Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2007

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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


Vintage catalogue of corsets and bra

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

Gran Canaria Telescope

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

Lioness


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

Young grasshopper on grass stalk

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

Short description

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

A Canada grise apple

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

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

Short description

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

Short description

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

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

Short description

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

In the forest

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

Short description

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

When the four quadrilaterals rotate about their centres, they fill the space occupied by the small red square. However the total area of the figure appears to remain unchanged

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

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

[edit]


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

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

  •  Comment Sorry, no idea. All I did was rotate, crop to remove the white edge triangles so created, and save. - MPF 22:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It's not only the thumbnail that has lost sharpness. Also the full size image seems less sharp to me. Maybe the 2°CCW rotation should be done with another program. --Leyo 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Changed to the edited version. --Leyo 16:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Ceridwen 18:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Tatooine, here we come! Freedom to share 21:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC) (By the way, this joke refers to Star Wars in case you did not get it. It was meant as a compliment that he produced something as wonderful as we usually only see in high-budget productions :-) )[reply]
  •  Oppose and delete. The image is from an unacceptable source, it's also tagged incorrectly (with a -self tag when the uploader was not the copyright holder). SXC claims that their license applies to all images, just as Wikipedia claims that all text is available under the GFDL. It only takes a moment to visit their message base and see that many of their contributors expect the images will be used only in accordance to the license agreement there. --Gmaxwell 17:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 8 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 10:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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

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

Monument to the Portuguese Discoveries, Lisbon, Portugal

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

The Battleship USS Pennsylvania


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

Glacial lakes in Bhutan

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

Head of Toco Toucan

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

 CommentRight Hand Side and Left Hand Side --Jacopo86 10:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 11:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Piles LR6 (macrophotographie

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

Flowers open in succession in a flower head

Shallow DOF helps to focus the main subject: the stigmas and pollens, illustrating spatiotemporal sexual dimorphism of disc flowers. Thanks for your vote. Nl74 10:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking towards Ford Field the night of Super BowlXL

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

Short description

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

diffraction of white light in a prism.

Alternative (not a candidate)
  •  Oppose I really, really like this illustration since it is very nice and clear, but I have to oppose due to physical reasons. Let me explain:
    1. The dots indicate that light consists of particles, which is not right. Light is electromagnetic radiation (although there is the w:Wave–particle_duality). I would like to see waves behind all the dots or even just waves.
    2. The dots (indicating the light) move with different speed inside the prism, but the speed of electromagnetic radiation does not depend on the frequency/wavelengths.
    I'm not a physicist, but this is my state of knowledge as electrical engineer. Probably most of wikipedia users won't recognise that, but I think that featured pictures should be absolutely correct. I will love supporting, if this is done. norro 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's why I called it conceptual. It's not meant to be entirely accurate, it's just a simple model to explain a certain concept. Like I've stated before, my goal was to show how different wavelengths (colors) of light behave as they travel through a medium, and how that's related to the phenomenon of refraction and dispersion. The dots serve this purpose pretty well, I think. I understand it can be misleading, but if this image is used in an article, and if it has a decent explanation on the image page (gonna work on that now), it should be enough to avoid most of that misconception. I could (and I will) make a similar version involving little waves, but I'll have to find some time for that one, since it'd be a bit more complicated. Also, light DOES slowdown when travelling through a medium, and the shorter the wavelength, the slower it will travel. The only place where light (of any wavelength) travels always at the same speed is in vacuum. Things can travel faster than light in a medium, though, and that's where Cherenkov radiation comes from. But back to the model, you can see that once the "photons" leave the prism to the black vacuum, their speeds are once again the same, so the model is correct in that aspect as well. — Kieff | KieffWikipedia | Talk 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, see the alternate image posted here. Nothing against it or anything, but I must admit, I think it conveys little information about dispersion except the fact that it happens! There are little clues in the angle of light while it is inside the prism (though it gets wrong on the exit), but you just can't expect someone to look at it and understand what's going on, especially if the person isn't already familiarized with refraction and dispersion. For all educational purposes, it's just as good as a static image. This is what I was trying to avoid. I wanted something to show, conceptually, what goes inside the prism, and for that I needed individual parts moving, so I picked dots (mainly because it was easier to understand and follow - as well as code! - but also because I thought it would work reasonably well.) It works, but it is not entirely accurate. But again, isn't that how it usually goes? We always use simplified and inaccurate scientific models in order to teach people new concepts (Newtonian physics and gravity instead of General Relativity, frictionless systems, point masses and charges, electrons as particles in orbit, etc.)... I believe that as long as we make the inaccuracy clear, we shouldn't have a problem with them. I think this applies to this image. We teach a concept, and we filter out the inaccuracies later on with a more in-depth explanation. Anyway, I'll try making a version with little waves, but I don't think complaining about inaccuracy is a valid point against the model. It's nothing a bit more of insight can't fix, and by then the model will have done its purpose, and it would have done it well enough. — Kieff | KieffWikipedia | Talk 22:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What causes the dispersion of light in the prism is precisely the fact that different wavelengths have different refraction angles, due to small differences in phase velocity. Alvesgaspar 20:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support pink floyd forever! ;-) --AngMoKio 19:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose this gives the wrong idea that the photons (big and white) are split into smaller colored photons when entering the glass surface of a prism. wrong didactic image in that sense. --Diligent 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 10 support, 1 neutral, 7 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malpighia glabra

