still, you could probably clone these out with an image editing software, which would improve image quality. The white dots are pretty disturbing. --Atoma 14:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After investigation I think it is thermal noise. --Atoma 17:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support / tsca @ 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Lycaon; don't like the glare from the street lights - MPF 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Which ones? --Wj32 08:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - all of them, but the ones on the middle of the bridge, the cluster below the right end of the bridge, the one just right of the opera house, and the bright red one in the distance near the centre of the pic, are particularly disturbing - MPF 12:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment why do people not want to vote here? why skip this? if you don't like this picture, oppose! if you like it, support! don't do nothing. --Wj32 07:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - It's true, people don't want to vote. Because it's not that good to be FP, it's not that bad to not be FP. they are mostly neutral. Anyway, my edit dealt with most problems.--02:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC) —the preceding unsigned comment is by Arad (talk • contribs)

 2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured

Edit 1 (center) - not featured

Comment Please get organized and decide where your votes go! - Alvesgaspar 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 0 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 11:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited 2 (right) - not featured

Info Removed most of the noise. And here is the result. --Arad 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Guys you can vote, no one is going to bite you. --Arad 22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with MPF. Glare is disturbing and some are oversaturated. Otherwise nice picture. Great composition. -- Simonizer 11:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:S116e05968.jpg - not featured

Info created by Nasa - uploaded by User:Wutschwlllm - nominated by User:Wutschwlllm --Wutschwlllm 16:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion a very beautiful shot of astronaut Robert L. Curbeam, Jr. while working on the ongoing construction of the ISS. --Wutschwlllm 16:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to its composition. Grey box in the upper right and subject (astronaut) too small. norro 23:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support composition may not be as strong but the quality is pretty nice ~ <3 bunny 00:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is easy for the NASA to make such pictures, so I await someting extraordinary for FP. This picture lacks of a good composition. So i ack with norro -- Simonizer 11:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Simonizer - MPF 13:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urban 10:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Karelj 21:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Endomembrane system diagram.svg - featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats --LadyofHats 07:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --LadyofHats 07:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --WarX 11:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Being honest I think this image is simply ugly :( But this is exception from rule that Lady draws beautiful images :) (second thing is that image is en-centric, and third that it has too large white margins, why there is white background?)[reply]
Support. The illustration is clear. As for being en-centric, its SVG, you can easily translate it. --Dschwen 12:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic illustration. Would like to see the curly braces a little bit cleaner though. norro 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- i fixed the braces and the arrows, reduced white background. P.D. i havent found a way to save in svg without white background. illustrator gets it in as soon as i save :P-LadyofHats 04:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dschwen. Diagrams and maps should usually contain text, and if they do, then they will be language-centric. Some folks will publish these maps and diagrams in multiple languages (as I see the Lady of Hats has done on occasion). If the diagrams/maps are published in SVG, then the text can be edited. "En-centric" is hardly a reason to oppose this fine diagram (my only concern is that the text is not large enough). MapMaster 22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 23:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wing-Chi 21:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mtodorov 69 13:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 09:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 18:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Trounce 12:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ the way you usually handle language is to put numbers in the SVG and the translations on the page. Here, you would have to make a hundred different SVGs. Isn't it obvious? -- Ayacop 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry, that was to late to vote (15 days)... Alvesgaspar 19:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yep. So sorry to interfer that late, but numbers are by far the best way. A wonderfull example , a more padestrian one . Number instead of text should be the norm in SVG pictures Berrucomons 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 9 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 19:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bamboo book - binding - UCR.jpg - not featured

Info the beginning of The Art of War by Sun Tzu, in a bamboo book either commissioned or transcribed by the Qianlong Emperor. Created by flickr user vlasta2 - uploaded by Coelacan - nominated by Coelacan — coelacan — 09:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. — coelacan — 09:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - cut. Would support a good pic showing the whole of the book - MPF 11:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with MPF, bad angle and framing. Interesting subject though. - Alvesgaspar 14:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral yes interesting subject, and is pretty good overall. However I would prefer it to not be cut off. But still nice. ~ Arjun 19:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 23:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- the subject is impresive, but i dislike that the picture isnt complete-LadyofHats 19:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zooming shows more details of how binding is performed on bamboo. If the whole book is shown, I am afraid the individual characters and the details of binding cannot be shown as clearly. --Wing-Chi 21:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks contrast. --Derbeth ^talk 16:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose flat light, poor crop Lycaon 10:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, interesting subject,--Trounce 17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bohinj-jezero-zima.JPG - not featured

