Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2006

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

Image:Calyptorhynchus latirostris Carnaby gnangarra.jpg - not featured

nomination Carnaby Cockatoo/Black Cockatoo native to the southwst of Western Australia. Unique image for commons as most cockatoo images are of caged birds Gnangarra 03:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGnangarra 03:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rama 11:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image quality and object(s) too small. Is the bird about to crash smiling into the tree? :) —norro 22:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack norro -- Lycaon 13:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition -- Gorgo 13:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment no the bird didn't crash into the tree :-P. Original image was 2576 x 1932 px at 4.98mpx with 24bits/px. It was taken with 16.7million colours of which 209733 were used. This is an exact extract of 1200x1000 px using a program called Infraview the process doesnt alter or affect the resolution. When you view the image on the image page what you are viewing is the high resolution version and not a compressed thumbnail. What you are viewing is a 1/3rd compression of the high resolution image as opposed to 1/9th compression of a high resolution with the other thumbnails Gnangarra 16:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose insufficient image quality MGo 06:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was thinking about the same thing, Norro :).... actually the photo is rather funny, but not FP material. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Friday 12:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 6 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 13:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hemerosid_A+B.svg - not featured

Nominate

(self) The complexity stuns you, doesn't it? --Ayacop 14:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly: no, it doesn't. I'm sure it's been a lot of work but it's really nothing compared to this. Oppose --Pumbaa 16:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Given this is a structural formula comparing it to a coat of arms is fairly ignorant. Wouldn't it be more useful to compare it to these category:Biochemicals Gnangarra 16:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was talking about the complexity of the image file, which - in my opinion - is a good criterion for SVG graphics. Besides, I'm not impressed by the chemical structure either. I've seen much more complicated ones. --Pumbaa 16:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Dschwen 20:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not impressed MGo 06:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If this could be a featured picture, then virtually all structural formula of organic compounds could be featured pictures too.--Wing-Chi 17:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am distinctly underwhelmed by this. Thryduulf 20:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Friday 12:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 6 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pink whirls.jpg - not featured

I nominate this close up of an Osteospermum 'Pink Whirls' flower taken by Thom Quine. Kaveh 09:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like this photo a lot, but DoF is bad :-(. Francisco M. Marzoa 15:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, background, off-center composition, and its just another flower. --Dschwen 20:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lack of sharpness, boring composition, background MGo 06:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David tm 08:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oonagh 13:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 13:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support sharp enough for A5 print, nice UFO look --che 17:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there doesn't appear to be any connection between the foreground and the background. The off-centre composition isn't anything a crop wouldn't rectify, but it still wouldn't overcome the depth of focus problem. Thryduulf 20:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's very nice. --Daniel78

3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ZLB-Berliner Ansichten-Februar.jpg - not featured

Nominate

- EurekaLott 04:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good detail. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MGo 06:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- skINMATE 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friday 12:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 13:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Female_Mallard_wiki.jpg - not featured (withdrawn)

Nominate

--Thermos 16:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Thermos 16:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not see anything wrong with it. Freedom to share 15:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but it's not that special for me -Quasipalm 15:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose centered composition, brown subject on brown background --Ikiwaner 20:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Ikiwaner MGo 10:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice, but not exceptional. Mallards are very easy to photograph - MPF 14:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More work could have been put into proper focus; monotonous. Freedom to share 14:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moderator, please. Made a technical mistake with this one. Considered putting it up here, but came to same conclusion as per many comments. Apparently saved it still. May be documental, but not exceptional. Should be removed from FP-list. Withdraw nomination. Sorry for hassle.

2 support, 5 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 13:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sunset RedRocks AZ.jpg - not featured

Nominate

and  Support Howcheng 23:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Note that if MGo wants to complain about the implausible colors of the sunset, I have no knowledge of the circumstances of this photo; I'm only going by the description from the source. :) Howcheng 23:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, washed out, grainy and cut a bit too much at the bottom for my taste. --Dschwen 06:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad image quality MGo 06:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It could have been great, but image quality is too bad -- Fabien1309 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 17:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far too unreal Gordo 07:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD 11:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Friday 12:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I am a color-sucker but this image suffers from its poor quality. Too bad, could have been a keeper! :-) -- Boereck 09:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 7 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 05:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MtHood TrilliumLake.jpg - featured

Nominate

and  Support --Howcheng 19:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- skINMATE 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- good shot (been there) Mattes 09:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MGo 06:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 09:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pumbaa 10:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding! A.J. 12:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 13:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altough simetry may be better cropping it a bit over the bottom. Francisco M. Marzoa 17:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wing-Chi 20:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friday 12:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Holy Ganga 19:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! - MPF 21:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Minto 15:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Quasipalm 15:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support TZM ^de:T/_{T C} 17:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure looks nice... --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 17:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jóna Þórunn 19:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19 support --> Featured Roger McLassus 05:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lightning striking the Eiffel Tower - NOAA.jpg - featured

Nomination and Support Greycard 13:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Wing-Chi 17:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 17:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Killeroy 17:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 18:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I realize this is a scan of 1902 print, but it's too grainy and there is a lot of dust on it. Howcheng 19:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Fully agree with the above. We would need a cleaned up version. Freedom to share 07:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I contradict. In my opinion historical photos should never be cleaned up. Roger McLassus 09:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MGo 06:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 08:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joonasl 08:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnangarra 07:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friday 12:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, cool / Fred Chess 08:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very cool. -Quasipalm 15:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 07:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michal 11:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 17:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16 support, 2 oppose --> Featured Roger McLassus 05:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Woman_teaching_geometry.jpg - featured

Nomination and Support Greycard 13:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't understand what is special about this image? I suggest nominating for FP at en.wp if it is important in the context of a particular article. Thryduulf 20:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support a good scan of medieval art and a very unusual subject MGo 06:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exactly. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 08:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friday 12:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like Thryduulf, I don't see anything special about it. / Fred Chess 08:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The speciality is that it is untypical for a women even to learn but here she is teaching. It is very uncommon that a women who is not a saint or a "high-society" person is pictured that way in that times!! --Feodora 11:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shizhao 13:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 07:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 17:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 2 oppose --> Featured Roger McLassus 05:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pommes d amour.jpg - delisted

Original nomination here
Delist colours, ~~resolution~~, cut, and sharpness MGo 06:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ss181292 08:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC) resolution is OK, colours are OK... I dont see what is wrong.[reply]
- You are right with the resolution (to list this was an error of mine), but sharpness is far below the present FP-level. One of the apples is cut and the red and pink colours don't fit together. MGo 07:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you are right... I'm removing my support for this picture, but I'm not voting against it. Ss181292 20:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Francisco M. Marzoa 10:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist ack MGo Friday 12:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Even if the technical quality were better, nothing special about the image --Pumbaa 13:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wouldn't make it today, but let the record stand for what it is. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist quite bad Hein 07:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Greycard 08:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 14:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Kessa Ligerro 18:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Mayamaxima 17:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gordo 07:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 delist, 3 keep --> Delisted Roger McLassus 05:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Meerkat (Suricata suricatta).jpg - not featured

Image information: created by Hans Hillewaert - uploaded and nominated by Lycaon
Self nomination Lycaon 13:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 13:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a zoo-shot. Not bad, but not exceptional either. MGo 14:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with zoo-shots? These animals look exactly the same in the wild and no 'zoo-attributes' are visible. Lycaon 18:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Friday 12:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the composition dull. / Fred Chess 08:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Quasipalm 15:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Quite a cute photo, but sitting in the dirt! As I recall these little guys are quite photogenic and pretty easy to photograph. But ah, look at his little face! I'm leaning towards Support, but eh... pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support He's simply too cute. Hands in his lap does it for me...really looks like he's posing. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with MGo Tbc 18:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 13:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- that is like the cutest thing I have seen in a long time - did you hire it?! it should have cleaned its nose but I don't mind! :-) quality is good, motive is EXCEPTIONAL indeed! -- Boereck 09:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC) -- PS: I need to add this: this is the first picture I have downloaded off wiki in a long time! You da man! Boereck 09:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 5 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 04:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glacial iceberg in Argentina.jpg - featured

Image information: created and uploaded by IlyaHaykinson - nominated by Omegatron
Nominate

 — Omegatron 04:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Omegatron 04:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 09:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A.J. 12:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 13:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MGo 14:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Composition: too much sky for my taste, and these clouds doesn't help neither. Francisco M. Marzoa 17:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack with myself :-P Francisco M. Marzoa 03:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've submited a cropped version here. Francisco M. Marzoa 21:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- skINMATE 17:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky and clouds does not hurt for me. Rather, they put the subject in context. --Wing-Chi
Support Oonagh 07:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very dull Gordo 07:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find this image illustrative for articles. Fred Chess 08:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- that's not what these votes are about :-( Lycaon 18:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring composition —norro 09:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 21:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral --> Featured Roger McLassus 04:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kamel hungrig 1.jpg - delisted

Original nomination here.