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

Catinaccio/Rosengarten from Guncina/Guntschna 300px|Catinaccio/Rosengarten from Guncina/Guntschna

[edit]
 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
 0 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dog in Spain

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

Short description

  •  Info created by my mother: Mehregan Javanmard - uploaded - nominated by Arad --Arad 04:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support No FP on human infant right now and this one is very good. I't also has artistic value, the smile of the Infant and the direction of it's eyes (looking at brightness) and encyclopedic value (Infants, when doing nothing, look at bright objects). I also had a question. Why the image look so differently on IE than when I view normally? It look more bright on Internet explorer. It's probably because of Proof colors. But which one is the right color? --Arad 04:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose the image is nice but resolution is too low. Also the right arm is cut. --Jacopo86 10:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - We need more resolution for a baby's face? It's useless if we have to scroll all around to see the whole face. I think the 2 million pixel rule is way too high, as discussed in the talk page. Anyway this one is actually big enough (in my opinion). --Arad 13:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 1 support, 7 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 10:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Info created by Mg-k - uploaded by Mg-k -
 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 10:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description Denoised lady with Kimono

[edit]
 2support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
that's the strap of her cell phone ;) -- Gorgo 15:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 6 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double-crested Cormorant

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

Short description Langhaus der Stadtkirche Glarus

[edit]
 4 support, 0 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
 6 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