Info created by Sl-Ziga - uploaded by Andrejj - nominated by Yonatanh --Yonatanh 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yonatanh 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not bad but the picture has little contrast, poor colours and it is blurred -- Simonizer 12:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Simonizer - Alvesgaspar 14:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Contrast --Digon3 22:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image has a very poor contrast ! --Alipho 19:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 11:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Schmidt - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat --Lestat 13:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 13:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --norro 15:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why oppose? Lestat 00:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not FP material --Digon3 22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that it isn't FP material??? That is good photo of polish musician. Lestat 00:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it looks like a unflattering snapshot of someone. I just can't see it as FP material. --Digon3 13:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I looked at the photo at full resolution, it was much bigger than the screen, and the part that fit on the screen seemed much more powerful than the complete shot. I've uploaded it so you can see if you like it. I downsized it to match the 300 pixel width of photos on FPC. Fg2 09:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 01:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the face of the musician a little too "red" and I can't bear his mimic --Alipho 19:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Absar 14:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 19:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Seebodenalp-foggy Zuger See.JPG, featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Simonizer 12:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer 12:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photographic quality, excellent composition - a classic. Maybe even better than this picture, from the same author. Alvesgaspar 17:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW, I honestly love this pic. Classic as Alvesgaspar said. I would love to go there. Beautiful. ~ Arjun 19:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice. Tree is Fraxinus excelsior. - MPF 21:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 23:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support From the same user, this picture is also pretty cool. Already featured. --Atoma 08:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice Lestat 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and informative Freedom to share 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support-LadyofHats 19:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition - lacks something eyecatching. Dim colours. --Derbeth ^talk 16:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 23:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bland composition.--Trounce 17:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral =>featured Simonizer 07:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Icy Road.jpg, not featured

Info created by flickr user Jenni Jones - uploaded by Quadzilla99 - nominated by Quadzilla99
Support --Quadzilla99 09:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mtodorov 69 14:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 15:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Road safety... Just because we don not see the danger does not mean it does not exist. Valuable image. Freedom to share 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 16:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to spoil the party... It is very nice in small size but not so in full resolution, due to unsharpness. Alvesgaspar 20:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture, but i have to agree with Alvesgaspar -- Simonizer 11:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Low quality in high resolution. Too bad, because the composition is good. Husky 12:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - low quality at high res. -- Lycaon 07:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low quality, nothing interesting --Karelj 21:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured   Simonizer 10:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Transformer-hightolow.png, not featured

Original (left)

Info Power transformer high to low voltage after modifications, created by Mtodorov_69 - uploaded by Mtodorov_69 - nominated by Mtodorov_69 --Mtodorov 69 12:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, amazing quality in full-size image. --Atoma 15:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 15:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could the steele have some texture? It has a good quality, but the steele looks unreal.--SvonHalenbach 15:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Sven: Due to the colour and lighting it is hard to identify that the core is made of plates, which is an important fact. Furthermore I'm not sure about the texture of the connectors on top and of the insulation between the windings. What materials do these textures indicate? norro 11:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great resolution, but the the rendering is not exceptional or hard to accomplish -- Simonizer 11:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The improved version is uploading right now, dealing with texture & additional insulation. I must admit I am an electric engineer, not a graphic designer. The complexity of design is hidden behind the fact that the design is general, and the connectors must work for any number of primary or secondary windings and layers of windings, (and any intersection of windings will prove that they are truly wound from connector to connector, not just simulated). Doing this in a general way was tricky. When I learn to do that in a nicer way, the result will be better for sure. Your comments were helpful, and any ideas on better texture selection for connectors and insulation would be most welcome.

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, => not featured Simonizer 10:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version (right)- not featured

Please consider following version

Oppose Not bad, but just ordinary. --Derbeth ^talk 16:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The illustration would improve a lot if the parts of the insulator that are in the shadow were much darker - Alvesgaspar 10:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 11:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TulipStair QueensHouse Greenwich.jpg, featured

Info Tulip stair in the Queen's House, Greenwich, London. It is the first centrally unsupported stair to be built in england. Taken by mcginnly - uploaded by Howcheng - nominated by mcginnly. --Mcginnly 14:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Was it not uploaded by Howcheng? Alvesgaspar 19:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies, you are quite right. Howcheng uploaded this edit to commons after it passed en.wikipedia FIC. --Mcginnly 02:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool. Makes me think at a shell. --Atoma 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --medium69 15:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality..great composition--AngMoKio 20:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the light in the middle of the image catches the eye, the non circular steps throw away the repetition. Beautiful picture. Bravo --Alipho 21:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alvesgaspar 23:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer 11:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent. Husky 12:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not outstanding. --Derbeth ^talk 16:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great Legendry 13:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Legendry[reply]
Support-i think i have seen similar picture many times before. any way. this one is nicely made-LadyofHats 07:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! -- AM 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 09:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 12:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautifull, impresive picture --Karelj 21:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured Simonizer 10:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Smine nolabel.svg, not featured

