Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2006

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

Image:Kanakwomen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Bananaflo - uploaded by Petaholmes - nominated by nico@nc 06:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)]]Reply[reply]
Support --nico@nc 06:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - the costumes are distinct, but the shopping mall / railway station background isn't, and spoils the pic - MPF 13:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Noumea domestic airport (no railways in New Caledonia)nico@nc 07:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 13:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --Huebi 08:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Sebastianm 09:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --Dti 16:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose composition --Luc Viatour 06:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Bananaflo 23:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 17:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral --- gildemax 12:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose MGo 09:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --ßøuñçê Y2K 13:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: fala comigo} 15:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 4  Support, 9  Oppose and 1  Neutral => not featured. --nico@nc 02:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

image:Anna Stępniewska2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info Made, uploaded and nominated by WarX 06:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --WarX 06:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose nothing special with an ugly background --Huebi 08:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Shizhao 11:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 14:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC) - generally I like the picture, I find the subject very, very pretty, but I believe this is not the kind of picture which should be featured.Reply[reply]
Oppose Not especiallySebastianm 14:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not even remotely pretty MPF 15:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- a) what Huebi said, b) her left eye is red and c) I also agree with MPF -- Boereck 18:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose what is the point? --Tarawneh 15:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - nice picture, but nothing for featured pictures candidates --- gildemax 12:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose MGo 13:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose nice mood, but far from FP quality as a whole. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --Joonasl 16:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose DO NOT WANT Notwist 08:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Neat composition...luv the noisy background. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 20:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 3 support, 12 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 10:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Gateway Arch edit1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Moof 06:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I know this picture has its faults, particularly the blur. I was wondering if anyone could improve upon it, or if the composition merits featured status alone. Thanks! :) --Moof 06:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good photo of architecture. Sebastianm 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - the thing isn't going to go away, it should be easy to retake a sharper image on a better day - MPF 15:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Good picture, Low res, blur-- Luc Viatour 16:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Shame about the blur, it would have been a good picture. —Pixel8 17:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- sorry, I need to strongly agree with the above: it is wiggly like a ride over cobblestone pavement. but the motive is well chosen! -- Boereck 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Opposesame as Boereck , --Tarawneh 15:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- nice try, though. Look forward to seeing a better version of this on FPC soon. Howcheng 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I really like it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --Joonasl 16:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 3 support, 7 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 10:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Ponte San Michele.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Loox - uploaded by Loox - nominated by --Felyx 13:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Felyx 13:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 14:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC) - it should be taken daytime. No reason for nightshot.Reply[reply]
Oppose Bad white balance in my opinion.Sebastianm 14:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- dramatic effect with the night shot, but to many significant dark areas Gnangarra 15:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - I don't normally like night-time pics of buildings, but this one is very attractive - MPF 16:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 16:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Why wasn't this shot with a long exposure? The noise is overwhelming at 100% —Pixel8 17:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Agree with pixal8. Snowwayout 07:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose too dark , needs more exposure --Tarawneh 15:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support although it is noisy. Colours and ammount of dark areas are great, IMO. Possibly, the color noise in the sky could be reduced by some clever noice reduction tools--Wikimol 10:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose too dark --- gildemax 12:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- too noisy. Howcheng 16:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support / tsca @ 19:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Joonasl 16:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support 'Pertsa 15:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 20:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 8 support, 8 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 10:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:RedTulip.JPG, not featured[edit]

Info created by Me --Yongxinge 05:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- I like this technique and focusing being unequal. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 06:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Photography is of a high standard, but the subject in uninspiring. Snowwayout 07:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 12:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose old idea, nothing new --Tarawneh 15:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- its nice but with the number of tulip photos taken, to obtain FP status it requires something really special Gnangarra 10:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral --- gildemax 12:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 03:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Its nice in colour and composition, and even if there had been many smilar pictures, every picture should be valued by itself and not in comparison to others
Oppose MGo 13:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 10:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

image:Justin Gatlin cropped.JPG, not featured[edit]

Info created by Teveten, modified byDake - uploaded by Teveten - nominated by Teveten 09:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Teveten 09:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Composition Rama 10:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Camera (?) on the left, microphone(?) on the right, feet cut off. --Huebi 11:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 12:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --Tarawneh 15:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Huebi - MPF 10:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --- gildemax 12:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose MGo 13:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 10:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Museum für Ostasiatische Kunst Dahlem Berlin Mai 2006 007.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Gryffindor - uploaded by Gryffindor - nominated by Gryffindor 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Can't decide which one is better, therefore posting alternate picture of same statue as well, maybe that one is better (or not?)--Gryffindor 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image on Left, not featured[edit]

