Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November2006

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.


Drosera anglica "eating"

9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 18:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 18:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Field of the wild mustard (Brassica juncea) in South Bohemia - Czech Republic - Europe

2 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 18:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This picture shows the great coat of arms of Carinthia. It was created using Inkscape.

7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 18:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A barred owl (Strix varia) cropped version

[edit]
banned template replaced - Alvesgaspar 22:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
23 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 18:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
2 support, 5 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 15:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

4 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured Alvesgaspar 10:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

北京龙潭湖中秋节的灯会,二龙戏珠

0 support, 5 oppose → not featured Alvesgaspar 10:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sliven from Karandila, Bulgaria Larger, cleaned-up version

[edit]
9 oppose, 1 support, 1 neutral → not featured Alvesgaspar 10:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
 13 support, 2 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 11:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Seattle Central Library by architect Rem Koolhaas, view from 5th Ave.

9 oppose, 1 support → not featured Alvesgaspar 10:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

it's a guideline not a rule, it's for encouraging people to only nominate pictures with a reasonable resolution. If it has a low resolution it might be exceptional in all other points and still become featured. -- Gorgo 14:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5 oppose, 21 support → featured Alvesgaspar 10:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eilat - Dolphin reef

3 oppose, 1 support → not featured Alvesgaspar 10:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reinel wind rose (png) Reinel wind rose (svg)

[edit]
0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral, nomination withdrawn → not featured
Roger McLassus 14:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
2 oppose, 11 support → featured Alvesgaspar 10:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General layout of the amphipod bodyplan after Leucothoe incisa

General layout of the amphipod bodyplan after Leucothoe incisa
  •  Comment I wonder if better use couldn't be made of color? Yellow is hard for me to distinguish. The different shades appear very similar. The text is better now. I don't know what the yellow bars in the third line of the illustration are intended to convey. Wsiegmund 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Agree with Wsiegmund, maybe a little stronger colours would improve the image. Why did you make the lines dimmer in the second version? - Alvesgaspar 10:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
right image 11 support, 1 oppose > featured Alvesgaspar 23:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stock of lumber Stock of lumber

1 support, 9 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 09:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1895 train wreck at Montparnasse

10 support, 1 oppose > featured Alvesgaspar 23:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical image that I recently uploaded a new version of.

1 support, 4 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 12:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marx&Engels ; Berliner Dom

This picture shows a sculpture of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in Front of the Berliner Dom, Germany, Berlin-Mitte.
 2 support, 5 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 23:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

 11 support, 0 oppose > featured Alvesgaspar 23:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 7 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 23:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donostia Beach (Basque Country, Europe)

 0 support, 3 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 23:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trithemis annulata (male)

I see a difference between sunsets and dragonflies. There is not a single feartured picture of a Trithemis annulata - of the sun there are several. Featured pictures should also be a source for good photos for the wikipedia.--AngMoKio 13:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your comment; it is rather meant to show the whole dragonfly for encyclopedical purposes, that's why I chose a picture that shows the features of this animal. I also have this Image:Trithemis annulata (Violetter Sonnendeuter) front.jpg but it doesn't show the features so well.--AngMoKio 14:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 4 support, 2 neutral, 0 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 23:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A sextant - vector version A sextant - vector version

 14 support, 1 oppose (svg version) > featured svg version Alvesgaspar 23:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stained glass in Sułkowski castle

 10 support, 0 oppose > featured Alvesgaspar 23:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Victory column' in Berlin during the 'Festival of Lights'

5 support, 7 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 11:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version / Editierte Version -- Please view the image with full resolution, because the thumbnail is not as sharp as the original is!