Original (left) - not featured

Info created by Dake - uploaded by Dake - nominated by Dake. The german S-Mine, this is one of the most complex picture I have made with Inkscape. It was heavily inspired by the US Army pictures on :en : en:Image:Smine-diagram.jpg and en:Image:Smine-sensor.jpg --Dake 21:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral My first impression was: Wow, a clean, beautiful illustration. And even that's the problem - I can't support a beautiful image of a mine. The illustration has to indicate its purpose (killing people) to get my support, otherwise it seems to me like a belittlement. Don't know how to do this though. norro 23:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the picture was not to say "hey, it's a mine, it kills people". I mean we have featured pictures of potentially lethal things such as Image:050817-N-3488C-028.jpg or Image:Uss iowa bb-61 pr.jpg (whose purpose is to make war) and we won't read "it's a F-18, it carries missiles and it may kill civilians". But one can make a better description if needed. Dake 10:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose missing labels, for reference see Image:Smine-diagram.jpg. -LadyofHats 07:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will make a labelized version. Dake 10:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --WarX 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Waiting for numbered version to support :)[reply]
Oppose --medium69 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version (right) - not featured

Comment labeled version added on 12:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC) by Dake (Lycaon 11:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Support Illustrative. A case in the point where everything that is true, is not necessarily beautiful. --Thermos 19:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Might support after some minor flaws are addressed: i) The segments connecting to the tags should be horizontal or 45º oriented whenever possible; ii) The tags should be evenly distributed between both sides of the illustration; iii) The tag numbers are not centered inside the circles. Yes, a mine is a terrible weapon. But we have to know how it works to better oppose its use. Alvesgaspar 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose picture is very good, labeling is (still?) sub-standard. Lycaon 11:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the problem is that I don't know which font is used to render the SVG in Mediawiki. There is an easy way to fix that (convert the font to vector lines) but the text won't be editable afterwards. So..original fonts + SVG + Mediawiki = bad alignment. Dake 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could dump the circles ... Lycaon 14:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to convert the text to paths (vector lines). The numbers can be used in most projects without being edited and if it's still necessary, the converted text can be edited like any other part of this illustration. norro 18:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Peter iredale sunset.jpg

Original (left) - not featured

Info created by Robertwb - uploaded by Rkitko - nominated by Rkitko --Rkitko 06:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support First time nominating - hope this seems appropriate for featured content. --Rkitko 06:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This picture needs editing before having a chance. The framing is not good (too much sand in foreground, empty space at (left?) and right) and the horizon is not ... horizontal. After that, who knows?... Alvesgaspar 10:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Will probably support after some editing norro 11:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both foreground and background are blurred. Far from being technically perfect. --Derbeth ^talk 16:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 10:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited per suggestions (right) - featured

Cropped a bit (can't go too far or else it would be under 2 million px.), adjusted contrast and brightness. Also adjusted horizon so that it's horizontal. Thoughts? --Rkitko 17:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now... I like this picture, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested the edit. Let me "listen" to other opinions... Alvesgaspar 19:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your input this far! I do wish I could crop in a bit further. Next time I'll choose something with larger dimensions so cropping won't disqualify the photo by making it too small. Thanks again! I eagerly await other opinions or suggestions. --Rkitko 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support now it's nice... --Jeses 10:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stands out from the crowd of sunsets norro 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --Digon3 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support v2 only. We're near from the minimum size of 1800x1200px but it's enough with it; as rotation creates artefact, it's best to reduce a little the image anyway by a factor not exceeding half the cosine of the rotation angle to avoid those artefacts; the low-band filter must be precisely adjusted for such rescaling after rotation, but unfortunately this was respected so the dark borders of the wood remains are a bit blurred on the background see or sky. This is not dramatic because the rotation angle was not very important. For such images, it's best to be prepared with a support for the camera, and a precise vertical adjustment of the support. And of course the time of shot must be carefully chosen and must not be missed! It's sometimes a matter of a few seconds. Verdy p 01:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree it stands out of the existing sunrises/sunsets - Alvesgaspar 20:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 18:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don´t like the composition. I would prefer a tighter crop, but then the resolution would be to low. -- Simonizer 11:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think the sky above the clouds has no interest at all, and the picture is banal --Alipho 19:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support a text-book example for a diagonal composition. --Diligent 19:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panoramica dal Lagazuoi(Tofana di Rozes).JPG, not featured