Result: 0 votes => not featured Mglanznig 10:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image on Right, not featured[edit]

Result: 0 votes => not featured Mglanznig 10:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both Images, not featured[edit]

Oppose both too dark --Tarawneh 15:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was not allowed to use any flash in the museum. Gryffindor 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose - lighting, noise/artifacts @ full res. If the museum restrictions prevents taking quality photographs, unfortunately not much can be done about it. --Wikimol 10:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Too much noise Gnangarra 11:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose both too dark --- gildemax 12:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral - I think the points above could be addressed. --Miljoshi 09:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose both too dark --Tarawneh 15:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 10:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Grand Palais Paris Mai 2006 002.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Gryffindor - uploaded by Gryffindor - nominated by Gryffindor 15:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support nominate another version as well, don't know which one users would prefer? --Gryffindor 15:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Would like to see it more from the front and without the cropped building norro 17:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- ~~Sorry, anonymous users cannot vote. Freedom to share 16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)~~Reply[reply]

The building was undergoing renovation work and was all covered up, trust me you don't want to see that part. Check the category for further images of the quadriga, maybe you'll see something that you like better? Gryffindor 15:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image on left, not featured[edit]

Result: 0 votes => not featured Mglanznig 10:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image on Right, not featured[edit]

Result: 0 votes => not featured Mglanznig 10:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both Images, not featured[edit]

Oppose -- To dark Gnangarra 10:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 12:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - images are too dark --- gildemax 12:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Both too dark --Tarawneh 15:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- ditto. Howcheng 16:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 10:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Portrait of the Xiaosheng Empress Dowager.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by anonymous - uploaded by Gryffindor - nominated by Gryffindor 15:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Gryffindor 15:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 08:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Shizhao 12:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral --- gildemax 12:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Can't see anything special about it --Pumbaa 12:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose ACK Pumbaa. We shouldn't feature every nice image just because it's nice. It should be special somehow norro 16:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is the featured picture candidate voting only for "special" images? Gryffindor 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, sorry. I didn't ment it like that. Every candidate is welcome. I just wanted to say, that candidates should stand out in some way to get my support. norro 23:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral --Miljoshi 09:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose} -- It's a nice portrait, but nothing stunning. It might just by the Chinese style, but she looks too much like a statue. Howcheng 16:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 03:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too much like a statue? What do you want her to do, dance a jig? I don't understand this voting system, how does a grainy b&w photograph like Image:Stalin-Lenin-Kalinin-1919.jpg get votes, but this image not, how is this voting system based? Gryffindor 09:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I meant by that was that the painting doesn't seem to capture the personality of the empress dowager. She's just sitting there, looking straight ahead at the artist with a blank look on her face. I don't know if that happens to be characteristic of paintings of Chinese monarchs or what, but it just doesn't grab me. (You'll also note that I opposed the Stalin-Lenin picture too). Howcheng 22:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose -- Lemon_ho
Support Olegivvit 16:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Rex 22:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 10:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Amenbo_06b6787v.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Cory 16:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Cory 16:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose disturbing stuff in the water next to the water spider, low res -- Gorgo 18:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- There is no spider Roger McLassus 10:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Pond-skater is the name you want. Probably two different species in the photo, not adult and young as suggested - MPF
    - Thank you for comment. Sorry, I have no knowledge to identify about species positively. I entitled by an impression. But, these are not spider dropped on water, these are a kind of Water strider (called "Amenbo" in Japanese) that is a kind of an insect, walking on water by six legs is unique. And these are on a breeding season in Japan. --Cory
Neutral is it taken from under the water? :o pretty amazing! pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- No, floating on the water - MPF
Oppose Low res -- Luc Viatour 08:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - a valuable pic for encyclopaedia use, but not really featurable quality - MPF 10:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --- gildemax 11:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- I realize this might be difficult, but a horizontal shot would be a lot better. Howcheng 16:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 10:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Todoroki_yurikamome_karugamo_06x0026s.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Cory 16:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Cory 16:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose composition, background, colors basically only grey, res -- Gorgo 18:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sussie 20:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose nothing special -- Luc Viatour 08:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral --- gildemax 11:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Tbc 20:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Not a very interesting picture. Howcheng 16:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose MGo 13:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- nico@nc 08:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 10:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:KujiBairin_Mejiro_06p2835hs.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Cory 16:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Cory 16:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose composition (only backside of bird), extremely low res -- Gorgo 18:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Composition, Res. Snowwayout 20:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose composition -- Luc Viatour 08:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - only backside of bird --- gildemax 11:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per above. Howcheng 16:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- nico@nc 08:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 10:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Kujibairin_mejiro_06p2689sv.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Cory 16:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Cory 16:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose low res -- Gorgo 18:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I agree with Gorgo Sussie 18:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Res. Composition. Snowwayout 20:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support that is perfect! pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support excellent - MPF 10:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral -- the branch across the bird is too distracting Gnangarra 10:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --- gildemax 11:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --Pumbaa 12:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Tbc 20:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- this has a lot of potential, but the composition is lacking. Howcheng 16:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --che 15:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Rex 16:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- nico@nc 08:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 06:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 21:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 8 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 10:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Boelge stor.jpg, featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Malene Thyssen 19:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 19:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support real hard to get --Tarawneh 21:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support very nice norro 22:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very dynamic. Beautiful, the sea.. Reminds me of japanese ink-drawings. -- AlMare 22:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Gnangarra 10:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --- gildemax 11:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Shizhao 12:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Sussie 14:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. --Howcheng 16:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 06:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support how can you not? pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, and my school is now using this picture for its desktop background. --Hughcharlesparker 09:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support MGo 13:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Oonagh 11:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- nico@nc 08:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Joonasl 16:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support 'Pertsa 15:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, awesome image. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 20:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose nothing special Gérard Janot 20:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Great image!--Tomascastelazo 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 22 support, 1 oppose => featured Mglanznig 10:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:746px-Hip replacement Image 3684-PH.jpg, featured[edit]