  •  Info created by Bgran - uploaded by Bgran - nominated by Bgran
[edit]
  •  Oppose too black, too tiny, too empty Lycaon 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, I don't know what this is and can't read German. - Alvesgaspar 10:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Dear Alvesgaspar, in my opinion you have to view an image at full-size resolution for judging. If you do so, there is also an english translation and explanation. Also the thumbnail is now bilingual. Any comments regarding my picture? - Greetings, Bgran
    • I always appreciate the pictures in full size. Yes, now I can see it is a radioluminescent keychain. Agree with Lycaon: too black, too tiny, too empty. On the other side, I can't see relevant encyclopedic value. - Alvesgaspar 11:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Too dark, bad composition. norro 16:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose only 800x533px. Ss181292 22:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --Overlord 23:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose unfortunate composition --City Slicker 20:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment. This could be a better picture if the subject would be depicted a bit bigger. The image has to be dark in order to see the luminescence and this page is not about encyclopedic value. Anywho, I think the subject is fairly interesting and I do see relevant encyclopedic value. Do you have another version or the posibility to reshoot? --Dschwen 22:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Yes, there is a possibility to reshoot. I will place the keychain in the center of the picture and try to minimize the darkness on the sides. But as Dschwen said, it has to be dark, otherwise you won´t see anything. I will post the new image today in the evening. Greetings, Bgran
  •  Info The image has been edited, I hope it fits your conceivabilities now. Bgran
0 support, 6 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 11:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  •  Comment This is a much better picture. In order to reduce some grain and noise, I would reduce its size a bit. - Alvesgaspar 23:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. The noise and grain is within limits. I'd leave the size as it is, downsampling can be performed if really necessary for a particular application of the picture. --Dschwen 06:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I think I like it. Technically good photo. No need to resample. Ss181292 14:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose norro 17:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Two much grain and noise for a FP. - Alvesgaspar 21:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope peoople look at the image before voting instead of relying on coments like the one above. I honestly have no idea how Alves gets this impression. Especially for a shot under difficult light conditions the noise is very low and the grain barely noticable. --Dschwen 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thank you for the compliment. As a newbie here (but not to photography, I’m afraid), I feel really flattered for all the attention given to my humble opinions. Honestly (we are talking here of intellectual honesty, of course), I believe this picture does not deserve a FP status. As I have said before in another discussion, there is little excuse for not producing an optimal shot when we have controlled conditions. In the present case, and because the subject does not have any exceptional interest, it is expected the picture to be technically perfect. I gave the opportunity to the author to improve the image a little before using my vote. If he had decided to do that, I probably wouldn’t have opposed the nomination. Alvesgaspar 20:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2 support, 2 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 11:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of Saturn

 8 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 14:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greenfinch eating berry Edited version
 14 support, 1 oppose >> featured (left image) Alvesgaspar 15:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock Mantis Shrimp

 6 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 08:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striped eel catfish, Plotosus lineatus Striped eel catfish, Plotosus lineatus

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jnpet --Jnpet 08:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Jnpet 08:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Interesting composition, almost like a Escher's repetitive pattern. But picture is unfocused and noisy. - Alvesgaspar 08:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    •  InfoThanks, I appreciate the critique. I'm a bit confused though. My understanding is that this is a forum to provide material which could be useful to creating informative wikipedia articles. This picture show how tightly bundled this school of striped eel catfish is. This is in fact the way they school in the wild, especially the juveniles. Hence the "noise" is intentional to show this behavior. As for the focus, I think the nearest catfish are in focus and you can clearly count the eight barbels which also identifies these to be catfish. The out of focus catfish in the back of the school also adds to the "noise". I would be happy to take any suggestions as to how this could be improved. Perhaps cropping it? Jnpet 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to point that out: Commons are not just for providing material for wikipedia, but for all wikimedia projects. In addition: It would be nice, if you could provide this additional information here on the image description page, too. Kindly, norro 13:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment In this context (digital photography) "noise" doesn't mean "confusion" but the presence of random coloured "grain" and artifacts caused by the camera sensor or the file compressing process. This is most common in the parts of the image less iluminated. To have all the fish focused it would be necessary to use a smaller lens aperture in order to have a larger depth-of-field. I don't think cropping would solve the problem. - Alvesgaspar 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose small DOF and very confusing norro 13:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I really appreciate everyone's input. I'm not necesarilly new to photography, but I am somewhat new to underwater photography, which I find can be somewhat challenging at times. Under water, things appear to be bigger than they actually are, an optical illusion caused by the water itself, so when focusing on something it can be a bit difficult to find the right focus to click, especially when you are looking into a tiny digital window when placing the subject in the frame. Light is another problem, the water naturally filters out colors and the deeper you go, the bluer it gets. Reds are the first to go and so you need to have flash to bring out the colors. But the flash has a tendency to white out underwater as the water itself reflects the flash. Best way to counter this is to use a strobe light, an expensive bit of equipment I have yet to invest in. Random colored grains was mentioned, this could be things floating in the water. It could be plankton or sand and it's not always possible to control. From this and the other two pictures I have submitted so far it seems DOF is my biggest correctable problem. I'm somewhat limited to the lens I have for the camera, as it's put in a water proof casing, however, I'm thinking that perhaps I am better off shooting on wide focus, then crop the picture afterwards. Some of the subjects are very small, and I'm not sure how well they will show. At any rate, I have a few more shots of some unusual creatures, which I hope will be useful to Wiki and all its projects, which I'll be submitting over the next few weeks and look forward to the input. Jnpet 02:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Tomascastelazo 22:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Sufficient DOF for me - some fish in the front are really sharp. -- Lerdsuwa 18:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Agree--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 22:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I've seen much better, sadly not on commons yet... -- Lycaon 00:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I added a different image of the same subject. Is the second one better than the first? Jnpet 01:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 4 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 08:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanumanagundi water falls