Delist It just doesn't look like featured picture quality to me. The camel on the right is cut off, and the camel on the left has a distracting fence post going through its head. User:dbenbenn 19:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- The hand feeding the animal detracts, camel on right is ok, but overall composition isn't FP IMHO. Gnangarra 15:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist absolutely. --Pumbaa 12:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- YolanC 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 delist --> Delisted Roger McLassus 04:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Morocco Africa Flickr Rosino December 2005 84514010.jpg - delisted

Original nomination here.
I'm nominating this for unfeaturing because it's just the original version of Image:Morocco Africa Flickr Rosino December 2005 84514010 edited by Buchling.jpg, which was rotated to make the horizon horizontal. It's silly to have two featured pictures of exactly the same thing. Note that this one is not actually listed on Commons:Featured pictures; the edited one is. User:dbenbenn 18:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I assert that whole notion of allowing "secondary" images, and the voting thereon is unclear, and leads to exactly this sort of confusion. I think we need one image, one nomination, one series of votes. Currently are two similar SVGs under consideration under one single nomination, and a delisting, of a similar image, viz Image:Personal_computer,_exploded_4.svg and Image:Personal_computer,_exploded_5.svg User:LoopZilla aka Gordo 13:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist User:dbenbenn 18:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Ss181292 20:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Francisco M. Marzoa 08:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I also oppose the featuring of different versions of the same picture. There should be a rule against it. MGo 08:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just added an approprate sentence to the rules above. Roger McLassus 22:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Friday 12:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I agree if the image needed editing then it shouldnt be listed Gnangarra 12:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Hein 07:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 delist --> Delisted Roger McLassus 04:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lurking cat.jpg - not featured (withdrawn)

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Dungodung
Nominate

--Filip (§) 11:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Filip (§) 11:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 12:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC) - nothing outstanding about this photo. Just a cat in a grass.[reply]
Oppose If you can give us evidence that the photo has been taken by a mouse just a minute before of being killed by the cat, I'll change my vote... ;-) Francisco M. Marzoa 14:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not outstanding MGo 08:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I just like it... MartinD 09:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - doesn't seem very special --che 11:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 14:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing my nomination seeing as this is clearly not a Featured image material --Filip (§) 21:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 6 oppose --> not featured

Image:Gedaechtniskirche Speyer Fensterdetail.jpg - not featured

By User:Immanuel Giel, used in an article on sv.wp, Nominate

by pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose meaningless clipping, ugly wire-mesh fence in the background —norro 10:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Thanks for ruining the image Norro :) When I too noticed the wire-mesh it indeed made the image much less interesting. /Daniel78 19:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most such windows have an ugly barrier. Stained glass has become popular for vandalism. Many people no longer believe they'd go straight to Hell for it. AlbertCahalan 04:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Norro MGo 06:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- skINMATE 20:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greycard 08:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 18:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC) - ugly chainlink fence in background[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 08:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mg-k Eisfall.jpg - not featured

Nominate

--Thryduulf 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Thryduulf 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too small. Seriously, 300px in width is not very much. It should be easy to shoot this as a vertical pano with >1000px width. Will support if larger version comes up. --Dschwen 17:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Dschwen. I don't like the signature too. Otherwise it might be excellent. --Ikiwaner 19:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, it's too small. --Daniel78
Comment The uploader just told me that he won't upload a bigger version or one without his signature. --SehLax 20:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate Your compliments on the photo very much, but the big version is not for free use. I don't think that Wikimedia is a self-service picture agency. The signature is to identify exactly this licensed version. --Mg-k 10:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wikimedia Commons is supposed to be exactly that. But everybody is entitled to license their own pictures as they wish. --Dschwen 09:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree with Dschwen.
Oppose too small and not acceptable with signature MGo 06:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not acceptable with signature and the colors need cleaning up. Freedom to share 15:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low res. Francisco M. Marzoa 19:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greycard 08:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 7 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 08:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kitesurfing_ColumbiaRiver.jpg - not featured

Nominate

and  Support. --Howcheng 06:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose cut too narrow (droplets are cut on the top left, for instance) Rama 07:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Rama, also needs cropping at the bottom MGo 07:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 2 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 08:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schneckengetriebe.png - not featured

Nominate

--84.155.95.2 21:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ --84.155.95.2 21:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC) you must log in before you can vote[reply]
Oppose There is nothing excellent about it. In the contrary - the curved lines are quite shaky MGo 07:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Would be nice in svg. /Daniel78 19:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this drawing. Is there any software for creating svg-files? Sorry, I don't know anything about this format. --Thgoiter 21:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can create svg images with inkscape. I also found a conversion program that might be able to convert png to svg. I have never tried it though so I have no clue if it is good, but you might check it out here.

Thanks, I'll try it. --Thgoiter 12:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's also conversion programs for DWG files. But I think none of them is free :-( At least there are shareware versions, of [1] for example. --Pumbaa 17:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No use for me. I use Solid Edge, i.e. DFT files. --Thgoiter 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 07:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spider-tracy.jpg - not featured

Support Das ist eine faszinierende Makroaufnahme, die mich sehr beeindruckt. Die Farben passen gut zusammen, der Ausschnitt ist ansprechend gewählt. Einziges Manko: Die Bildbeschreibung ist etwas dürftig, es fehlt z.B. die Taxo oder zumindest der wissensch. Name der abgebildeten Spinne. --Guisquil 07:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The spider only takes up a small fraction of this low resolution picture. MGo 08:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 1 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 08:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:15th century egyptian anatomy of horse.jpg - featured

Image information: uploaded and nominated by Laurascudder
Nominate

and  Support — Laura Scudder | Talk 23:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Is it a photograph? Little bit blurry and non-uniform lighting. Would like to see a better scan. —norro 09:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a scan, but unfortunately the book is not the best quality. The uneven lighting is from the the original manuscript or the book, but I'm not sure about the blurring. I still have it here so I'll double check whether I can improve it with a rescan. — Laura Scudder | Talk 21:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the lines are as sharp as in the book I scanned from, so whatever blurring there is probably couldn't be improved unfortunately. — Laura Scudder | Talk 18:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gordo 14:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Quasipalm 15:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 13:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beautiful AND interesting image. El Comandante 13:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 18:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 1 oppose --> Featured Roger McLassus 09:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hastings book of the hours.jpg - not featured

Nominate

and  Support.  — Laura Scudder | Talk 23:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. The image looks too digitally enhanced, unreal. Here [2] is a different view from the book. / Fred Chess 08:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a fair comparison as it's from a different copy of the w:Book of Hours. Anyways, for the record there wasn't any digital enhancement, I just made sure the color and brightness matched that in the book I scanned from. — Laura Scudder | Talk 21:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —norro 09:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- strong colours Gnangarra 15:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beautiful AND interesting image. El Comandante 13:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 2 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 09:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Monument hill fremantle.jpg - not featured

self-nominate Gnangarra 01:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DershIt's not really that compelling of a picture. The lighting, especially in the foreground is way too dark. Also, compositionally it's not very interesting.
Support Gnangarra 01:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 06:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good but not outstanding MGo 06:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice juxtaposition of the memorial and missile, with a lot of blue sky acting as a contrast Gordo 07:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but I don't like the light, especially on the left side of the monument. Would probably look much better if the picture were taken at a different time of day. Some grass and sky should be cropped, too. --Pumbaa 09:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The light/shadow was the purpose for a 2 week period centred on 25th April w:ANZAC Day just after sunrise and just before sunset the sunshines directly on the opposing faces sunrise on Australian Flag and 1914 and set on the Australian Flag and 1919, as written in For the Fallen by Laurence Binyon At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.
Oppose. Agree with MGo. Also the image quality at full res is not awesome. --Dschwen 17:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lot of sky , Upper and Left portion are not impressive because of light. -Holy Ganga 19:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i'm not sure I like looking up the hill at this -Quasipalm 15:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- the designers need to be credited with their skill there is no point where one can look at this except from below Gnangarra 16:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 13:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 8 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 09:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Corvette-je-1958.jpg - not featured

Nominate

and  Support --Boivie 08:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, because its the perfect image to illustrate the corresponding articles —norro 09:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support aka 19:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice image, but cannot vote positvely for this resolution Gordo 14:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution could be better -Quasipalm 15:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD 07:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- its nice but not outstanding Gnangarra 15:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No, the car is just not right... Freedom to share 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 13:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice. Francisco M. Marzoa 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Gnangarra MGo 07:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 09:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Personal_computer,_exploded_4.svg or Image:Personal_computer,_exploded_5.svg

Nominate

and  Comment There are several versions of this image. This nomination comes with the removal request on the FP Image:Personal_computer,_exploded.svg, version 1 (see Delisting candidates section below) --Pumbaa 13:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 4 - featured

Image information: created and uploaded by Gustavb - nominated by Pumbaa
Support --Pumbaa 13:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- as replacement to correct error. Gnangarra 14:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Freedom to share 12:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Quasipalm 15:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 13:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prevert^(talk) 18:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michal 11:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 18:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 support --> Featured Roger McLassus 09:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 5 - not featured

Image information: created and uploaded by Gustavb - nominated by Pumbaa
Neutral --Pumbaa 13:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not a corrected version of current FP Gnangarra 14:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of the above is merely a correction of version 1 — that would be version 3, which shows ATA connectors, but without enumerating them.(not good in my opinion) --Pumbaa 14:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 06:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Personal computer, exploded.svg - delisted

The original nomination can be found here.