Infothe patient’s right hip (on the left in the photograph) has been replaced, with the “ball” of this ball-and-socket joint replaced by a metal head that is set in the thighbone or femur and the socket replaced by a white plastic cup Photographer: Unknown - uploaded by Teveten Hi resolution picture http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/Hip_replacement_Image_3684-PH.jpg also available - nominated by Teveten 10:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Teveten 10:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --- gildemax 11:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Shizhao 12:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Tarawneh 22:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support-- Luc Viatour 04:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Miljoshi 08:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- I would support this on Wikipedia for its encyclopedic value, but not on Commons. Howcheng 16:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose ~~1. It's a low res-version of a >20 Megapixel photograph 2. There is no image description~~ 3. I'm not sure, what is possible with X-ray today, but it's blurry and mottled. Perhaps a bad scan? norro 18:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you mean "There is no image description"?, see above. Hi definition picture is also available, see link above.--Teveten 07:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Ps. discription was missing on pictures page, sorry!Reply[reply]
I don't know any reason to feature a low res version of a high res picture. norro 09:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I uploaded the full-res version now -- Gorgo 17:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose doesn't seem like featured quality to me -- Gorgo 23:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Ss181292 08:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Wikimol 10:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose => featured Mglanznig 12:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Victoria Memorial London April 2006 054.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Gryffindor - uploaded by Gryffindor - nominated by Gryffindor 10:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Not sure which one users would prefer, adding another one as well. --Gryffindor 10:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image on left, not featured[edit]

Support --Shizhao 11:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support => not featured Mglanznig 12:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image on right, not featured[edit]

Oppose ----Shizhao 11:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 12:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both Images, not featured[edit]

Oppose -- Gnangarra 10:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- In both images, you have blown-out highlights. The left image needs a greater depth of focus as the bottom is out of focus. The statue is also too dark in the right. Howcheng 16:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Fodder 00:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 12:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Victoria Memorial London April 2006 063.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Gryffindor - uploaded by Gryffindor - nominated by Gryffindor 10:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I personally find it spectacular, but would like to hear what others think. --Gryffindor 10:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Compostion / POV strong enough to over come softness and resolution Gnangarra 10:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral --- gildemax 11:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Dark Object--Tarawneh 15:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Good composition and I like the halo effect but the drawback to it is that the subject becomes too dark. You need fill-in flash or some reflectors to brighten up the statue. Howcheng 16:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 03:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --/\/\π 09:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Joonasl 16:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 12:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:XN Nomada sp.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by User:XN - uploaded by User:XN - nominated by XN 20:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --XN 20:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose background is too bright for me --che 12:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Subject not entirely in focus. Howcheng 16:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --- gildemax 19:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 03:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --there are already a better insect pics (just not compareable)Anatol 22:06, 27 May 2006
Oppose Background messy & too bright. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Lego CAD Racecar.JPG, not featured[edit]