 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 10:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sort dragonfish, also known as dragon seamoth

 2 support, 2 neutral, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 21:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Near Grand Prismatic Spring, Yellowstone

 5 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 21:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

(I have more of them on Flickr, if you fill some would fill a gap on WP you may ask on my talk page.)

 13 support, 1 neutral, 7 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 00:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 1 support, 5 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 00:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

 3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 15:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Panorama view of the Bodensee

But there have been some. And your HDR version is based on his edited version. The unedited version is here. The problems is the lighter the dark areas become, the more noise is visible. If he had taken 3+ different exposures for each shot this would not be a problem. Digon3 15:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did recognize that my version was an edit :-) That's why it's scaled down and overwritten by the original. The idea was to give the photographer an idea. I fully agree that this picture can't be fixed. When you increase brightness of the dark parts you see not only the stitching very well—there are also defective pixels in this camera (3x red 1x green) --Ikiwaner 17:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nomination withdrawn -  not featured Simonizer 10:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

If the shutter speed was fast enough that the people were identifiable, their faces would have to be blurred out anyway, or the picture couldn't be used since model releases would have to be obtained from the people in the picture. Dusso Janladde 02:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 1 support, 1 neutral, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible planet of HD 69830

 1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Lane

 1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 6 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 20:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Lake as seen in the Autumn

 1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured (rule of 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Moonlit Night

 25 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 00:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
something
 2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 13:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podarcis muralis

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Head of Medusa by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, 1630.

 2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 13:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Short description