Delist This sketch is simply not correct (mainboard on left side).
Comment Please note that this request comes with the nomination of a corrected version (see above) --Pumbaa 13:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delist only if a corrected replacement is available. Gnangarra 14:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Ss181292 18:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delist like Gnangarra Kessa Ligerro 18:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delist Roger McLassus 19:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 delist (condition met) --> Delisted Roger McLassus 09:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Snail-thorn.jpg - not featured

Image information: created, uploaded, and nominated by Dungodung
Nominate

--Filip (§) 16:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Filip (§) 16:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-done photo. Astonishing quality. Freedom to share 15:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 13:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Doesn't not says nothing to me. Francisco M. Marzoa 21:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wing-Chi 15:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Good for an illustration of the meaning of TENACITY, humans can learn lots from thinking about this image Mozasaur 01:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I liked it a lot. --Elephantus 07:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good depth Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 12:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture --Jovanvb 16:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special MatthiasKabel 16:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- after long consideration, the snail needs to be more dominant within this image Gnangarra 11:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 4 oppose --> not featured MGo 12:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gottlieb-Jews Praying in the Synagogue on Yom Kippur.jpg - featured

Info painted by Maurycy Gottlieb - uploaded and nominated by Grendelkhan
Nominate

-- Grendelkhan 13:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support we need more high resolution / well photographed art on the commons -Quasipalm 15:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done repro, good explanation --Ikiwaner 20:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD 07:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rama 07:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joonasl 09:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 13:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 00:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 19:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --David tm 05:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 17:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greycard 06:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 support --> Featured MGo 12:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nepenthes rafflesiana ant.jpg - featured

Info uploaded by NepGrower to the English wikipedia - uploaded and nominated by Boivie
Nominate

--Boivie 09:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - excellent Minto 15:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great work -Quasipalm 15:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 09:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MGo 10:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 13:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice with the ant on its way to its doom. MPF 14:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great piece of macrophotography! Freedom to share 14:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- applying the simple editing technique of adjusting the levels really enhances the image. Also the ant is to small to be considered a dominant feature, though it is a nice touch Gnangarra 15:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very nice. Francisco M. Marzoa 21:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 19:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I would even prefer the edited version for the crisp contrasts that enhance the 3D appearance. Verdy p 04:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Same as Verdy p. --Wing-Chi 15:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It makes me imagine what will happen. It has a story. But I prefer the edited one. --ignis* 04:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 support, 1 oppose --> Featured MGo 12:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Country house at sunset.jpg - featured

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Fir0002
Self Nom --Fir0002 www 23:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good. But this might have profited even more from exposure blending than the Harriet River pic (long exposure to capture the light that's emmited from the house, shorter exposure to avoid blown-out highlights). --Dschwen 06:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well actually the blown highlights are there for privacy reasons --Fir0002 www 22:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The highlights are ok, the shorter exosure I was referring to would just be shorter than the longer one for HDR, but just as long as the one in the original pic. Everyting clear? ;-) Dschwen 05:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition, colours (at least under some angles on my laptop) Rama 07:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fabien1309 12:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice. Tbc 17:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support How the hell does he do such perfect pictures? Freedom to share 19:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- skINMATE 22:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MGo 07:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 11:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 19:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice job. There's quite a bit of lean to the left, but it is not too noticable. Overall lighting is far more important. -- Solipsist 20:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 17:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greycard 06:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack with... hmmmm... someother! Francisco M. Marzoa 10:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What's so special about this? --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose / tsca @ 13:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13 support, 2 oppose --> Featured MGo 06:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Loch Ard Gorge Panorama July 2005.jpg - featured

Info created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Boivie
Nominate

--Boivie 20:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Killeroy 06:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition, colours. Rama 07:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with the colours?? Jon Harald Søby 11:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 11:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 13:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 00:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MGo 07:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 19:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 22:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 14:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 support, 1 oppose --> Featured MGo 06:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Linkoping Domkyrka MariaWindowDetail1.jpg - not featured

Info created and uploaded by Xauxa - nominated by Pfctdayelise
Taken by User:Xauxa, used in an article on sv.wp, Nominate

by pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I really love this one, it's icily perfect. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting. Eerie feel. Freedom to share 15:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joonasl 09:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fabien1309 12:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am unable to see anything outstanding in the subject or in the image quality MGo 07:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- very deceptive this first thought at thumb nail is oppose but at full screen the detail in the glass are fantastic Gnangarra
Oppose Ack MGo. Sharpness could be better.--Dschwen 16:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 18:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC) - nothing outstanding[reply]
Support It's really beautiful. Anna 01:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 14:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Silenzio 19:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured MGo 06:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:M schumacher2.jpg - not featured

Nominate

and  Support --Boivie 04:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose low resolution MGo 10:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
featured in the German Wikipedia; though I Oppose, due to resolution. Jon Harald Søby 14:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it probably isn't too hard to make pictures with higher resolution of this subject Tbc 18:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not easy, indeed. Francisco M. Marzoa 19:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 13:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only because the low resolution FML ^hi 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral LR. Francisco M. Marzoa 19:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Resolution is okay for me. Nice and sharp —norro 21:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't think any of the F1 tracks have such a step gradient Gnangarra 11:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low resolution Freedom to share 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 6 oppose --> not featured MGo 06:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Linderhof-1.jpg - not featured

Nominate

--Boivie 19:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured in the German Wikipedia Roger McLassus 11:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 23:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 13:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- skINMATE 20:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Too much tourists that gives a bad -for my taste- contrast with the subject. Francisco M. Marzoa 21:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the dark tree on the left hand side that covers parts of the scene. /Daniel78 19:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The POV detracts from the grandeur of this schloss, Gnangarra 12:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 4 oppose --> not featured MGo 06:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Fryxell

Original version (left) - qualified but not featured

Info created by Joe Mastroianni - uploaded by Saperaud - nominated by Jhs
Nomination Amazing picture. featured in the English Wikipedia. Jon Harald Søby 14:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 14:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnangarra 15:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC) either its FP material or it needs editing withdrawn Gnangarra 11:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tbc 17:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - jillian 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Support - MPF 23:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MGo 09:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 13:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Freedom to share 15:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support FML ^hi 18:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Francisco M. Marzoa 19:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- skINMATE 20:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can someone please tell me what's so special about this shot? Please compare it to this version --Pumbaa 13:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral It's beautiful, but the image you link to is even better ( Thats why I moved by vote down the enhanced version). /Daniel78 19:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm, I don't know. I like the ice in the foreground, but the upper half doesn't impress me. --Pumbaa 01:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this image is lacking a sense of scale, and the hill in the background is too much in the shadow. --Dschwen 16:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - great subject. Not that great photography. FP on Wikipedia, certainly, but here? --89.102.143.110 15:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 03:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Prefer the edited version. —Pixel8 13:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Prefer the edited version too. --Wing-Chi 15:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really excellent. The right one is slightly better. --Filip (§) 11:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The ice has a more beautiful color in the edited version, but the mountain looks better in the original --Boivie 08:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 05:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 support, 4 oppose --> qualified for promotion
but less so than edited version MGo 06:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edited version (right) - featured

Info created by Joe Mastroianni - uploaded by Thomas G. Graf - nominated by Freedom to share
Nominate Freedom to share 06:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Freedom to share 06:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this different to Image:Lake Fryxell.jpg? (scroll down the page) It looks rather the same to me. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has more contrast and sharpness --Pumbaa 17:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mayamaxima 17:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Pixel8 13:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wing-Chi 15:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the edit has the same problems I stated above. I just do not like the composition at all. --Dschwen 06:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greycard 06:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version is better. /Daniel78 22:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 14:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Francisco M. Marzoa 15:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 11:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlax 13:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I trust the vote closer will have enough sense to only promote one of these images, even if both qualify. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise the wrong additional promotion can simply be undone, because now we have a rule (see above). Roger McLassus 14:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support, 1 oppose --> Featured MGo 06:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MachuPichuSacredValley fir000202 edit.jpg - not featured

Info created by Rubyk - stitched, edited, and uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by Boivie
- I suggest that such information should be added to every nomination from now onward. With it the nomination alone is no longer necessary Roger McLassus 18:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate