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

Short description

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

Post-sunset horizon as seen from an aircraft

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

Toledo Skyline Panorama

 Support --Ibn Battuta 16:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 16 support, 3 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 19:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Comment - If this is not special, just to let you know, we currently have a FP of onlt the dome of this picture. It's exactly the same but cropped to the white dome and this is by far better. --66.36.145.42 18:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 8 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 07:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mangalarga Marchador horse
Mangalarga Marchador horse
as for the dots: I've now seen two truly tiny dots that *I*'d guess are flaws (one in front of the fence between the horse's legs, and one in front of the horse's right hind leg)--unfortunately, I don't have time and/or knowledge to remove them myself; let me know if there's any forum of the commons where I can find help for issues like this
out of focus: At least *I* can't see that--looks like only the background and the horse's legs aren't perfectly in focus, the latter gives just a hint that the horse is moving (which for me makes the picture interesting; but that's my POV of course); well, and then there's the dust of course, which also belongs. --Ibn Battuta 15:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose ack Lycaon --MichaelMaggs 18:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose nice composition...nice capture. Unfortunatelly there is really a focus problem and it is overexposed. Furthermore there is sth else wrong with the picture...check the upper right corner, there went sth wrong with the photoshopping --AngMoKio 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Hopeless cloning on the background --Fir0002 www 09:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose viewed at 100% the upper part of this image is riddled with odd lines, repeated patterns in the grass, noise, and a sharp halo around the horse, was the clone tool was even used? The selection tool and a simple copy and paste perhaps?--Benjamint444 00:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --medium69 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose strongly. I really can see the odd rectangular bands even at low resolution! This is not just contrasts on their borders, but really a bad adaptation of the camara filter when it creates the JPEG. The camera certainly has a bug in its compression algorithm, or it is your software which uses very cheap conversion/compression algorithms with poor quality! For such noisy image, you really need an excellent edit software with state of the art programming of filters. Most of the defacts don't seen to come from the lense or sensor, but really from bad numeric handling after the shot! Verdy p 01:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that you have used PhotoShop 7.0 to edit the original. I suggest you restart the edit from the original, using a better quality software, and that you use the filters consistantly instead of using it by bands. This may require more memory in your system to compute the filters without using sub-bands. If you don't know how to do it yourself, reload your original here under the same name, and ask to someone if he can perform the corrections for you.
    • Note: white dots between the legs near the fence are not bugs. This is really true sand spread by the walk of the horse (evident at high resolution). But the very visible bands in the grass in the background are really a severe defect(or incorrect use of your edit software). Verdy p 01:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 2 support, 10 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 07:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Superb Blue Fairy Wrens
 12 support, 3 neutral, 6 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 07:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

transgenic corn uprooted by a member of the French organization "les faucheurs volontaires"

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

December Fog Edited version Building removed

  •  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Digon3

Original version(left)

[edit]
 0 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 23:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
 3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  •  Info I removed the ugly building --Digon3 17:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice and informative (fogs are ground-level clouds, this picture shows both of the fog and the cloud perspective). -- Nl74 08:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I strongly suggest you keep the building as a feature that animates the image and gives a field depth to the image. The edit makes all the image too smooth with any contour for the eye, that's why it seems so boring: without it, you can't fix your eye to feel the light atmosphere, and you can't perceive the subtle color differences. Note also that white balancing is a bit strange (too much bluish, i.e. the white temperature is too high; this makes the greens too much grey, and it fades out all the colors). if you don't want colors, then use pure monochromatic grey images! Verdy p 02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Also the composition is bad: too much white shy on top (it's probably better to crop a significant part of it). Not enough subject at the bottom.[reply]
 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga 500 Computer

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

 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
  •  Support --Lestat 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --WarX 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC) beautiful[reply]
  •  Comment Sorry, this is not a spectrum but a depiction of absorption lines in the light coming form the Sun. Either we like it aesthetically or not but no exact information can be taken from the image alone (there is no frequency scale), and the text doesn't explain the meaning of the absorption lines. Alvesgaspar 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't know how it's called in English, but in Polish it's spectrum of absorbtion. This image is enough for qualitative analisys of this physical phenomenon. --WarX 18:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The scale is not needed; it is clearly explained at the NOAO source from which the image comes (it's about 70 nanometres per band). This image is generated from numeric data, it's not a photograph. You can ask any size to NOAO which will compute the image from their data. The only bad thing is that i's in JPEG format, so this creates artefacts when seen at its maximum resolution. The image would be much better in PNG format (because applying any filter to it would be completely inappropriate! unfortunately the JPEG format is itself a low-band pass filter within each 8x8 cell, and not so cute to see). The NOAO certainly has much better data but keeps it for its sales or scientific research exchanges, this image is just a demo of what they have. Verdy p 01:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose by what Alvesgaspar wrote. -- 790 16:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --medium69 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A great visualisation for this quite difficult subject. Good. Metoc 21:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