  •  Info created by User:tomascastelazo - uploaded and nominated by Tomas Castelazo--Tomascastelazo 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Tomascastelazo 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --Mihael Simonič 20:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Not very clear at first sight. The subject looks like its environment but, after all, that mimetic feature has helped the crocodyle to survive. --Javierme 21:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Javierme - That is exactly the point... the subject in its environment and how it blends in. Up close and personal. To see a better example of this mimicing of the surroundings, see this picture Image:Crocodylus acutus 10.jpg --Tomascastelazo 21:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Interesting shot, pity DOF is a lacking and there is a too much noise. Lycaon 22:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Lycaon Yes, well, that is the way it is... next time I´ll ask the croc to stand still and say cheese, like dead crab shots in the safety and comfort of a cozy lab... :o) --Tomascastelazo 23:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Yeah, i can feel the suspense. The reflections are well captured and the head of croco is a good diagonal through the picture. -- Simonizer 17:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--MichaelMaggs 18:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Too much grain and noise. - Alvesgaspar 17:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment In the old days, high ISO speed films were used under low light conditions. Film was push-processed in order to gain contrast and detail, but always resulting in grainy images. In the new days, high ISO speeds are used under low light conditions, yielding what is called "noise" or the equivalent of grain. In this particular case, the subject was taken in its natural environment, late in the afternoon, under low light conditions. Using a lower ISO speed would have resulted in a blurred picture due to having to use lower shutter speeds. So, what do we want? a picture with noise (or grain) that is relatively sharp and considering the limitations of technology or a picture with low noise (or grain) that is blurred by movement? As in the old days, we have a grainy picture due to limitations of technology with a relatively frozen subject, and a bit low DOF that is not important in the general context of the image. So, the adverse conditions were: 1. low light 2. Hight ISO thus more noise 3. A moving subject and the result? 1. a relatively frozen subject. 2. A picture rich in content and context, 3. a close up of an elusive subject. Under adverse conditions, one must always sacrifice something. But point taken, next time I will carry studio equipment, tranquilizers and hire more crocs, and a platform to replace the mangrove so I can use a tripod... :o) --Tomascastelazo 16:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more comment, to consider not necessarily for this image, but all images in general. Difficulty degree in photography judging is almost always an important variable, and judges are required to read the clues that point to that. In this case, digital photography lacks the dynamic range of analog photography. Dynamic range is the capacity of film (or chip) to register tonal differences within an image. So, here we have a subject that belongs to the middle of the tonal range of a gray scale with acceptable detail, and in the shade. The water reflects the sky in a manner that it is represented by aprox zone IX in the gray scale. That means the the light differential between a subject in the shade and a subject outside the shade is basically short, as neither the main subject is blocked towards the low side of the scale, well within the texture range, and neither the sky is blocked toward the high end of the scale (during the day, the reflection of the sky would have been extremely overexposed). So we have two subjects that belong to two different light conditions (and scales), sharing one tonal scale, in a medium that is known for a short dynamic range... (and I will spare you the details of climbing over mangroves...) Draw your conclusions. --Tomascastelazo 17:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - MPF 14:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment A FP is supposed to be an exceptional picture, created by the talent of the photographer and/or the reunion of certain (difficult) conditions which concur to achieve a unique image. In the present case, and although we do not have fully controlled conditions, we can still wait for a better opportunity: a better light, a more cooperative animal, a more sophisticated camera or simply a younger, more patient and courageous photographer capable of mounting a tripod near the nose of the beast and wait for the oportunity. Alvesgaspar 23:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alvesgaspar – WOW!!!!!!!! I am blinded by the brilliance of your critique, I am left breathless by the depth of you vision and speechless by the clarity of your discourse. Of course my image cannot match the technical difficulties you must have encountered in creating this masterpiece of encyclopedic value Image:The photographer.jpg; furthermore, yes, age has taken a toll on me, and sadly enough, as I grow old, so does my cowardice, therefore, gone are the days where I could have attempted to match your intrepid and fearless valor that you must have mustered to face these ferocious beasts Image:Girl and cat.jpg, that I suspect, must have made the strongest of the strong quiver with fear, except, of course, you. I truly apologyze to you for having desecrated this holy site with my humble attempt to contribute an image of a lowly reptile with such evident flaws, and having put your two neurons to work. I hope one did not burn out. --Tomascastelazo 00:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you - please re-read the above and Above all, Be polite --MichaelMaggs 18:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I’m sorry if I have offended the readers of this page; that was not my intention. But I don’t like to be lectured about the way a picture should be evaluated and how I should act as a reviewer, especially by the author of the photograph under review. That is indeed a subtle form of impoliteness, much worse for me than any childish joke about my poor intelligence. Please forgive me of my mention to age. But again, I had no intention to offend; chances are that I’m much older than most reviewers here. Alvesgaspar 20:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment I do not mind criticism, in fact, I welcome it truly, and my intention is not to lecture but to bring light into the world of photography. However, I firmly believe that there is a difference between liking a picture and evaluating a picture. Personal taste is just that, personal, and nothing can be said about that. If a person does not like cats, he/she just doesn't like cats, but it does not mean that a picture of a cat is either bad or lacks photographic merit. One must raise above personal likes or dislikes and recognize, according to well based criteria, the photographic merit of certain images, including those of subjects we may not like. In my opinion, value criteria is often either lacking or displaced. I read tons of oppose comments alluding to "technical flaws" such as noise or color or burned out areas or DOF, etc., etc., that make people miss the point of value of the image, specifically the encyclopedic value, on top of being totally baseless from the technical and photographic point of view, and depriving Wikipedia of a valuable opportunity to motivate people to participate and contribute. I see an over reliance of software trickery that hide the true nature of photographic talent and technique. Alvesgaspar, if you read my "lecturing" that brought about this unpleasant exchange, there was nothing in it that pointed to flaws in your judgement on the personal level, but was limited to technical explanations and well known photographic judging principles, in the spirit of raising awarness of how to judge photographs, not my photographs. I have been around photography for 35 years, and although I may not be the best photographer nor the most knowledgeable person in photography, I have accumulated lots of tricks and knowledge, which I will gladly share. This is not an arrogant statement, for whatever little knowledge I may have is useless to me, I already have it, it is only useful in the measure that it can be shared. I offer it to you and anyone who wants it. Just ask.--Tomascastelazo 04:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Look good. The pattern on its skin is amazing. Noise is not bad for such a large image. -- Lerdsuwa 18:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose leaf in the water and composition too narrow norro 19:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment These guys emerge at random, leaf in the water, well, it was there where the croc emerged... Composition too narrow? well, it is a full frame close up, it is the format of the camera, nothing was cropped out. --Tomascastelazo 20:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I withdraw nomination.--Tomascastelazo 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nomination withdrawn -  not featured Alvesgaspar 00:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close-up shot of a diamond-pattern knurling on a cylindric work piece.