Info created by MaiDireLollo - uploaded by MaiDireLollo - nominated by MaiDireLollo --MaiDireLollo 12:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MaiDireLollo 12:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--medium69 18:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jeses 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - fence and red poles (and to a lesser extent, the line of footprints) in foreground spoil pic for me - MPF 23:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with MPF --Digon3 23:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too flat, need more contrast --Karelj 21:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lightning 02890-200208.jpg, not featured

Info created by Nevit - uploaded by Nevit - nominated by MichaelMaggs --MichaelMaggs 21:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 21:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- are the colors real?, it anoys me that there is no background or any other reference, united to the rather unatural colors (my opinion) -LadyofHats 10:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good sharp pic, despite low (210kb) resolution - MPF 23:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Menasim 10:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have seen more interesting photos of lightnings. --Derbeth ^talk 15:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are hundreds photos of lightings and lot of them looks better --Karelj 22:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silvereye - Zosterops lateralis, not featured

Info created by and nominated by --Benjamint444 02:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC) this shot was taken in an orchard (thus the OOF netting in the BG) the two juveniles on the left are sharp and clear, the adult is, unfortunately OOF but it still adds to the image as it is feeding the chick some fruit.[reply]
Support and self Nom --Benjamint444 02:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it anoys me the noise coming from the jpg format. specially to be seen in the eyes at full size-LadyofHats 07:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question What happened to the EXIF data? Lycaon 10:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful norro 10:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 17:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Supportwell it took me some time, but i give a pro. The technical quality definitively leaves sth to be desired....but the scene is simply great. I hope i wont regret that decision ;) --AngMoKio 19:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC) changed vote to oppose due to lack of information abt retouching --AngMoKio 21:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jeses 21:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
InfoThe EXIF data was lost when I edited the image in photoshop.--Benjamint444 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info EXIF is easily restored. E.g. by pasting the finished image into the the original and trimming unwanted parts... Lycaon 07:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - nice, though the adult is a bit out of focus, and the non-natural (metal) perches don't look too good (it would be nicer if they were perched on twigs) - MPF 01:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI dont like the background, otherwise nice pic -- Simonizer 13:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I love it! Spectacular scene. The feathers are so clear, I never realized how different a juvenile bird's fluff is. I'm not seeing whatever LadyofHats is seeing, and while humans might prefer for birds to sit on twigs, birds sit where they please. Rusted metal is fine to my eyes. — coelacan — 08:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tbc 23:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely Yann 23:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Yann 00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Birds pictures blende with background --Karelj 22:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful bird down texture... and the composition is cool. Vmenkov 19:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (P.S. In connection to the discussion below: of course, an explanation of the method of production of this picture - composing from two shots, or whatever - would be highly appropriate! I would prefer to see an original, pre-photo-shopped image, and would be glad to vote for it to be fetured. Vmenkov 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose Photoshopped. Left side is mirrored from the right, possibly it's even the same chick. See comments on en.wiki. ~ trialsanderrors 19:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack trialsanderrors. -- Lycaon 20:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background is distracting --Ibn Battuta 03:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely family portrait. pfctdayelise(说什么?) 08:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC
- Comment It's not a family portrait. The chicks on the left are one and the same. ~ trialsanderrors 09:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deceitful photomaniplation. --Dschwen 11:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca [re] 14:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per trialsanderrors. Debivort 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image posted on the English Wikipedia FP page by trialsanderrors shows pretty conclusively that the picture is not what it purports to be. The veracity of another image by the same uploader is also being queried here. --MichaelMaggs 18:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Shameful. — coelacan — 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 8 support, 11 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 00:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PIA01322 - Chaos at the Heart of Orion.jpg, not featured

Info created by NASA (HST and Spitzer), uploaded, and nominated by Winiar^✉
Info Another version of this picture (here) is already featured in commons. Alvesgaspar 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MaiDireLollo 22:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Look too artificial --Karelj 22:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:4.FMC - Duan - Adam Kryński - 01.jpg, not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat --Lestat 17:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 17:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special norro 09:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this FP material --Digon3 23:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Trounce 11:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Absar 14:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality, nothing interesting --Karelj 21:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above -LadyofHats 19:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 09:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rose Petals.jpg, not featured

Info created, uploaded & nominated by Atoma. (F/8, 0.3s, ISO200, developed from RAW) --Atoma 00:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atoma 00:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no species information (e.g. cultivar) -- Lycaon 07:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I'm a photographer, not a flower specialist. What I am submitting to your judgement is a photo. If you (or anyone else) could provide species information I'd be happy to include it. IMHO you should judge the image when supporting/opposing. --Atoma 08:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well even when it is not pointed as a rule, it is desirable that all plants and animals in commons are identified. if you yourself dont know you could add it to the Unidentified plants category or if you have a good eye, try to find the apropiate name in the rose page-LadyofHats 10:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A good picture, but i personally dont like the the crop and the white background. --Simonizer 13:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good Picture! ---donald- 21:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for sure no shot for a encyclopedia still a good composition and quality --AngMoKio 19:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Lycaon (sorry, but I do consider identification information important) and to Simonizer on the cropping - MPF 23:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with MPF Tbc 13:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the same --Karelj 21:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, background is disturbing. --Tone 20:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Palace of Westminster, London - Feb 2007.jpg, featured