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

Short description

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

Nap

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

Peru, puna child

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

Klöntalersee, Switzerland   

[edit]


 5 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
 7 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 11:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visualization of a DTI measurement of a human brain

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

a cornfront meets a weatherfront

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

Short description

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

Short description

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

Piano's keybord with fragment of mechanism

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

Dynapac F14C Paver during work

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

Ver. 2

[edit]
 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
 0 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 10:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Former coal mine KWK Katowice in Katowice

Original (left)

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

A380 photographed during ILA 2006

Not nominated

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

Looks like JPEG artefacts to me. So perhaps can be improved with less compression. norro 17:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm... I don't really know, what jpeg artefacts are, so I can't comment on this. But here, take a look at the original.Airwolf 14:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 1 support, 2 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fimbriated moray, Gymnothorax fimbriatus Fimbriated moray, Gymnothorax fimbriatus

[edit]
 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 15:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 18:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-Benz prototypes

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

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

i took it at the Mercedes-Benz-Museum in Stuttgart, Germany. I went there early in the morning to take the picture without visitors around. I love the atmosphere there and the way the cars are arranged....of course the cars are also nice :) --AngMoKio 20:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
was it allowed to take pictures? -- Simonizer 08:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taking pictures was explicitly allowed. It was written on TV-screens at the entrance. There are already several pictures from that museum Category:Mercedes-Benz museum on Commons --AngMoKio 09:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose the architecture of the musseum and the way the exposition was made is really helping, yet in my opinion the image is rather dull. the composition too straight foward. it is hard to explain it, but in my opinion it misses composition quality -LadyofHats 08:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I like the idea. But the reflections on the left are distracting and disturb the otherwise nice composition. (Could you do something about those reflections... and maybe the background generally? ... not sure it would help sufficiently though.) --Ibn Battuta 00:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --medium69 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
can you please write a short comment...it is really helpful for all to get a written feedback. I dont have a problem with an "oppose". But without a comment it is somehow disappointing...--AngMoKio 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 5 support, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Oktava 319 condenser microphone

 Comment This is: Image:Knurling closeup.jpg - and it's even today's Picture of the Day. --MichaelMaggs 20:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This would be really good in an article (obviously). But not for FP. --Wj32 05:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I have to agree. This is a high quality picture of a high quality microphone, but i think that is not special enough to nominate as FP candidate. I would nominate it as a quality picture on the spot. Greetings --SvonHalenbach 13:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Well, I think it is one of the best pictures of a technical item in here. --Jeses 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 4 support, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 18:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestra basson

    • My comment wasn't clear. And people are offended. So just because I don't care, and this vote doesn't make a difference. I  Support And let me make it clear, if this was nominated on Wikipedia I would support, not here. --Arad 12:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is unfortunate that you think that way.. Because anything less 'documentary' and more 'artistic' would be less good for our educational purposes. Substantial work was required in the creation of this image, for example I welded a custom mount which extended out of the backdrop and attached safely to this expensive and heavy instrument to avoid the requirement of photoshopping out the background, and I am a little saddened that commons will only honor my work if I make it less professional, less informative, and less accurate with things like overblown saturation, bizarre angles which would hide the keywork or misrepresent the proportions, etc. I'm glad that I'm motivated by the benefit to our projects rather than by featured status, and I hope for our future that more of our contributors will adopt my indifference. --Gmaxwell 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't get mad just because a single user does not understand that this picture is much harder to get than it seems, and that recognizing beauty when it passes in front of your eyes is one of the most important skills of any photographer. Please go on with your excellent work. - Alvesgaspar 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gah, I'm not at all mad. I don't care. In my view, almost every FPC has objections that I think are foolish and which (if listened to) would decrease the quality of our project, but thats just my view. They also have a lot of useful and helpful comments as well.. We take the good with the bad. :) In any case it is nothing personal. --Gmaxwell 00:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -LadyofHats 08:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -Elcairo 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --medium69 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Wing-Chi 21:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Cool. Husky 12:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Ceridwen 20:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - It's not easy to place it on screen with a sufficient resolution, unless we turn it 90 degrees, or you extract some detailed parts from the full image. But anyway the image is impressive. - Did you edit it to crop some parts of the background? I have the feeling that some parts of the instrument were cropped too tightly (because the rounded border should have a tangential smoothing near these borders. it gives me the feeling that on some places, the border was cropped 1 or 2 pixels inside, and in other areas, we see some pixels from the background. This may have been caused by editing and filtering. Anyway this image is good. -- Verdy p 01:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 16 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 00:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Richard's Pipit (Anthus richardi) is a medium-sized passerine bird