Any comments welcome. I'm expecting opposition for decreasing sharpness towards top/bottom - unfortunately I couldn't figure out to avoid this at the macro level using my off-the-shelf digicam. However, you may want to take into account that the object of interest basically is a recurring pattern, so I doubt any encyclopedic value or detail is lost by this. --Contributor 19:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Do you find the cut-off simply unpleasant (ie. image too narrow) or do you miss something? The problem is that the knurled part has a length of several centimeters and is therefore too large for full depiction at this close-up level with my equipment. So I had to make a choice and picked one of end points of the knurling to contrast it with the normal surface. Still, it is true that I cropped it even further on the left/right afterwards, mainly because I didn't feel there's any value in it if a) a full depiction is out of question and b) the main subject, ie. the diamond knurling pattern itself, but also the normal surface, stays exactly the same (no matter how wide the picture) anyway and c) perspective distortion was beginning was beginning to show at the farther l/r. Anyway, thanks for the input. --Contributor 21:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Was there one diamond patterned band or two? All you need to do is show the entire first band so the diamond pattern is not cut off in the middle. --Digon3 14:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one band. As I already tried to state above: due to its wideness I can't show it in its entirety at the necessery level of detail (=distance) with my current equipment. I am sorry should my English make this hard to comprehend - I'm still trying to improve it. --Contributor 21:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The low depth-of-field is not a problem for me. In fact, I prefer it that way, it looks nice and gives some sense of three-dimensionality. Very nice encyclopedic image. Is it just my eyes, or is there a very slight clockwise tilt, though? —Ilmari Karonen 00:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I for myself couldn't spot a tilt (quickly aligned some horizontal guides in GIMP for comparison). --Contributor 21:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 7 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 20:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nebule on the river Bistrica, Mojstrana, Slovenia

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Red-headed Rock Agama in Kenya

 7 support, 3 neutral, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 22:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Info created by Marcin n®  - uploaded by Marcin n®  - nominated by Marcin n®  --MARCIN N 13:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --MARCIN N 13:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It is not possible for me to fully review this map since I can’t read Polish. With SVG, it should be easy to produce an English version. Here are other hints: some titles seem too big (for example, FENICJA); the legend needs improvement; why is “D a n” written this way?; the numeric scale has no units and some numbers are in italic (why?). Also, I believe you could put a little more detail in the map. - Alvesgaspar 13:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support (Ale fakt, lepiej przetłumacz) --Erina 08:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Why would a map describing the history of a country show only part of that country? Unless I am mistaken, the southern provinces are missing... Got it: it is Samaria only and not the whole country + there is a bizarre thing happening: the title of the map reads Palestina or Bliski Wschod (sorry for my polish) depending on the enlargement i use to read it // in any case, not Samaria :-o ... --Diligent 12:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose because putting "Made by Marcin.n" in the bottom corner is ugly. The good news is that someone should remove that and reupload (as per the license) pronto. It's not that you don't deserve great thanks for making it... but, I couldn't make something with such a watermark an FP. If that's removed make this a neutral. I can't support because I can't fact check this map since I can't read it. If it is all correct maybe someone could make an English translation? gren 15:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am still opposing... but, since I removed the 'made by' I will oppose for difference reasons. This image is 0.9 MB, which is huge. This and a few other SVGs seems to not be utilizing text properly. That is, images like this one use the text tag... which, I think helps to reduce size... but, more importantly... makes it much easier to translate. So, if it was made with those tags I would support. gren 20:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose For the reasons I explained above. - Alvesgaspar 17:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Commons is multilimgual so being in polish isnt a problem, The key is well layed out and all aspects defined, small pick "Aser" in the key would have been better than "Dan" for layout. Gnangarra 06:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment You certainly can read Polish. Otherwise it would have been a foolish thing (like an act of faith) to promote a map to FP just because it looks right, not knowing what his subject is (political, historical, ...?), as well as the meaning of its symbology and lettering. The message of a map is transmited using cartographic symbols and written text. To read it (and of course to evaluate it) you have to know the exact meaning of both. I believe it is crisp clear that I am not contesting the multilingual nature of Commons (by the way, English is not my mother language) - Alvesgaspar 09:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - the text is too small to read. And before anyone starts shouting about its being scalable, remember that for people who don't have svg-compatible software, it isn't. - MPF 14:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 15:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earthshine reflecting off the Moon

* Oppose There are better images of the same subjegt e.g. Image:Lune reflex 50mm dèrriere occulaire 20 telescope 76mm.JPG --Ikiwaner 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Neutral Excuse me, I didn't get the subject. Despite I think there's no right of a subject to have a FP. --Ikiwaner 19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It is low-res, blurry, grainy, and has some other issues -- just as stated by Ilmari Karonen. Firstly, for future submissions, definitely tend to fixing those. Secondly, I would like to see greater detail on at least one of the sides: bright or dark. Preferably the light side, because a detailed dark side would likely mean that the light side will be overexposed and thus bleed out the image... but hey if you can pull it off, that could be FP worthy. --Thisisbossi 01:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 1 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