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Digon3e --Digon3 22:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice--Digon3 22:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks even better in daylight -- Lycaon 23:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Whatever it may look like in the daytime, this photo is to illustrate what it looks like at night. I like the night shot, and this photo is quite clear and shows the detail well. — coelacan — 08:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jeses 09:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer 09:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LadyofHats 10:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Great view! --MaiDireLollo 15:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Uria a 21:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urban 10:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yonatanh 03:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be even greater with a dark boat on the river... --Alipho 17:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp in some parts --Karelj 21:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the unsharp parts are the laws that are cooked inside the buildings ;-) --Diligent 18:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Blue tit flying dtab.jpg, not featured

Info created by DemonTraitor - uploaded by DemonTraitor - nominated by DemonTraitor --DemonTraitor 17:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DemonTraitor 17:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose focus on the pole, not on the birds. Yann 20:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The birds are out of focus and look unnatural - because a flash was used? If they get fed they must come around regularly - why not try for a better shot? --Benjamint444 00:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as said above, too much of the pic is out of focus-LadyofHats 19:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Foro romano.JPG

Info created by Nnapulitano - uploaded by Nnapulitano - nominated by Nnapulitano
Oppose - not a pleasing picture, looks like it is scanned from a book, poor shadows.--Joebengo 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Are you serious? Heavy Moiré, stains (even a hair), noise, unsharp (extremly on the right, because there was surely the middle of the book, from wich the photo was scanned) and when it was scanned from a book then the copyright status is dubios --Simonizer 07:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have nominated for deletion because of lack of information and obvious scan from a book. Lycaon 07:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Image has been deleted --Simonizer 13:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Xysticus.spec.6890.jpg, featured

Info Crab Spider Xysticus species created by Olaf Leillinger - uploaded by Olaf Leillinger - nominated by Jnpet --Jnpet 15:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a fantastic picture. --Jnpet 15:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 15:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC) true ;)[reply]
Support I agree, Jnpet. norro 17:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XN 21:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tbc 23:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I love the color, and after examining this at high-res, it's so finely focused that I may seriously have nightmares. Does that thing jump? — coelacan — 06:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 13:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 19:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp and focused --Digon3 22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good pic MPF 23:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 14:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice -- Lycaon 22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 13:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Trounce 11:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca [re] 14:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Orchi 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Amrum 07:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Voting time is over! --Simonizer 07:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Simonizer 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Isokoskelo lento-wiki.jpg, not featured

Info created by Thermos - uploaded by Samulili - nominated by Yann
Support --Yann 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please decide which one is to be nominated or create alternative nomination (see examples below) Alvesgaspar 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Ok done. Yann 13:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed, oversharpened. -- Lycaon 18:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much contrast --Digon3 19:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Isokoskelot lento 2-wiki.jpg, not featured

Info created by Thermos - uploaded by Samulili - nominated by Yann
Support --Yann 13:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice photo, but i personally would crop the bottom and top of the picture. In my opinion the picture would profit from that. And the colours seem a little dull. --Simonizer 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pelicanhead.jpg, not featured

InfoThis image of an Australian Pelican was uploaded and nominated by benjamint (self nom)
Support benjamint
Oppose - very tight cropping on bill tip, and somewhat over-exposed. Otherwise nice, though. - MPF 10:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -I agree ----Trounce 11:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop too tight. Do you have a uncropped version? --AngMoKio 20:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop on bill tip is too tight --Digon3 23:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Emblem of the Papacy SE.svg, featured

Info drawn and uploaded by F l a n k e r nominated by --WarX 18:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 18:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 16:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Really not an interesting subject. Fine for the articles where it can be used, but in terms of the Featured Pictures gallery, the illustration doesn't contribute any information. — coelacan — 01:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support- the illustration contributes quite a lot of information, you should read a bit of the symbolism in heraldic. maybe then you get what i mean-LadyofHats 09:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does the Vatican hold any copyright in the emblem, or is it public domain by reason of age? - MPF 12:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info It is a very old symbol, but the Vatican naturally does hold some rights to it given that it is an official symbol, but copyright is not an issue here. Valentinian ^(talk) 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support All I can say is, WOW! I didn't thought this can be achived with SVG (I like the shadowing very much). --Nux (talk··dyskusja) 15:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Trounce 12:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Absar 14:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work! --Diligent 18:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've looked a long time for a PD illustration of this insignia and this is great work. Valentinian ^(talk) 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca [re] 14:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tone 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Euthrix potatoria corect 2.jpg, not featured