--Boivie 17:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --- nice but too dark Gnangarra 00:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --- agree with Gnangarra. Other pictures of the Machu PiCchu are better (see the Category:Machu Picchu). El Comandante 13:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not bad, but the burnt out sky is incompatible with the FP-status MGo 09:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: fala comigo} 00:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC) per 5th day -- Colin (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 3 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 11:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006-01-28 drop-impact backjet.jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Roger McLassus -- 06:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitated for two months before nominating this picture because of the suboptimal lighting, which I was unable to avoid with my limited technical equipment. But finally I have made up my mind for nomination and Support because such a backjet is very difficult to catch. Roger McLassus 06:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnangarra 00:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- even though the thumb looks average, the fullsize image is great! -- Boereck 09:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- My english is bad but I hope everybody will understand me(:-|)... Ok, it's a good photo, but... how many photos of drop impacts must be included in WikiCommons and featured (I personnally prefer Image:2006-01-28 Drop-impact.jpg and Image:2006-02-13 Drop-impact.jpg)? Is it a competition for the one who will have the greatest number of photos featured? What's the interest for WikiCommons? I believe that people should think more about the cost of the memory space for the Wikimedia foundation... El Comandante 13:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The backjet shown in this picture is a characteristic hydrodynamic phenomenon and cannot be found in any other picture in the commons yet. Backjets are normally invisible since they last too short a time for the human eye. So the scientific and encyclopedic value of such a photo is considerable. Roger McLassus 15:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, the developers have repeatedly flagged that "running out of space" is not an issue. So I personally do not accept this argument as valid, especially when en.wp allows an increasing variety of cruft articles, from pokemon-cruft to porn-cruft to whatever... Very likely we don't need any more pictures of certain subjects (sunsets!), but it doesn't seem to be in the wiki spirit to restrict people from adding them. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 18:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 22:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting. Not an interesting photo for water drop. -- Lerdsuwa 10:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lighting, bad background. How many more drop impact pictures are we going to see here? --Dschwen 16:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 17:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack Lerdsuwa and Dschwen —Pixel8 13:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greycard 06:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though this would not be the only drop-impact Featured image, I just love it --Filip (§) 11:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 13:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like context, light, composition, and subject... so... hmmmmmmm... Francisco M. Marzoa 15:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 14:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad composition, bad lighting —norro 21:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Norro. -- aka 07:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It may be a rare event, but sorry --- Try again... Freedom to share 20:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 12:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: fala comigo} 00:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decision I withdraw my nomination Roger McLassus 13:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support, 10 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 13:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mt hotham summer scenery02 edit.jpg - featured

Info created and uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by Boivie
Nominate

--Boivie 19:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- skINMATE 20:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Francisco M. Marzoa 21:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 00:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral MGo 07:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not bad, like all other pics by User:Fir0002, but this one lacks the certain something --Pumbaa 11:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I am sorry to say this, but I really don't like the setup. it is confusing to me, there are two main elements to this picture disturbing one another. And one of the seats of the cableway is cut off. -- Boereck 09:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, Great clouds. Freedom to share 06:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 10:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as I commented on the English Wikipedia, I find this image really unbalanced. Houses on the right, chairlift in the centre...and nothing on the left. It's nicer cropped without the empty space on the left. Stevage 09:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like it, but I'd like to see more of the cable cars / cables, I don't like this POV, would have prefered one perpendicular to this one. Waqas.usman 21:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 2 oppose, 4 neutral --> Featured Roger McLassus 05:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Edo period Wakizashi.jpg - not featured

Nominate

--Shizhao 13:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Shizhao 13:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, minimalistic composition. Freedom to share 15:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor image quality. —Pixel8 17:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Pixel8 MGo 07:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks scale references Gordo
Support -- Beautiful AND usefull image (good illustration of a clear subject). El Comandante 13:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- nice object, yet the image could be enhanced by the use of a panaroma style picture, Gnangarra 12:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 4 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 05:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Liquid Crystal Display Macro Example zoom.jpg - not featured

Nominate

--Boivie 15:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - its very good but it would be perfect if the closeup was more in focus. Thryduulf 19:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I wouldn't expect crisp lines on a light this small when lit Gnangarra
Oppose Ack, Thryduulf. But the magnified part is the most important thing on the image. So, not good enough --Pumbaa 23:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Pumbaa MGo 06:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Gordo 10:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnangarra 00:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just because this image does not show anything else that very light and very dark colors. What about a middle grey, a pure red, etc.? ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 11:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not beautiful, not very illustrative, bad contrast (not representative of actual LCD screens), incorrect exposure time (too dark), LCD pixels are too smooth and have extra colors. This seems to be edited with a smothing filter to eliminate vibrations orslight move duing exposure. Verdy p 04:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 14:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
featured in the English Wikipedia. Jon Harald Søby 10:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sebastianm 19:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Interesting picture.[reply]
Support Very interesting, I've seen a macro of an LCD before, but it wasn't as good as this one. Waqas.usman 21:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 05:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Runny_hunny.jpg - not featured

Info created by Scott Bauer - uploaded by Jonik and Ed g2s - nominated by Anna reg
Nominate

--Anna reg 09:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Anna reg 09:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- as yummy as those scones look they hide the runny portion of the honey Gnangarra 15:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice composition and colors (but cropped a bit too tight). Rex 18:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution, cut, and the visibility of the very subject is insufficient MGo 06:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greycard 08:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Minor faults are forgiven by the good things. I like it a lot. Francisco M. Marzoa 09:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gordo 10:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good for me -- Fabien1309 10:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as MGo A.J. 11:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kessa Ligerro 18:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 10:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good picture, unfortunately the jar's clip is cut off. —Pixel8 13:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greycard 06:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 14:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rüdiger Wölk 20:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - jar clip and foreground buns both cut - MPF 21:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 05:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Onderwijsgek 16:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Uhmmm, milk and honey :) Sebastianm 19:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 support, 9 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 05:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grizzly Denali edit.jpg

Uncropped version (left) only - not featured

Nominate

--Boivie 15:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I really like this picture. Not only does it clearly illustrate the bear, but also the capabilities of the Canon EOS Rebel! Great job! The focus, for example is just perfect, where the viewer only focuses on the grizzly bear itself yet is also able to look at its general natural environment. Yet the only criticism I have of it is that there is simply too little bear actually in the photo. Therefore I uploaded a cropped version below which I support. Freedom to share 16:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cropping is a good idea, but you over did it especially on the right and top. The left could probably use a tad more room too. AlbertCahalan 04:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support uncropped version - MPF 17:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i've seen better pictures of Bear. Ss181292 18:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Gnangarra 00:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 10:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Dschwen 16:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 09:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: fala comigo} 00:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colours. --Onderwijsgek 16:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 10:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped version (right) only - not featured

I declared my Support for it and explained it above Freedom to share 06:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC) This escaped my attention. Sorry for the mistake! Roger McLassus 11:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose i've seen better pictures of Bear. Ss181292 18:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Gnangarra 00:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Dschwen 16:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 09:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: fala comigo} 00:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Onderwijsgek 16:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 6 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 10:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WasatchMountainsSaltLakeCountyWestSide.jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Apollomelos
nominating, but I think the resolution may be too blurry. please sign your contributions Roger McLassus 10:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose/Daniel78 12:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice background, hideous foreground - MPF 23:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disturbing foreground and not very sharp MGo 09:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 3 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 05:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Uss iowa bb-61 pr.jpg - featured