 Info Picture taken in Marocco, near the city of Ouarzazate Photo taken by Maxme, ulpoaded by Maxme, nominated by Maxme. Fix nomination by --Jacopo86 12:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the picture of? --Digon3 15:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 1 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 15:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Short description

 2 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 07:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Short description

 0 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese opera at the Taipei Eye

 3 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar Jaguar edited with gimp. More contrast, color balanced. 2006-11-16 Old edit from User:Olegivvit, which doesn't ruin the picture

[edit]
See first oppose, above.--MichaelMaggs 11:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
votes added after day 15 don't count (please see guidelines ;-)) Alvesgaspar 11:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
 8 support, 7 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
 0 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 08:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  •  Info There alredy was an existing edit which does not blow out the whites. Too bad I missed this nomination. This version should be either renominated or bumped up. The en.wp FPC has a section for delayed nominations, which is quite useful. --Dschwen 14:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is much better than the original, in terms of colouring and contrast. Still I don't like the background and the blank expression of the animal. Alvesgaspar 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 0 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 08:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch Butterfly

 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

 12 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 08:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

 2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 08:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A horse in front of Ercina Lake

Seems kind of dark, horse is not named(just kidding). --Digon3 14:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sun is not always shining -- Simonizer 08:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 6 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 14:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scheme of concert piano

 19 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 18:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description Short description

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Short description

I corrected a stain in the upper left, maybe then the EXIF get lost, but i can post some infos if you like Simonizer 13:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 17 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 09:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using a vernier caliper to measure a nut Using a vernier caliper to measure a nut

* Support Good work -- Simonizer 14:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support --Ziga 14:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose That's a really nice animation, but in my opinion not excellent. The crucial point here is how to get to the 0.07 and that's is the only thing, that probably remains unclear to the layman. That has to be improved. Furtermore I think, animating is not necassary here. The last frame would be sufficient. Perhaps as SVG :) norro 17:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Info The "0,07" is read directly in the vernier (which is graduated in 1/100 cm), at the exact point where there is a coincidence between segments of the vernier scale and the main scale. - Alvesgaspar 17:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I know that, but I can't imagine a layman understanding that. There is no hint, why it's 0,07. There is nothing in that animation that shows, what you explained here in written form. I like this animation, but I think, it can be improved to be really helpful for understanding how a caliper is used. norro 18:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. On second thought, the caption can clarify this. I cannot come up with a better way to visualize the "0,07" either :-). --Dschwen 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Support MichaelMaggs 18:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Nomination withdrawn >> not featured Alvesgaspar 10:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

*  Oppose It appears that the line above '0.07' moved a bit during animation to make them line up. -- Lerdsuwa 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 11 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 16:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

"I withdraw my nomination". alifazal 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nomination withdrawn -  not featured Simonizer 10:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

 1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 11:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro.

 1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 15:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

I have to cancel this voting. The image cannot be used on Commons. João Felipe C.S 01:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 nomination withdrawn >> not featured Alvesgaspar 11:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

300px|Short description

I have to cancel this voting. The image cannot be used on Commons. João Felipe C.S 01:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 nomination withdrawn >> not featured Alvesgaspar 11:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nave of the St Patrick's cathedral in New York City

 Comment - You are right with the tilting issue, I have to admit that. But I don't know what can I do with the overexposured highlights. If I shorten the exposure time (2.5 sec now) than the whole picture will be a lot darker. Maybe two shots merged together with photoshop? :-) And unfortunately I don't live in NY, so it's gonna take a while until I get there again. - Hu Totya 13:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Info Wait... until they turn the ugly light in the middle off or try shooting RAW which gives you one additional step in dynamic range. --Ikiwaner 23:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L'Île d'Entrée aux Îles-de-la-Madeline, Québec

 0 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pi with 4000 digits pi with 4000 digits pi with 4000 digits