Info created by Reuvenk - uploaded by Reuvenk - nominated by Reuvenk 03:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Reuvenk 03:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Wikimol 06:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 09:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC) -- nice rendering, but I don't see the point in featuring this kind of pictures. If it was a photograph, I would support it, but it is just a rendering. LEGO parts are not very difficult to model in computer program, model is not very complicated, light effects are not outstanding, surfaces are very simple and wheels are much below FP standards.Reply[reply]
Oppose see Ss181292 comments. The modeling is not that difficult, if You have 3dmax or other software. OK it take 40 to 90 minutes, but still nothing special --Tarawneh 15:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per above. Howcheng 16:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --- gildemax 19:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Seems like it is only 256 colors. --Keeleysam 03:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 13:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Saint-Hippolyte_2006-8.JPG, not featured[edit]

Info impressions of Saint-Hippolyte (Haut-Rhin), Alsace, France

created by gildemax - uploaded by gildemax - nominated by gildemax 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support --gildemax 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Colors, Bad composition --Luc Viatour 06:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose-- Lower section out of focus --Tarawneh 09:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose looks like the buildings are falling --che 15:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment You can rotate the photo and adjust the perspective. Fg2 00:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose hopefully the houses will not not glide outside the picture --Huebi
Oppose MGo 13:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support God, you people are harsh. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 20:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 13:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Narzissen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by Deelkar (talk) - uploaded by Deelkar (talk) - nominated by Deelkar (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Deelkar (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose nothing special --Luc Viatour 06:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Tbc 15:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose fine picture, but the composition is not that great and the highlights are burned out in the red and especially in the green channel --che 15:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 15:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC) - nothing outstandingReply[reply]
Neutral --- gildemax 21:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose MGo 13:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 13:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Scandinavia.TMO2003050.jpg, featured[edit]

Info source: NASA - taken feb 19. 2003 - nominated by Minto 02:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -I can almost see my own house, incredible ;) - Minto 02:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 06:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Definitely --XN 08:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Tarawneh 09:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Image a little small, but well... ;) Rama 12:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral nice, but there is quite a lot of nice satellite images --che 15:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support !!Sebastianm 16:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral --- gildemax 21:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 18:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Agree with Che. The frontier lines spoil the picture because they aren't thick enough to be seen in the global view. El Comandante 20:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- AlMare 11:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - MPF 17:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Olegivvit 17:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- nico@nc 08:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support yeah, very nice. 'Pertsa 15:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 00:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, who says those billion-dollar satellites don't pay dividends? --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => featured Mglanznig 13:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:NikkoCaparisonedHorse5423.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info Horse in caparison at spring festival Procession of a Thousand Warriors of Toshogu in Nikko, Tochigi Prefecture, Japan. - nominated by Minto 01:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Minto 01:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- not sharp -- YolanC 14:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- maybe You should visit an eyespecialist it is sharp. --Feodora 18:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --- gildemax 18:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support very pensive. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Urban 06:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It's very sharp, but I don't quite get what I'm looking at. --che 23:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- nice -- nico@nc 07:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral the idea was very good...but i think there is a lack in the composition. This orange thing hanging down should have been completly on the pic...maybe the impression would be better --AngMoKio 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 13:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Munich_subway_GBR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info Munich subway station Georg-Brauchle-Ring - uploaded by FloSch - nominated by Minto 01:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Minto 01:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- not outstanding (IMO) -- YolanC 14:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 15:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --- gildemax 18:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 18:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --Tarawneh 23:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Rosarium Orans 05:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I don't like the 4:3 aspect ratio of this picture Barcex 23:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose ACK YolanC norro 16:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Urban 06:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support MartinD 08:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Anatol 22:06, 27 May 2006
Oppose Ordinary. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 13:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:NMMP dolphin with locator.jpeg, featured[edit]

Info created by the US Navy - uploaded by Johantheghost - nominated by — Omegatron 02:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support — Omegatron 02:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- nice, we see the dolphin and his master ? -- YolanC 14:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --- gildemax 18:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 18:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support woow! Sebastianm 19:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose low res. --Tarawneh 23:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose composition not to good (guy cropped and dolphin needs a bit more of space at the top and right) + not that interesting subject norro 09:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Rosarium Orans 05:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - ditto to norro - MPF 17:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very nice photo! Kjetil _r 11:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Thermos 14:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- ack norro, dolphin needs more space --che 23:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the subject is interesting but other than that, I agree with Norro's points. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Ziga 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose => featured Mglanznig 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Pelicans in flight.jpg, aborted[edit]