Info created by J. Alan Elliott - uploaded by ¡0-8-15! - anonymous nomination
- Information added by Roger McLassus 18:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
proposed by several users on French Wikipédia. The chock wave on the sea is impressive ... Proposed French title: "Le cuirassé USS Iowa tirant une salve d’obus de plus de 900 kg." I'm not sure about the English translation of the term "cuirassé". Verdy p 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is "battleship". Rama 10:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose great photo, amazing effects on the water surface, but resolution is far to low. Ss181292 22:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- what resolution is required for a picture taken 24 years ago ?? Gnangarra 09:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes, what EXACT resolutions are required. I need to know cause I want to nominate a bunch of my pics, but need to upload bigger versions. HOW big? and do they have to be bigger for featured pic status or just to satisfy the voters here. Mozasaur 01:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment When it, as in this case, comes to photos that is originally analog but digitized afterwards, I think one threshold one has to surpass is the one where an even higher resolution would contribute only a negliable amount of extra information to the result. That is, push it to the point where the quality of the original photo is the bottleneck and the image looks blurry (as a result of the limitations of the camera) when viewed at full resolution. That way you know you haven't destroyed anything. Such images are of course just a special case. In general, I am personally not very fond of images that is anywhere near fitting on any of my screens. My own little camera grabs in 2272×1704, which, to me, definitely is a lower limit for when the image becomes enjoyable without that claustrophobic touch. ;-) As a recommendation to you, I'd say give us what you've got! Don't downsample at all. Bromskloss 13:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment resolution should be suitable, for example, for printing somewhere. Size 740x585px isn't even enough for screen presentation. Ss181292 12:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ invalid support, user was not logged in and has no commons account Lycaon 20:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC) I also find this photo great and rare, and very illustrative in a encyclopedic article of a physical effect produced by explosion chock waves, and of good enough quality (what is a "too low resolution" for an image that would be used as a Picture of the day, so it will be displayed at a size seen here? It already takes nearly the full browser window at maximum resolution, and it will be difficult to find high resolution images from public US army archives ; it has great colors, and is well centered on the subject) ; this image really changes from the usual country landscapes, mountains, lakes, sun falls. It can be the base of an interesting Wikipedia article. Verdy p 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support really amazing. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- an awesome demostration of the power to the guns on a battleship Gnangarra 09:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 10:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Resolution way too low. This is neither featured thumbnails nor picture of the day, this is featured picture candidates. --Dschwen 16:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prevert^(talk) 17:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good picture but low resolution MGo 09:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Resolution doesn't really bother me. It's an afwul picture. MartinD 09:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Guessing you mean an awesome picture? Masonbarge
  - So sorry, you are quite right. MartinD 08:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good image. Amazing and informative. Freedom to share 15:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but less than 0.5mp is just too low, even if it's a really nice picture like this. Age doesn't count in this case because film photography didn't change too much in the last 20-30 years. Unfortunately this is just a low res scan of a great picture. -- Gorgo 18:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- ack Gorgo -- Boereck 18:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Love it! awesome image, and looking at resolution, its fine for purpose intended. Wiki is NOT paper, and it fills my screen ok. This image moves me. Mozasaur 01:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- actually that's not true at all, wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an online-dump for text ;) and there are for example also plans for a paper-version of the german wikipedia (not that sure about the english). Besides commons is not only about wikipedia, there are a lot of other projects too. So size does matter (especially for fpc). -- Gorgo 18:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not? 740x585 at 300 dpi, it's still over 2 inches in size. Not book cover material but should be enough when put together with text. -- Lerdsuwa 18:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - but that's exactly what featured pictures are (or should be) book cover material -- Gorgo 23:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low resolution, composition (cut too narrow at the bow, wave effects are cut too). The colour is nice, but does not compensate for the cropping Rama 10:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support low resolution, but the picture is exceptional --che 11:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! Masonbarge 18:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Afther thinking it I agree with che (again)... Francisco M. Marzoa 10:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have for a long time been impressed by this one, but the resolution… Also, there are funny compression artifacts (I think), most easily visible on the water in the bottom part of the image, in the right half where the water is sunlit. It looks like a mosaic of squares. I would for that matter say that it in general didn't survive the compression very well, but that could also be the lousy screen I'm on for the moment. :-/ —Bromskloss 13:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 18:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shizhao 11:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 12:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support El Comandante 23:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support really amazing. --Onderwijsgek 16:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - doesn't do anything for me - MPF 21:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Resolution is not an issue if you're not printing! It's big enough to enjoy for viewing. Waqas.usman 22:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have some doubts, but finally I think stage is more importand than low resolution.Sebastianm 19:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support V impressive. Res not important GrahamBould 14:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Minto 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 06:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral --> Featured Roger McLassus 06:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glasses 800 edit.png - not featured

Info created by Gilles Tran - edited by Janke and Veledan - uploaded (to the commons) and nominated by Boivie
Oppose -- Not interesting image (not a clear subject) and not really nice or special for me. El Comandante 13:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 22:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a great POV-ray rendering for glasses, bottles and the ice cube, with nice specular light effects and focus effects on the background and surrounding foreground mimicing the behavior of camera lenses, but still, it is not realistic: the glasses are much too clean and don't seem to have contained more than the residual liquid (no liquid drops on the surface, no presence of dust, no traces of lips of fingers for glasses that are supposed to have contained liquid and then drunk; artistically it is interesting, but dices seem to be out of the subject and rendered in a strange way, with different lighting, as if they were added on the image after actual rendering; if you remove the added game dices, the subject does not fit well with the scene; the transparency of dices is also badly controled) Verdy p 03:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another version of it, I think a higher-resolution one is already featured!
Support I did not find a better version and I am quite impressed by this one MGo 09:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gordo 22:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greycard 06:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Francisco M. Marzoa 15:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Gwir 07:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC) impressive
Support Hein 14:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Rüdiger Wölk 19:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support quite impressive —norro 15:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aka 07:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 11:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: fala comigo} 00:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- it is like looking into a black hole ;-) -- Boereck 14:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- weder Bildaufbau noch Beleuchtung sind annähernd professionell --Marcela 10:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
translation: „neither composition nor lighting are professional“ norro 10:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I can't claim the credit given me above for helping create it! Janke and I only helped steer this through a long-drawn out FPC on en:wikipedia (many versions were created and rendered during what turned out to be a very interactive FP candidature). en:User:Gilles Tran made it, and en:User:Deadcode rendered the version that was finally promoted Veledan 11:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 06:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Miseàmort.jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jodelet -- 18:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral An interesting picture with good composition, but sharpness and the lighting of the spider are somewhat below FP-standard. MGo 09:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need more good, featured macrophotography. Freedom to share 15:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supporta good picture with an interesting composition. User:Lelote 06:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- interesting composition, good detail Gnangarra 12:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- holy shit something got owned. Meph 00:38, 10 May 2006 (NZST)
Oppose Pjotr 12:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 05:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- zu große Tiefenschärfe Marcela 10:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured Roger McLassus 07:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Foro municipal mérida.jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ardo Beltz
Nominate

--Ardo Beltz 20:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. columns are cut at the top, lighting is unbalanced (blown-out highlights), and the lamp at the left edge of the frame is bothering me with its distracting lensflare shining right at me. --Dschwen 21:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 06:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 19:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 12:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 5 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 05:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mt hotham alpine range scenery.jpg, featured

Info created and uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by Boivie
Oppose -- Urban 05:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great clouds, good lighting. The perspective is great! The light can perfectly be seen. The only criticism would be be annoying road on the right, which still serves a purpose and makes an artistic statement about man's influence on nature and landscapes. Great job! Freedom to share 15:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mmm 3D Mephistan 05:44, 4. Mai 2006 (UTC)
Neutral - would support a cropped version minus the person at the left edge, and minus the road poles at the right - MPF 21:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment O_O That sky cannot be true!... Or is it? Francisco M. Marzoa 10:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Waqas.usman 21:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it seems to be painted instead real, so if it's painted its not good, but if it's real is really cool... ;-) Francisco M. Marzoa 13:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support El Comandante 19:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost missed this. What a feeling of open space. The people on the left offer perspective. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The people on the left give an idea about the scale of the image, I'm ok with it. Waqas.usman 21:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow.. I like it! Sussie 17:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- gildemax 19:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured YolanC 17:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ExtremeFishing.jpg, not featured

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Mozasaur
Nominate

-- as creator Mozasaur 03:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- as nominator, all comments welcome, Mozasaur 03:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please give me some feedback, thanks. Mozasaur 18:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- isn't there a special effect ? And the first bird is dark. YolanC 16:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no, there is no special effect, its in-camera with a polarising filter. Mozasaur 18:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raw Energy, elemental example lol. The bird unhindered by the liquid is a young larger breed, this picture looks cool upside down :) Ray Ching
Comment - birds are Larus dominicanus - MPF 21:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack w/Ray Francisco M. Marzoa 10:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —norro 15:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please give me some feedback, thanks. Mozasaur 18:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I really don't like the composition. If the birds are the subject: they are too small. If the crashing wave is the subject: it's cropped. If the whole scenery is the subject: You don't get it unless you read the image description. Furthermore the foreground is too dark. norro 16:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - love the contrast of the flat water with the breaking wave. No idea what it would be useful for, but hey. Stevage 09:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - [3] I used this image as part of a set of 'extreme' fishing on a wikipedia article about Muriwai Beach.Mozasaur 18:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 11:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - its a little to dark (adjust levels?) also no one feature is dominant enough Gnangarra 12:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seriously. Looks real out of it 180º Yeah it is more of a landscape than an Icon. Though it has an atmosphere only that spider consuming some creature has (but the palettes vary)Meph 18:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Suggestive luminosity--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: fala comigo} 00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 05:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Teme 09:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / an awesome image BIRDLOVER73 13:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / lol mental. Grendel 0123 (NZT) 18/5/06
Neutral --- gildemax 19:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't love it, I almost dislike it so I oppose. YolanC 18:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result : 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => no 2/3 support => not featured YolanC 18:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Helix aspersa Kleine wijngaardslak.JPG, not featured

Info created and uploaded by Onderwijsgek
Nominate

--Vdegroot 14:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Vdegroot 14:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Onderwijsgek 15:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose insufficient sharpness, unnatural and boring background, nothing outstanding MGo 15:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MGo Oonagh 20:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose aggree with MGo -- Gorgo 23:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Urban 04:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Stop looking at me or I won't vote for you. MartinD 05:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 12:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: fala comigo} 00:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tarawneh 16:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --- gildemax 19:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 16:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result : 5 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured YolanC 18:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:XN Power pole 01.jpg, not featured