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

Short description

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

    • I am against numbered diagrams to be featured. in my opinion it looses all its illustrative value. without real labels it becomes just a nice Drawing. the image should be able to stand by itself. specially if it is going to be featured. (since this means it will often be seen without the article)if you wish a numbered version of this image you can find it here-LadyofHats 08:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with tsca, especially on many your images descriptive labels creates very large empty margins around core image, what reduces readability of it :( --WarX 11:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • for someone that sugest having no text at all readability shouldnt be your concern. the point here is that diagrams are there to explain a subject. and without text or labels diagrams become useless. i do not upload "nice drawings" to wikipedia. i do diagrams WITH labels. i make them svg so the labels can be adapted to any use. but i honestly think that a diagram without labels at all is useless.-LadyofHats 19:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't say you should remove labels, but would be nice if you put numbers not texts, especially when you put texts in very bad places. If I had monitor with 150 DPI your images 'as is' would be great, but on standard display (wikis optimized for 1024x768) on your images text labels because of their placement eat to much space and images are hard to read.--WarX 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --medium69 23:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 4 support, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 07:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Harbour BridgeSydney Harbour Bridge, edited Noise removed

[edit]
    •  Comment Yeah, that's a pitty. 20 second exposition must be the cause ==> this caused visible noise, but I must admit, it is rather strage. Thanks to Fuji ! Still, you could probably clone these out with an image editing software, which would improve image quality. The white dots are pretty disturbing. --Atoma 14:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment After investigation I think it is thermal noise. --Atoma 17:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured
[edit]
 0 support, 0 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 11:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
 2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

S116-E-05968 (12 Dec. 2006) --- Astronaut Robert L. Curbeam, Jr., STS-116 mission specialist, participates in the mission's first of three planned sessions of extravehicular activity (EVA) as construction resumes on the International Space Station. European Space Agency (ESA) astronaut Christer Fuglesang (out of frame), mission specialist, also participated in the 6-hour, 36-minute spacewalk.

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

Endomembrane system

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

Short description

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

Beautiful Lake Bohinj

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

Piotr Schmidt - 1st Silesian Jazz Festiwal

Sorry, but it looks like a unflattering snapshot of someone. I just can't see it as FP material. --Digon3 13:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped
Cropped
 1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 19:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

View from Seebodenalp/Switzerland

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

Short description

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

power transformer high to low voltage power transformer high to low voltage v1.01

Original (left)

[edit]
  •  Info Power transformer high to low voltage after modifications, created by Mtodorov_69 - uploaded by Mtodorov_69 - nominated by Mtodorov_69 --Mtodorov 69 12:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Wow, amazing quality in full-size image. --Atoma 15:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --medium69 15:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment could the steele have some texture? It has a good quality, but the steele looks unreal.--SvonHalenbach 15:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I agree with Sven: Due to the colour and lighting it is hard to identify that the core is made of plates, which is an important fact. Furthermore I'm not sure about the texture of the connectors on top and of the insulation between the windings. What materials do these textures indicate? norro 11:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Great resolution, but the the rendering is not exceptional or hard to accomplish -- Simonizer 11:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The improved version is uploading right now, dealing with texture & additional insulation. I must admit I am an electric engineer, not a graphic designer. The complexity of design is hidden behind the fact that the design is general, and the connectors must work for any number of primary or secondary windings and layers of windings, (and any intersection of windings will prove that they are truly wound from connector to connector, not just simulated). Doing this in a general way was tricky. When I learn to do that in a nicer way, the result will be better for sure. Your comments were helpful, and any ideas on better texture selection for connectors and insulation would be most welcome.
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, => not featured Simonizer 10:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Please consider following version