Info Photographed and uploaded by Lilly M, nominated by --WarX 18:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 18:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If there wasn't the EXIF information I would say exposure was to long; entire picture is unsharp and noisy. Apart from that very nice. norro 16:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support- it is true that is noisy but still i like it. -LadyofHats 19:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not interesting enough --Ibn Battuta 03:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 20:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been altered, uploaded, and renamed. Image:2006-09-05 2600x1460 stlouis old north stl.jpg

Image:Old north saint louis stl 2006.jpg, not featured

File:Old north saint louis stl 2006.jpg

Info created by Jcrocker - uploaded by Yassie - nominated by Yassie --Yassie 14:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very descriptive photo of the "North County" of St. Louis, Missouri, USA. I also applaude J. Crocker, the photographer, for his/her courage to get into the most dangerous part of the most dangerous city in the nation to take this photo. --Yassie 14:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed -- Lycaon 14:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed and dosn't really show anything --Digon3 19:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing interesting, poor quality --Karelj 21:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ac Digon3 --Lestat 17:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing interesting --Tone 21:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Patients at Apac hospital.png, not featured

Info created by Toshihiro Horii - uploaded and nominated by --Ayacop 16:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ayacop 16:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for sure a interesting and illustrative picture...but for FP there is a lack of composition and quality --AngMoKio 22:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to AngMoKio. Also some over-saturated colours (e.g. the red blotches on the faces at the top left). - MPF 18:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to AngMoKio --Karelj 22:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pilatus-Adligenswil.jpg, not featured

Info created, uploaded by and nominated by Simonizer 09:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the atmosphere! -- Simonizer 09:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing really interesting. --Derbeth ^talk 15:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Neutral I like the atmosphere too, but it seems blurred in places (not by the fog), and is a little too dark overall. --Digon3 15:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice --Malene Thyssen 14:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree it is a great atmosphere and a quite difficult shot to get. I doubt that much better could be made under these conditions. Alvesgaspar 14:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess the blur is caused by the fog --Digon3 00:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the aircraft contrail above the mountain spoils the cloud effects, and the rooftops and street lights spoil the mountain - MPF 11:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a bit 'vague'--Trounce 11:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentCome on, its foggy. Vague is one of the attributes of fog. I havent seen a fog yet were everything is clearly visible.--Simonizer 11:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photo. Yann 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- too dark -LadyofHats 19:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 20:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer 02:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kamran's bara dari.JPG, not featured

Info created and uploaded by Wisesabre - nominated by --Wisesabre 15:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wisesabre 15:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice pic, but tilted; needs rotating 1° CW. Also needs more info about the location, etc., on the image page. - MPF 18:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose grainy, unfocussed, disturbing shadow left, cluttered with plastic chairs, tilted, ... -- Lycaon 19:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; out of focus, and nothing really captures the viewer's attention. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. Also too soft and an annoying shadow on the left side. /Daniel78 20:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 02:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Osteoglossum bicirrhosum.JPG, not featured

Info created by User:Qwertzy2 - uploaded by User:Qwertzy2 - nominated by Vladimir Menkov. Majestic fish, quality photo, high resolution. I wish the photographer mentioned how big the fish was in real life: here in Seattle, a couple of those live in an aquarium store, and they are about two feet long each --Vmenkov 19:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vmenkov 19:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ugly reflections and dirt on the aquarium window --Simonizer 22:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Tone 20:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too obvious aquarium shot, with reflections in the glass. - Alvesgaspar 21:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 02:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bryce Canyon Hoodoos 4 edit.JPG, not featured

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 19:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Has already been nominated three month ago. --norro 00:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and was skipped over thanks to Fir002's excessive nominations --Digon3 01:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the compositon. --norro 00:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no change Lycaon 01:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Surely you used a vertical format and let the tourist in the picture to get a feeling of size and too emphasize the hight of the rocks, but i dont like both. I also find the framing a little unfortunate. Otherwise great picture. --Simonizer 08:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 02:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rusty Bold (HDR) 01.jpg, not featured