Info created by XN - uploaded by XN
Nominate

--XN 23:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XN 23:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea, but overexposed at the left and not exactly symmetrical —norro 15:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 16:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC) - maybe nice, but without encyclopedic value.[reply]
Hi Ss181292, just to point this out: These are the commons, the photograph doesn't have to be of encyclopedic value, cause its to be used in all wikimedia projects. —norro 23:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no use of this photo in any of the wikimedia projects. Ss181292 20:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoogspanningsmast scnr ;) —XN 21:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I do support the idea but not the performance MGo 10:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pjotr 12:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joonasl 07:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support fits into articles about symmetry --Tarawneh 16:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! Thx for this and the other inspirations. I've uploaded another, edited version, categorized under "symmetry"--XN 08:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --- gildemax 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not my taste - YolanC 13:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result : 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured YolanC 18:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:XN_Fruehjahrswiese_00.jpg, not featured

Info created by XN - uploaded by XN
Nominate

--XN 23:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XN 23:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really feel like a tiny creature living in the grass! pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Has that tiny creature hypermetropy?... ;-) Francisco M. Marzoa 10:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Urban 04:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support its my desktop background image now ;) -- aka 09:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice. Can we have this in a higher resolution and less compressed? —norro 15:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just uploaded one. Find it on the description page of this image (2000x1500px, 90% compr.) —XN 11:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Lerdsuwa 17:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the blurred foreground is very disturbing MGo 10:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pjotr 12:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: fala comigo} 00:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 05:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely view :) Sebastianm 19:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brings to mind the crappy movie with Rick Moranis in it... hm, I somehow dig this image, don't know why. It gives the sense of being there yourself and wading through a field of hay and flowers. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Dr. Marcus Gossler Sussie 17:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --- gildemax 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result : 8 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured YolanC 18:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:XN_Schnake.jpg, not featured

Info created by XN - uploaded by XN
Nominate

--XN 23:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XN 23:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oonagh 11:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice subject, but insufficient technical quality MGo 10:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Pjotr 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The camera was prepared at the precise moment--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: fala comigo} 00:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --- gildemax 19:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Once a higher res uploaded, switch to support. --Tarawneh 22:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result :  2 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured YolanC 18:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glade Creek Grist Mill.jpg, featured

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by UED77
Self-nomination and Support —UED77 00:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support UED77 should be in pictures... Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 12:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice, but composition is not perfect and the red car in the background is distracting. ACK MGo: overexposed —norro 15:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no red car ;) 69.86.216.161 21:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There're two red cars that can be see below the bridge bows, try at full resolution. Francisco M. Marzoa 20:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Support That was me, sorry. My computer logged me off. Renata3 21:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 11:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack norro Francisco M. Marzoa 20:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cars are not so important, but sharpness is suboptimal and the roof of the hut is overexposed. MGo 10:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlax 13:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support El Comandante 23:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 06:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree, generally overexposed in the top half of the picture. —Pixel8 16:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- gildemax 19:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result :  8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured YolanC 18:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ginetes visto do alto da Caldeira das Sete Cidades (Portugal).jpg, not featured

Info created by "Portuguese eyes" (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Rei-artur
Nominate

 — Rei-artur 20:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Rei-artur 20:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice, but not FP I think. Francisco M. Marzoa 03:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template created - please follow the instructions on how to nominate a picture Roger McLassus 04:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Urban 04:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 17:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 11:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- chillin' cow: like it! :-) - Boereck 21:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice picture, but heavily tilted horizon MGo 10:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition! Freedom to share 20:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Relaxing, enjoyable atmosphere. I can almost feel the breeze. And the muuuuuuuuu! --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 11:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Luc Viatour 08:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- gildemax 19:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result :  7 support, 5 oppose => not featured YolanC 18:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:XN_Hylobius_abietis_01.jpg - not featured

Info created by User:XN - uploaded by User:XN
Nominate

--XN 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XN 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad exposure (blown out). Lacks sharpness. --Dschwen 08:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Blowing out is a side effect. My intention was to show the hairs and scales cleanlier by this overexposure. —XN 15:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Urban 05:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 07:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 4 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 10:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Makasiinit tulessa.jpg, featured

Info Suspected arson of warehouses in the center of Helsinki on May 5th 2006. Image created by Petteri Sulonen — uploaded by Dilaudid
Nominate

--Hautala 23:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hautala 23:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Pixel8 23:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great picture! Tuohirulla 00:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hartz 08:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Teme 10:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fabien1309 10:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 14:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 05:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Daniel78 09:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Very effectful.[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alfred Dengan 11:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support My own pictures pale in comparison... --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MGo 07:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — unless Dilaudid did it. — Erin (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rama 09:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- as if it needs any more 8) Gnangarra 11:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support El Comandante 19:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tbone 14:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic and suggestive --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: fala comigo} 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 05:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 13:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The smoke and fire gives an amazing texture to the background. Also composition is great. Francisco M. Marzoa 13:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support just beautiful User:Lelote 19:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Marcela 10:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 11:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breathtaking. -- AlMare 12:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miljoshi 09:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- gildemax 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- too blurry for me, I just don't like this pic.. Minto 23:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Malene Thyssen 17:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- too dark -- YolanC 18:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result :  29 support, 2 oppose => featured YolanC 18:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Star_Princess_repairs_Bremerhaven_2006_1.jpg - not featured

Info created by Deelkar (talk) - uploaded by Username - nominated by Deelkar (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Deelkar (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Umm...it's just an ordinary shot of a big ship. Why should it be featured? --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 04:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 07:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Lumijaguaari - MPF 12:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Ordinary, distracting foreground -- Fabien1309 19:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 19:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC) - distracting foreground, distracting background... simply bad photo.[reply]
Oppose Do not like the composition. Freedom to share 20:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Sebastianm 20:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --gildemax 19:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- does not fit to be in here --Songloed 22:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 11 oppose --> not featured MGo 13:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GrazerRathaus-edit.jpg - featured

Info created and uploaded by Tamirhassan - nominated by Boivie 07:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very strange image of two figures on the first flag pole to the right of the centre area Gordo 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sehr gut. I think I'm going there soon BTW. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed lights and movement-blurs due to the long exposure-time. A daylight picture could avoid both. MGo 09:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think if he|she wanted to take a daylight picture he|she didn't take it at night. Francisco M. Marzoa 13:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - lol! Im' shure he waited hours to catch exactly the right minute in the blue hour. --Ikiwaner 06:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to MGo; also that hideous portakabin over at the left - MPF 12:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 06:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good enough. Francisco M. Marzoa 13:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- consider a crop to both edges Gnangarra 14:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 09:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ikiwaner 06:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tarawneh 16:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- gildemax 19:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support me like. Gryffindor 09:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is good to preserve! --Songloed 22:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 3 oppose --> Featured MGo 07:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sunset 12 Dec 2005.jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Fir0002

original version (left)

Self Nom --Fir0002 www 10:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful -- Fabien1309 10:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful -- Thryduulf 14:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Arrrgh! Another sunset. Ss181292 16:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC) moved to another section Ss181292 19:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support That's what I thought at first, ready to oppose, but when I saw it... My heart stopped for two seconds! Perfect! One of Fir0002's best ones yet...Freedom to share 16:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes beautiful, but there is visible colour noise in the darker areas of the clouds. —Pixel8 20:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Gordo 22:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Briseis 04:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gryffindor 15:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 12 oppose --> not featured MGo 07:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edited version (right)

I've uploaded an edit with the noise removed --Fir0002 www 01:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support edited version. --Thermos 05:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Gordo 22:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 22:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gryffindor 15:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 11 oppose --> not featured MGo 07:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

both original and edited version

Oppose boring composition —norro 15:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. -- aka 07:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Gordo 22:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose please nominate one, either its a good image or it needs to be edited Gnangarra 00:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's nice but sunsets are nice by default. FP sunset needs to be rrrreeeally outstanding. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Lumijaguaari and Gnangarra. --Dschwen 13:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Arrrgh! Another sunset. Ss181292 16:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we've got more than enough of sunsets --che 13:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice sunset. Nothing special about the photo. --Wikimol 10:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- gildemax 19:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see the point in putting this as a FPC! Basically it's out of context. It's a nice photo otherwise. --Songloed 22:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

votes included above MGo 07:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Male-total.jpg - featured

Info created by Shahee Ilyas - uploaded by Mattes - nominated by Boivie 09:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fabien1309 10:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not very sharp, not outstanding —norro 15:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Makes one realise how vulnerable it is to a tsunami, or sea level rise with global warming - MPF 23:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It's perhaps not as outstanding os other pictures, but I support it for the same reason as MPF does: very instructive. MartinD 05:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm hm hm...well Support I guess. Mountaineering's not the national sport then, eh? If only it were sharper, it'd be excellent...but I'm tempted to support it anyhow for its compositional merits. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose insufficient sharpness and tilted horizon MGo 09:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- need to agree with norro -- Boereck 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 06:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sufficiently sharp in the city area when view at 100% -- Lerdsuwa 08:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (however, I think some cropping should help the clarity) --Miljoshi 09:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- gildemax 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- but the potential is there.. Minto 23:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support In a photo like this, and at this high resolution, sharpness is not that matters most!--Tristeza 22:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree! It's a beautiful photo! and very rare and unique --Songloed 22:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support, 5 oppose --> Featured MGo 07:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