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

Tulip stair in the Queen's House, Greenwich, London. It is the first centrally unsupported stair to be built in england

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

S-Mine without labels S-Mine with labels

[edit]
 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  •  Comment labeled version added on 12:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC) by Dake (Lycaon 11:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  •  Support Illustrative. A case in the point where everything that is true, is not necessarily beautiful. --Thermos 19:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Might support after some minor flaws are addressed: i) The segments connecting to the tags should be horizontal or 45º oriented whenever possible; ii) The tags should be evenly distributed between both sides of the illustration; iii) The tag numbers are not centered inside the circles. Yes, a mine is a terrible weapon. But we have to know how it works to better oppose its use. Alvesgaspar 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose picture is very good, labeling is (still?) sub-standard. Lycaon 11:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    the problem is that I don't know which font is used to render the SVG in Mediawiki. There is an easy way to fix that (convert the font to vector lines) but the text won't be editable afterwards. So..original fonts + SVG + Mediawiki = bad alignment. Dake 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could dump the circles ... Lycaon 14:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to convert the text to paths (vector lines). The numbers can be used in most projects without being edited and if it's still necessary, the converted text can be edited like any other part of this illustration. norro 18:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wreck of the Peter Iredale in Oregon, USA Edited photo per suggestions

[edit]
 1 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 10:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  •  Comment Thanks for your input this far! I do wish I could crop in a bit further. Next time I'll choose something with larger dimensions so cropping won't disqualify the photo by making it too small. Thanks again! I eagerly await other opinions or suggestions. --Rkitko 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiew of monut Tofana from the top of mount Lagazuoi, Cortina d'Ampezzo, Italy.

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

Short description

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

A pair of juvenile silvereyes being fed fruit

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

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

Adam Kryński from Duan celtic music band from Poland.

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

Rose Petals

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

Palace of Westminster

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

Short description

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

Ruins of a roman forum

Short description

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

Flying ducks Mergus merganser

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

Flying ducks Mergus merganser

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
something
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Caterpillar of Euthrix potatoria

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

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

File:Old north saint louis stl 2006.jpg

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

Patients at hospital

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

Mount Pilatus seen from Adligenswil in Switzerland

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

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

Picture of kamran's bara dari at Lahore

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

Silver Arowana

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

Bryce Canyon Hoodoos

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 02:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Maroon clownfish

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

Elbe Sandstone Mountains in Saxony (Germany)

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

Egeskov Castle, Denmark tourists, reflection and annoying leaf removed

[edit]

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

But not their reflections :) norro 21:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now they are, cant believe I missed that :) --Digon3 19:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured (Rule of the 7th day). Simonizer 09:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
They are gone now :-) --Malene Thyssen 09:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goalkeeper arresting the ball

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

The largest carpet in the World

Please see it's Guinnesscertificate. --Ibrahimjon 07:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Yes, here is an image of a carpet in Iran claimed to be the worlds largest. /Daniel78 19:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot for the photo. And I though it wasn't the biggest carpet. And looks like it is. Anyway, it's far bigger than the carpet in this image. Thanks again. --Arad 23:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Florian Chapell in Prekmurje, Slovenia

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

Helix nebula

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

Rainbow over the palm trees, in Elche (Spain)

What I meant by unrealistic is that it looks edited or cloned, because every tree looks about the same. It probably isn't, but thats what it looks like to me. --Digon3 13:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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