Well i don't know which one is the best but we can put all of them in one nomination. --Arad 02:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a good idea. Alvesgaspar 09:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I don’t agree that the depicted pi has 4 000 digits. The size of the digits is decreasing linearly becoming zero in the last fifth of the image. Assuming, for simplicity, that we have about 70% of the 1280 pixels available for representing the number (about 900 pixels), and that we assign one pixel to each digit and another to the space between them, the best we can do is represent about 450 digits, not 4000. Alvesgaspar 09:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment To answer the person above of me. You are partially right because around 900(not 450) are fully visible. The rest are there but because if the glossy reflections on the glass and the irregular lighting, the rest of the numbers are overly bright. But I can guarantee you that there is 4000 numbers, If you are furthur interrested E-mail me and I'll give you the complete Maya file and you can see for yourself. The Author 07:10 EST, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm sure you have considered all 4000 digits in the rendering application, but that is not the point. The point is to represent each of them as a separate graphical entity you need, at least, 2 pixels: one for the digit and the other for the space that follows. In the present case, you don't have enough pixels avaliable. But you could, at least in theory, make a new output with a much larger resolution in which all digits were visible. Alvesgaspar 11:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Ss181292 11:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC) - Ack Snowwayout + boring subject.[reply]
  •  Info As suggested by Arad, I have grouped all images in the same nomination. Alvesgaspar 11:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose — I only see the first 20-30 digits after that its just a multicoloured dimishing line, given that its suppose to be 4000 digits I'd expect to see clearly the first 10%. Additionally the choice of colouring creates and an optical illusion to the top portion of the 3 twisting it 90o to the rest of the digit. Gnangarra 05:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. Not much artistic value. FPs should be the best works available on commons. This can be created in two minutes. --Dschwen 10:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is just too simple Daniel78 23:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

 2 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 12:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typicall view of the Iron Bridge in Girona, Catalonia

 2 support, 7 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 12:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description Edit. Reconstructed fins. Edit. colour corrected

* Support. I agree.--MichaelMaggs 22:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

 7 support, 0 oppose >> voting closed, waits for result of new version (below) Alvesgaspar 08:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  Final result: not featured Alvesgaspar 16:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
 12 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 16:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using a vernier caliper to measure a nut Using a vernier caliper to measure a nut

* Support Good work -- Simonizer 14:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support --Ziga 14:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose That's a really nice animation, but in my opinion not excellent. The crucial point here is how to get to the 0.07 and that's is the only thing, that probably remains unclear to the layman. That has to be improved. Furtermore I think, animating is not necassary here. The last frame would be sufficient. Perhaps as SVG :) norro 17:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Info The "0,07" is read directly in the vernier (which is graduated in 1/100 cm), at the exact point where there is a coincidence between segments of the vernier scale and the main scale. - Alvesgaspar 17:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I know that, but I can't imagine a layman understanding that. There is no hint, why it's 0,07. There is nothing in that animation that shows, what you explained here in written form. I like this animation, but I think, it can be improved to be really helpful for understanding how a caliper is used. norro 18:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. On second thought, the caption can clarify this. I cannot come up with a better way to visualize the "0,07" either :-). --Dschwen 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Support MichaelMaggs 18:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Nomination withdrawn >> not featured Alvesgaspar 10:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

*  Oppose It appears that the line above '0.07' moved a bit during animation to make them line up. -- Lerdsuwa 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 11 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 16:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A lake in Sweden

 1 support, 2 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 16:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

 0 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 12:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

 10 support, 1 oppose >> featured  Alvesgaspar 15:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Daylily-hybrid taken in Claude Monets garden

 4 oppose, 1 support >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 15:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hills around Scheibbs, Austria

 3 oppose, 1 support >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 15:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Walnut nuts.

 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 18:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leucojum autumnale

  •  Info Leucojum autumnale created by M.M. Paredes - uploaded by User:Mmparedes 11:10, 20 November 2006
  •  Comment Caught at Alburquerque (Badajoz, Spain) close to Albarragena river.
  •  Oppose The petals lack detail and the grass herbs near the borders are disturbing. All in all, nice but a bit dull. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 0 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 12:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description colour correction

 6 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 08:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal weaving loom

 7 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 10:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical weaving loom

 9 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 10:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] 
[edit]

Nymphalis io

Alvesgaspar 18:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not artifacts, in fact the scales are visible, to see here scale The original with the format raw without compression, shows the structure in scales --Luc Viatour 05:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not in studio in my garden, with the sky and the roof of the slate house --Luc Viatour 05:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am well aware of DOF difficulties in macro photography, as an inevitable result of camera to subject distance, lens focal length, etc., and te same applies to telephoto usage. However, the many elements of the plant compete with main subject darting in and out of focus, thus making the image too busy. Think of an autofocus camera that doesn´t quite know where to focus. That is the visual effect I get. Try croppng it. And the blue looks too artificial --Tomascastelazo 15:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose  Support I love the photo but please make the caption more explicit if you want I change my vote (is “Hamois” the location ? is it shot outside or in a greenhouse ? what is the plant ?) B.navez 18:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected description: Butterfly Nymphalis io on the flowers of Prunus laurocerasus (Photographed in the countryside of Hamois in Belgium)in the open air --Luc Viatour 05:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 10 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 14:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Collared peccary - melbourne zoo.jpg
 1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 23:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Emu02 - melbourne zoo.jpg
 1 support, 7 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 23:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Asian elephant eating - melbourne zoo.jpg
1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 23:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Echidna
1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