Image:LuxorTemple.jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Feodora 13:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Feodora 13:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC) The temple in his whole facination[reply]
Oppose -- sorry, I don't like the darkness! and since the dark eats all the action, the rest of the image becomes more important. here I would like to point out that the passage between the temple sides is off-center and the palm trees are distracting by being half cut off, half there. quality is somewhere on the mediocre side. so sorry, I had to oppose. -- Boereck 13:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- main object too dark --Huebi 13:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose way too dark -- Gorgo 20:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, unsharp and too crowded. -- AlMare 09:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark Sebastianm 14:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark --Tarawneh 15:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --- gildemax 19:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark thats correct, too dark is an oppinion, unsharp is not true, and crowded??? when it is too dark it cant be crowded All I can get from this discussion, You havent been there... --Feodora 12:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 8 oppose --> not featured MGo 10:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LCD macro view.jpg - not featured (withdrawn)

Close up of an LCD

Info cropped version – created, uploaded and nominated by che 15:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC) as another attempt to get one's liquid crystal display featured.[reply]
Support --che 12:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If you could crop the top of the picture a little to get rid of the dark line running right across it then it would fit better. SFC9394 13:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, the cropped version should be now above. --che 15:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - does this infringe on the copyright of the Commons logo? pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it doesn't, since, it only works as an example on the screen, similarly to scrrenshots like Wikipedia website.jpg. In case I'm wrong then the best solution would probably be to delete this and start again with edit button or something like that :/ --che 15:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the new crop if the copyright situation is fine. SFC9394 20:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is too dark: what should be white is light blue. --Pumbaa 10:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's much better; I think just editing the color balance would make it featured. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
St. Oppose screen shoot of wikimedia website. Is this leagal? --Tarawneh 15:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I don't quite understand your reason for a strong oppose. Are you saying this pictore is not legal? In case you are, Template:Copyvio might a better way to do that. --che 02:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is probably legal (at least as fair use), but since it's showing a wikimedia icons, it's not free per default, and thus a violation of commons policy. Ask the Wikimedia Foundation to allow you to publish this image under GFDL/CC-by-sa/whatever - they'll very likely have no problem with that. Wikimedia logos are not "free", so the logos are protected against abuse. Such abuse seems very unlikely for a picture like this one. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 17:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see it as fair use. Pleas check Wikipedia:Fair use. what I can see is an image of monitor colored pixels, cropped from an image of a screen shot of wikimedia website, used to illustrate monitor colored pixels. This is not fair use. Plus, Fair Use is not free. --Tarawneh 22:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more on Commons:Village_pump#Image:LCD_macro_view.jpg --Tarawneh 08:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a color corrected version and asked Angela about the image. We'll see what comes out. --che 15:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got no reply from Angela, so please consider this nomination as withdrawn. --che 18:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 3 oppose --> not featured (withdrawn) MGo 10:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dalveen Pass from Comb Head-HDR.jpg - not featured

300px|Dalveen Pass, Dumfries & Galloway

Info created by Kenny Muir - uploaded by Überraschungsbilder - nominated by SFC9394 23:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SFC9394 23:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dark areas in the blue sky and the clouds make it look like a painting. Besides that it's leaning and I'd wish a broader format like 2:3 od 16:9 for this landscape. --Ikiwaner 06:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice and mystical. But too much contrast and color saturation. It's leaning and very grainy norro 09:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose colors are too weird -- Gorgo 18:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the original is much nicer - MPF 23:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 14:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC) - colours are definitely to weird - the picture is simply spoiled. Neither composition, nor subject or everything all is (IMHO) outstanding anyway.[reply]
- Oppose same as Ss181292 --Tarawneh 15:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - overprocessed --Wikimol 10:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- gildemax 12:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 7 oppose --> not featured MGo 10:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crops Kansas AST 20010624.jpg - featured

Info Created by NASA, uploaded and nominated by Howcheng.
Support -- I like it! Very different! -- Boereck 23:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice! Due to the irrigation circles it looks mysterious & alien! SFC9394 23:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 09:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject, but not an outstanding picture/composition. norro 09:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ack norro YolanC 14:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition -- Gorgo 18:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - useful pic; 'composition' doesn't matter in something like this - MPF 23:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Composition is always important. The composition here is fine. Snowwayout 07:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC) - absolutely outstanding picture. Great picture quality, very high encyclopedic value and very good description on description page.[reply]
Support! Original and captivating. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- is there a plane view of this? ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 06:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
st. Oppose nothing special, too dull --Tarawneh 15:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - needs a lot of exlication --- gildemax 12:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Miljoshi 09:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moof 13:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support it looks like the game of Life. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great abstract composition and informative nevertheless! El Comandante 21:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lelote 16:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral --> Featured MGo 10:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Double-sided ha-ha, Melford Hall, Suffolk.JPG - not featured

Comment - High Resolution image now uploaded GrahamBould 16:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info created by User:GrahamBould - uploaded by User:GrahamBould - nominated by GrahamBould 21:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GrahamBould 21:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Very original in my mind and I would definitely support it and praise it if the resolution wasn't such a disappointment. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're talking. Change to

Support. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral --- ack Lumijaguaari! do you have a bigger image by chance? -- Boereck 14:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- thanks! I really like the bigger version! -- Boereck 15:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above MGo 15:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - High Resolution image now uploaded GrahamBould 16:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 23:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Idea not clear! --Tarawneh 15:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- gildemax 12:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 4 oppose --> not featured MGo 10:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Linköping-tekniska verken.jpg - featured

Info created by tomhe - uploaded by Handycarry - nominated by SFC9394 18:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SFC9394 18:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The thumbnail is quite impressive and very nice, but the full resolution version is less interesting and lacking of a central object norro 22:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with norro to a degree, but I support still - brown always goes well with different shades of blue. Luvly. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 06:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 09:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Francisco M. Marzoa 13:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that Sebastianm 16:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urban 05:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support just perfect --Ikiwaner 06:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is grainy, with blue/purple colour fringing (esp. under the bridge). —Pixel8 16:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
st. Support --Tarawneh 15:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- gildemax 12:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (mind you, its a flickr CC though) -- Miljoshi 09:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fodder 00:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 11:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rosarium Orans 05:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anatol 22:06, 27 May 2006

17 support, 2 oppose --> Featured MGo 10:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LilacBreastedRollerCropped.jpg - featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Dfmeeker 04:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dfmeeker 04:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joonasl 07:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 08:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough. And nice colors. Francisco M. Marzoa 13:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnangarra 14:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prevert^(talk) 14:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not that sharp and partly covered by the sticks norro 15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colours indeed and the bird looks very wise, but (perhaps just because of that) deserves a better picture. Good try though, Dfmeeker. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lerdsuwa 09:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dave Great pic, Excellent colours 13:52 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose -- Urban 05:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oonagh 10:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great pose pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too much of the tail cropped off. Would support the original, or a less heavily cropped version - MPF 23:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --- gildemax 12:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sussie 15:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miljoshi 09:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tarawneh 16:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 18:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fodder 00:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support WεFt 18:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kjetil r 18:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 16:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rosarium Orans 05:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 19:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- nico@nc 08:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject not complete El Comandante 18:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20 support, 9 oppose --> Featured MGo 10:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Apple_Closeup.jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded, and nominated bySchuyler S.
Oppose -- Gnangarra 14:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- first of all: great focusing job. but I really find it too bland and boring to be featured. (without this being any influence on my vote: the apple has a cut on the left side :-( poor apple). -- Boereck 14:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Good depth, but otherwise unremarkable Snowwayout 07:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Tarawneh 15:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --- gildemax 12:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 5 oppose --> not featured MGo 13:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Manora - Tallest Lighthouse of Pakistan P11008351.jpg

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Waqas.usman 22:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uploaded a cropped version of the image, on the right, please give your comments about the new version. Waqas.usman 18:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose valid for both pictures --- gildemax 12:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both pictures -- Fodder 00:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both pictures. Hazy and grainy images with lot of compression artefacts. Ambuj.Saxena 07:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

original (left) - not featured

Support -- Waqas.usman 22:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Siddiqui 13:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fast track 01:44 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Urban 03:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- 2/3rds of the image is irrelevent to the subject Gnangarra 13:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition norro 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a bit of Pakistan you don't see in the news every day. It might be ordinary to some people here, but I find it quite interesting. --Dschwen 07:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dave 13:50 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose -- put aside the fact that this is a different angle to view pakistan (as Dschwen said), the house on the left is distracting and the whole composition below the standard for featured pics -- Boereck 14:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 13:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 10 oppose --> not featured MGo 10:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

crop (right) - not featured

Comment the crop is way too tight. At least the water should be visible. If you wat to crop then just crop away the appartment building on the left.
Oppose MGo 13:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 4 oppose --> not featured MGo 10:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Manora Beach 1100641.JPG - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Waqas.usman 20:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Waqas.usman 20:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - we've much better beach pics - MPF 21:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you didn't even like the splendid Bangkok sunset image Template:Featured pictures candidates#Image:Bangkok skytrain sunset.jpg, then I can't imagine what would please you :) Waqas.usman 22:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Fast track 01:43 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Urban 03:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Siddiqui 13:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- nice but not outstanding Gnangarra 14:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring norro 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- besides the fact that the motive looks dull to me, I wonder if that wood shelter/life belt storage/unidentified object in the (somewhat) middle is supposed to be the center of the pic...? and if so, why? -- Boereck 14:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special --Tarawneh 16:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --- gildemax 19:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 9 oppose --> not featured MGo 10:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Evang.-Kirche-Lutzmannsburg .jpg - not featured