Info created by jcoplest, uploaded by User:Zantastik, nominated by --Ikiwaner 16:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ikiwaner 16:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Wonderful composition and high quality. 87.234.150.72 17:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC) please log in to vote --AngMoKio 17:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Wonderful composition and high quality. norro 23:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking, high-res, visually intersting HDR. Une photo HDR frappante et bien composée de haute résolution. --Zantastik 23:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely, excellent composition, resolution, etc. Jersyko 02:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - over-saturated colours (see guidelines above, "Over saturated colours are not good"). I've seen plenty of similar rusty bolts (often in similar situations of seawater corrosion), and they're never such a lurid bright orange and purple. - MPF 12:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes there are some solitaire oversaturated pixels in the reds channel. But oversaturation or overexposure usually means connected areas of oversaturation which is not the case here. There is detail in every part of the bolt. --Ikiwaner 06:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with MPF - Alvesgaspar 12:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Lycaon 22:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice post-processing. --Atoma 22:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with MPF -- Simonizer 11:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with MPF ----Trounce 12:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support vibrant! pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support great colors. --Dan-Philipp 20:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with MPF /Daniel78 21:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Premnas biaculeatus juvenile.jpg, not featured

Info created by Flickr user Jenny (JennyHuang) - uploaded by Bricktop - nominated by Jobjörn --Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose terrible quality Lycaon 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose colors are too pushy. --Diligent 18:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Lycaon --Lestat 17:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment o_O Ah well, one time has to be the first time. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Lycaon and Diligent -- Läo 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks more like a scan from a book than a photo, very grainy. /Daniel78 20:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 09:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ViewElbeSandstoneMountains.jpg, not featured

Info created by Dan-Philipp - uploaded by Dan-Philipp - nominated by Dan-Philipp
Support --Dan-Philipp 11:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice Composition, but sky is blown out and too less contrast for a B+W picture --Simonizer 11:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose likewise Lycaon 07:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition but poor exposure settings resulting in a overexposed background and lack of contrast. Alvesgaspar 21:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Karelj 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Egeskov Slot spejling.jpg

Original (left) - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Malene Thyssen 22:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 22:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It's lovely, large enough, and technically sound. But the tourists throw it off for me. — coelacan — 01:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info I removed the tourists. --Digon3 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not their reflections :) norro 21:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now they are, cant believe I missed that :) --Digon3 19:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured (Rule of the 7th day). Simonizer 09:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited (right), featured

They are gone now :-) --Malene Thyssen 09:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --norro 09:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AngMoKio 20:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI like the reflections --Digon3 23:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --startaq 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, third version looks great now. — coelacan — 05:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 07:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine picture. ~~There is still a small imperfection: of the two doors on the left, the righter one had a white sign on it which has been removed. The reflection on the water still has this white sign.~~ I see that it has already been corrected. --Atoma 17:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alipho 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Trounce 11:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arad 18:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tone 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer 23:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Soccer goalkeeper.jpg, not featured

Info created by Lance Cheung (US Air Force) - uploaded by Indech and Stianbh - nominated by Korrigan --le Korrigan →bla 00:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --le Korrigan →bla 00:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chabacano 13:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 19:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 07:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --norro 09:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - good capture, but the photo somehow isn't very attractive. The bent horizon certainly doesn't help, nor does the poor depth of focus. - MPF 11:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is indeed a great catch, but I agree with MPF: don't like the tight crop, the unsharpness and the distortion. Alvesgaspar 11:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Doesn´t need the author a permission from the Seattle Sounders? (http://www.seattlesounders.net/) --Simonizer 11:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Lycaon 16:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support- --Trounce 17:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dynamic, good depth of focus. --Alipho 17:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Hi-tacks 10:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MPF --Simonizer 10:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- i tend to think this image was somehow edited, dont take me wrong but it seems so unatural -LadyofHats 19:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 17:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree parts are blurry, and goalkeeper not looking at the ball might seem unnatural, but it's a good close action picture. --Javier ME 10:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The largest carpet in the world.JPG, not featured

Info taken and uploaded by Ibrahimjon
~~Support~~ no anonymous voting please Lycaon 07:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just a snapshot, not FP material. Lycaon 07:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, very grainy. Doesn't clearly show the object. Is there any reason to believe it is the world's largest carpet? gren 07:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see it's Guinnesscertificate. --Ibrahimjon 07:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~, ack Grenavitar no anonymous votes please Lycaon 15:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad illumination --Simonizer 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad angle resulting in a cropped subject. Poor quality, subject unfocused. Lack of relevant documentation. - Alvesgaspar 20:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, ack Simonizer --Dan-Philipp 09:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info and most probably not even the largest carpet in the world - I have a vague memory of one in Windsor castle's reception hall which looked more impressive than this one. --Diligent 09:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is it technically even a carpet at all? In its present situation, it is a curtain or a wall-hanging. It has to be laid horizontally, on a floor, to be called a carpet. - MPF 12:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can hang carpets also on the wall. This is called a tapestry then. In museums even normal carpets are often put to the wall because then they are better visible for the visitors, and can be better protected against dirt and other things. --Simonizer 13:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes you hang carpets. --Arad 01:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose /Daniel78 20:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is not the largest carpet. Impossible. I've seen bigger in Iran and ~~it wasn't the biggest for sure.~~ And even if it was the largest, the quality of this image is very poor. And the carpet is not special. --Arad 01:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, here is an image of a carpet in Iran claimed to be the worlds largest. /Daniel78 19:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the photo. And I though it wasn't the biggest carpet. And looks like it is. Anyway, it's far bigger than the carpet in this image. Thanks again. --Arad 23:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iran is currently working on an even bigger carpet. [3]. It's 6000 square meters. --Arad 15:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kapelica sv. Florijana, Žižki.JPG, not featured