I was wrong when I said the colors weren't natural (bad monitor), but I still don't like the angle or composition, and outer petals are unsharp. (It would also be better in my opinion if the outer petals weren't wilted) --Digon3 20:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 2 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 07:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White bud of an oleander

 4 support, 5 oppose - not featured Alvesgaspar 12:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottlenose dolphin of the NMMP on mineclearance operations, with locator beacon.

 6 keep, 6 delist >> not delisted Alvesgaspar 15:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

300px|Short description

Seems like the hue was changed in photoshop. --Digon3 20:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 2 keep, 1 neutral, 6 delist >> delisted Alvesgaspar 09:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subway track joint on Williamsburg Bridge

  •  Info created by Dschwen - uploaded by Dschwen - nominated by flamurai – flamurai 02:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support My nomination and support for this image is as much for its informational merits as its artistic merits. Make sure you read the description before voting. – flamurai 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I didnt get it. What is the picture about and where can I see whatever there is to see? I also find the perspective very confusing. Maybe I´m a noob, but a good informative foto must be that good that even a noob can get some infos out of the picture. -- Simonizer 13:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Too many elements, confusing. --Tomascastelazo 15:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I believe we have to assume the good faith of all nominations. That is why I have retained my vote, waiting for some insight about the relevance of this picture (both aesthetically and in substance) or for someone who can explain it to me. Alvesgaspar 15:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would make you even imply this is a bad faith nomination?! Maybe because it's not a landscape or nature shot...? – flamurai 17:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me say again: I made that comment and did not use my vote because I am convinced this is a good faith nomination. But I failed, till now, to understand the beauty and/or the relevance of the picture as a FP. I understand how an expansion joint works but I don't see anything extraordinary is this illustration Alvesgaspar 21:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alvesgaspar - You can see the shape of the rails, they are wedge type, one endng in a sharp point, that so whe they expand and contract, they do so in basically the same axis, so the contraction and expansion occurrs in a sliding action between joining rails thus retaining a straight line, otherwise, a buckling of the rails would occur, or a gap in case of contraction. --Tomascastelazo 17:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - useful photo, as per uploader. Railway lines expand when they get hot; if no expansion space is provided, they then buckle. The photo shows sliding contacts between two rails to allow for expansion without buckling. - MPF 16:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I can see why he nominated it, but I think a better angle can be shown. (straight on, no tilt) --Digon3 17:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Subject fills only a small part of the picture. Bad perspective and snow is distracting norro 19:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support very special case. Of course you have to think for some minutes to understand it. If you're not interested enough you might never understand. But for this subject the perspective is perfect: It's the way you would see it when standing in front of it. Subject exposure is perfect and the snow explains the cold (not distracting). I also like the artistic value. Colours are nice and you can loose yourself in the image because there is no horizon or scale. Given this subject any other picture will either be too technical or too artsy. --Ikiwaner 20:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- Simple subjects require great photos. This has too many distracting features. Snowwayout 23:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral a helpful and interesting photo. But composition-wise it is a bit too distracting...maybe another angle might help --AngMoKio 07:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per above Alvesgaspar 09:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Same as above. --Thisisbossi 00:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I was surprised to see this pic nominated here. Commons isn't as much about encyclopedic value as en:FPC. Anyways, I noticed this expansion joint for the first time on the GWB in NYC and took the pic out of curiosity. There was no way to get a better angle, and to my knowledge there was no picture of this contraption anywhere on wikimedia servers. It would loose context with tighter cropping and I feel it depicts the subject reasonably well. But quite honestly I don't think it deserves/needs to be a featured picture. --Dschwen 10:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Lestat 22:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 3 support, 2 neutral, 8 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictoric pie chart showing the distribution of the wealth created by the commerce of coffee

 2 support, 9 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short description


 2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 16:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Porticato del duomo di Guardiagrele

 10 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 16:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Eiffel illuminée de nuit vue ascendante


Withdrawn: [4]. ZooFari 03:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]