Info created by Kobako - uploaded by Kobako - nominated by 195.3.113.167 19:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kobako
Oppose - OK, but nothing special - MPF 22:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not that outstanding -- Gorgo 00:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- appears tilted Gnangarra 14:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- it is a really clean shot, I like that! the quality is excellent! and even though the church is a tiny bit too far right in the image, you have my support :-) -- Boereck 14:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --- gildemax 19:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 13:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured MGo 10:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chenille chevrefeuille.jpg - featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jodelet 17:06, 10 May 2006
Support norro 17:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support wa! pfctdayelise (translate?) 22:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Artistic! I like it. --XN 00:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 08:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnangarra 14:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prevert^(talk) 14:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice artistic picture! User: Lelote
Support It's very nice. The caterpillar is so cute! --snty-tact (Talk) 04:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- very creative, original shot; great quality! Love it! -- Boereck 14:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oonagh 10:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - not a lot of use without the species identity. Will change to support if this is provided - MPF 23:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macrothylacia rubi, what a pretty name... Jodelet

Support (slightly unlucky with the lighting, but a good compo) --Miljoshi 09:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tarawneh 16:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- gildemax 19:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 16:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support El Comandante 21:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 19:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral --> Featured MGo 08:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Heart numlabels.png

Info created by Wapcaplet - modified and uploaded by Dake - nominated by Shizhao 11:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

original version (left) - not featured

Support --Shizhao 11:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slovik 12:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 12:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 20:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC) - 1. Low resolution, 957x965px is not enough and this is not thue resolution of this picture (picture is enlarged). 2. Why it is PNG, it should be SVG. 3. Ugly colours.[reply]
Support I like the colours. pfctdayelise (translate?) 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Ss181292, the full size version is blurry, and the preferred file format for an illustration like this is SVG, so oppose, even though the colors are pretty ;-) --Dschwen 23:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto dschwen -- Gorgo 00:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 03:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 08:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- it's a nice illistration but i've seen better Gnangarra 14:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prevert^(talk) 14:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --gildemax 19:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 6 oppose --> not featured MGo 08:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edited version (right) - featured

Info I've uploaded slightly edited SVG version of this picture (original SVG and PNG version can by found on EN wiki) Ss181292 20:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 20:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 06:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XN 08:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tarawneh 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --gildemax 19:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's cool, why say no? Gryffindor 09:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 1 oppose --> Featured MGo 08:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Warsaw modern buildings.jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Sebastianm 19:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 08:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC) - for street light near left edge, and condensation trail in background.[reply]
Oppose --Teme 09:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- sorry, but the perspective makes me dizzy... and I am a roller coaster fanatic ;-) -- 80.228.89.247 14:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Please log in before voting --pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - somewhat off horizontal (by about 70°!) - MPF 21:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- square the building in the corner and clone out contrails and light Gnangarra 14:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --gildemax 19:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 5 oppose --> not featured MGo 13:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coccinella septempunctata couple (aka).jpg - featured

Info created and uploaded by Aka - nominated by Boivie 18:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice porno ;) OK, I'm kidding. High encyclopedic value and good image quality. The resolution could be slightly greater, but it's OK. Ss181292 19:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding piece of macrophotography. Freedom to share 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thrilling! --XN 21:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pjotr 12:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MartinD 12:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment surprisingly this image appears neither in any category nor gallery page. I'd think this would be the first step before nominating it on FPC... --Dschwen 13:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

What's about Coccinella septempunctata ([4])? .. ;) -- aka 13:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooops, camouflaged between Commons:Candidates a imáxenes destacaes and Commons:特色圖片候選 in the "What links here" section :-). Sorry!--Dschwen 20:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Luc Viatour 05:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnangarra 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 10:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miljoshi 09:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --gildemax 19:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 16:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support El Comandante 21:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 support, 2 oppose --> Featured MGo 08:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:utah_dort.png - not featured

Info created by Charlax - uploaded by Charlax - nominated by Charlax 13:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
Support -- It's my very first candidature, please be nice ;-) It may need some improvements (colors, contrast, ...) Charlax 13:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- ¿? Francisco M. Marzoa 14:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An advice: [5] Francisco M. Marzoa 13:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- okay. first of all: a vote against your picture does NOT mean it is not good or special or valuable. it just means that it is not as good as some other shots posted here that are trying to be featured. so even though it might not have the attributes for a featured pic, it will still be your best shot. and the level of quality here is quite high. second of all: who knows what for a fact? I think there is no single PERFECT picture everybody is striving to post. and there is no person voting here that has a universal knowledge. everybody just states what they think - sometimes that may be very obvious like poorest quality - and that may mean you get good votes from some people and bad ones from others. in short: you will never please everyone on here. so now I have some good news, the image quality is okay and the size is good! yet I also got bad news: FOR MY TASTE, the image is too bland. and also the grass in the background is dissonant. -- Boereck 19:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The dog is nice, the colors are nice, the picture is sharp, resolution is sufficient BUT, to become a featured picture, a picture needs more than that. It needs to be "special", and this is not special for me. Here, I think the composition is the problem : it's boring. Try focusing on the dog, try to get near, try to be more creative, and perhaps you'll get your picture featured. -- Fabien1309 19:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 19:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC) - nothing special.[reply]
Oppose Sorry, agree with the above. Freedom to share 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 11:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 12:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Partially as per above but mostly beceause the image looks blatantly lopsided due to the fact that the dog is not centered in the frame, it also isn't anything special. Pegasus1138 19:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Luc Viatour 05:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 06:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i'm sorry but the compostion is not really good, the image is not centered, but I think that if you practise more,it can only get better. User:Lelote 19:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special --- gildemax 19:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 12 oppose --> not featured MGo 08:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bangkok skytrain sunset.jpg - featured

Info created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Fabien1309 11:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
Support -- Fabien1309 11:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 13:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IMHO: pretty close to perfect - if not there -- Boereck 18:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice, looks almost fake, lowish resolution though. -- Gorgo 18:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support El Comandante 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful pic --Bachrach44 19:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A speeding train above traffic jams: almost an advertising for the Bangkok Rapid Transit Corporation (or whatever their name is, never been there) MartinD 12:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice picture. Pegasus1138 19:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. Tbc 22:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: fala comigo} 00:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 05:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 13:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Opponent 16:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great colors. --Dschwen 16:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 17:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the railway supports look rather ugly and spoil the pic a bit - MPF 21:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 22:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful!! Waqas.usman 22:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Snowwayout 07:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miljoshi 09:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- gildemax 19:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Barcex 23:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC) closed[reply]

20 support, 1 oppose --> Featured MGo 08:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zwei Eicheln.jpg - not featured

Info created and uploaded by Darkone - nominated by Fabien1309 11:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
Support --Fabien1309 11:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- very nice composition, good quality: flawless I would say -- Boereck 18:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support El Comandante 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The object just behind them , looking like an ant, would have to be smudged... Freedom to share 20:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 04:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gordo 08:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pjotr 12:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting, background norro 15:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MGo 06:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --gildemax 19:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 7 oppose --> not featured MGo 08:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Royal exhibition building tulips.jpg - not featured

Info created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Fabien1309 11:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
Support -- Fabien1309 11:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlax 13:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 04:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, i'm not sure what is the subject --che 13:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- dark foreground, building angles are distracting, Gnangarra 14:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the lighting too much (shadow in the foreground and background) -- Gorgo 18:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --- gildemax 19:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Love the perspective. Fodder 00:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- powerfull (IMO) -- YolanC 13:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral --> not featured MGo 08:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit Image:Royal exhibition building tulips straight.jpg - not featured

Info I like the colors the lightening and the exposure but I didn't like the extremely leaning perspective. I did correct that and vote for this edited version. --Ikiwaner 19:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd wish some more information about the building. --Ikiwaner 19:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better with the extended description now. --Ikiwaner 10:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- edited version only Gnangarra 07:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 09:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the lighting too much (shadow in the foreground and background) -- Gorgo 18:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the lighting too much (shadow in the foreground and background) -- Gorgo 18:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
please just vote once --Ikiwaner 06:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ups was supposed to go to both pictures -- Gorgo 20:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Miljoshi 09:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --- gildemax 19:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Like the leaning version better. Fodder 00:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lelote 16:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose El Comandante 18:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral --> not featured MGo 08:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]