St. Florian Chapell in Prekmurje, Slovenia

Info created by Feri - uploaded by Feri - nominated by Tone --Tone 21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tone 21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'ld love a bit more information... Lycaon 21:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral i'd give 100% pro for COM:QIC, but for FP i miss the wow-factor in the composition. Still a good shot --AngMoKio 21:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Without more information on what it is, I don't see the significance of it. The picture is also tilted. --Digon3 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is good, but I agree with Digon3. The tilt should be corrected and some information added. Alvesgaspar 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral would like to support, after the tilt is corrected.
Comment - the information is there, as a link to the chapel's article in Slovenian wikipedia. That most of us can't read Slovenian is our fault, not the fault of the uploader of the image. While most of Commons stuff is in English, it is not a requirement that it must be. - MPF 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Would like to support after correction is done for example as I did see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Kapelica.jpg. Further I would like to see added the coordinates (latitude and longitude data as the author can possibly easily find with Google Earth)) so that others can easily locate the building. --Wouterhagens 14:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Votingtime is over cause of the 7th day rule. --Simonizer 14:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:169141main piaa09178.jpg, featured

Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech/Univ. of Ariz. - uploaded by Startaq - nominated by Startaq --startaq 03:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a fascinating view of the Helix nebula created by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope --startaq 03:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it's today's astronomy picture of the day. --Flex 13:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support --Luc Viatour 13:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little noisy at full resolution, though --Alipho 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impresive picture --Karelj 21:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 16:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support--tomf688 (talk - email) 20:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Открылась бездна, звёзд полна. Звёздам числа нет, бездне – дна. (Ломоносов)" ("An abyss has opened, full of stars, Stars are innumerable, the abyss bottomless (Lomonosov)). Vmenkov 06:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral why is that we tend to allways feature the nasa pictues?.. dunno you but for me it seems somehow unfair.-LadyofHats 19:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's NASA. It's technology. It's superior. (That's the image people have maybe it's not always true but Nasa creates amazing images without copyright restriction and I respect that.) --Arad 00:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I had telescopes like theirs and knew how to use them, then maybe I'd produce pictures worse being featured :-) Vmenkov 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An alternative image of the Helix Nebula is this → ~~I'm currently double-checking copyright status and trying to overcome thumbnail problems with the large-scale version, but once that's done I will submit it for FPC.~~ ~ trialsanderrors 10:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominated now ~ trialsanderrors 04:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is the visible light image (a la Hubble Space Telescope), whereas this nomination is the infrared (a la Spitzer Space Telescope). --Flex 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tone 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Flex 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 10:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another great one from NASA. ~~Eye~~ I like it.--HereToHelp (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arcoiris en palmeral Elche.jpg, not featured

Info created by Josecarlosdiez - uploaded by Josecarlosdiez - nominated by Josecarlosdiez --Jocadio 23:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jocadio 23:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Horizion is tilted, trees are unfocused/blurred in lower left corner, and sea of trees looks unrealistic. I also don't like the composition --Digon3 01:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the 'sea of trees' doesn't look unrealistic at all - it looks like every other date palm orchard, nothing unrealistic about that. - MPF 11:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by unrealistic is that it looks edited or cloned, because every tree looks about the same. It probably isn't, but thats what it looks like to me. --Digon3 13:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose agree with Digon3, additional the buildings are overexposed -- Simonizer 10:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as blurred and rather low resolution - MPF 11:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with digon3, and nothing looks more important in your picture. Trees are cut, sky is cut, buildings are overexposed... --Alipho 17:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful photo!--AHitchcock 23:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice Yann 20:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's seriously not FP. As stated above. --Arad 17:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very far from FP standards: uninteresting composition and poor photographic quality. Alvesgaspar 18:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as said above, rather low quality and uninteresting subject -LadyofHats 19:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - quite surrealistic! --Dan-Philipp 19:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Karelj 22:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Gilbert Stuart 1796 portrait of Washington.jpg