Info created by Tomas Castelazo - uploaded by Tomas Castelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo 22:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 22:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - MPF 23:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the animals are underexposed --Artefacto 02:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 06:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC) -- nothing specialReply[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 11:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose this picture is for no commercial use only, should change license or be deleted!! Barcex 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Gérard Janot 12:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose license is not commons compliant. mus be deleted with this license tag. --Huebi 12:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --- gildemax 13:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

candidature aborted due to licensing problems. Clear licensing is one of the essential requirements for featured picture candidates. norro 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Mime in guanajuato.jpg, aborted[edit]

Info created by Tomas Castelazo - uploaded by Tomas Castelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo 21:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 21:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - nothing special - MPF 23:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --Artefacto 02:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 06:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC) -- tourist photo, nothing special, ugly compositionReply[reply]
Oppose --Joonasl 09:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose see mpf --Huebi 12:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose noncommercial license Barcex 12:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose --- gildemax 13:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

candidature aborted due to licensing problems. Clear licensing is one of the essential requirements for featured picture candidates. norro 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Crocodylus acutus mexico 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tomas Castelazo --Tomascastelazo 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Nattfodd: just watch!--Tomascastelazo 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Low sharpness.

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 19:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, beyond silence... way beyond... beyond beyond... must be very dark in there... :o)--Tomascastelazo 19:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I am intrigued by the interference pattern of all the circular small water waves. Is this a wild-life shot? I suggest you add geodata to the photo. The photo is not thaat sharp, and all this water gives a subjective feeling of blurriness leaving the impression of a slightly messy composition. I cannot make up my mind on what to vote on it though. I would like to give an additional comment. I do not like sarcastic comments and personal attacks rearding other reviewers evaluations as above. There seems to an uprising of harsh sarcastic comments like that, which are not in the spirit of the guidelines stating that you should always be polite. I too do not always agree with other reviewers opinions and often shake my head. However, I propose either to ignore reviews you cannot approve of or give a more balanced reply. In the end single wrong evaluations does not normally influence the end result as normally quite a lot of users vote on FPC, which averages out anomalies. The rules state that any Commons user is entitled to vote on and have an opinion on the photos here. It is not stated that you should have qualified as a reviewer somehow. -- Slaunger 20:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You get out what you put in, just my opinion. No robots here. --Richard Bartz 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Slaunger, It is a wildlife shot, hanging from a manglar, low light conditions. Sharpness? Well, that is an academic point… The picture was taken at 60th of a second, so there is motion blurr, and the subject itself was moving. The skin color and texture do mimic the environment, a good predator camouflage. Distance? 10 feet? Maybe less. But of course, the technical difficulties and the danger inherent in this type of situation in no way match the mortal danger incurred in close up lady bug photography. Next time I will take to the swamp lighting equipment, a make up artist, several crocs in order to take that “Feature Picture” with a 200 megapixel camera. Sarcasm? Yes. But what is sarcasm an answer from?--Tomascastelazo 21:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, the danger incurred is of course irrelevant: or you take the picture or you don't, and BTW you can make a 200 Mpix picture by stitching 40-odd 5Mpx (allow some overlap) snaps. Lycaon 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The circular patterns in the water are most probably produced by the croc vocalizing with infrasound underwater. Lycaon 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose if only for those patterns. But quality is really too low. Lycaon 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Thank you for explaining the special circumstances. That is one of the reasons why I asked without coming to immediate conclusions first. I think the special circumstances overcompenstaes technical issues. Very nice. And no, I still do not approve of the sarcasm, I was just asking a question to learn more. -- Slaunger 21:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Slaunger: Sarcasm not directed at you and thanks for your vote!. Lycaon: Thanks! All: This is true for me: I am my own harshest critic, and when I critique someone else's work, I do it following well established photographing judging criteria. That it the least I owe to someone I critisize. Do I fall short? Probably, and due to my own ignorance. However, by acknowledging my own ignorance and shortcomings, and doing something about it, I lessen the damage bad judging can create.--Tomascastelazo 21:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I think Lewis Carroll put it best: Calibas 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How doth the little crocodile

Improve his shining tail,

And pour the waters of the Nile

On every golden scale!

How cheerfully he seems to grin

How neatly spreads his claws,

And welcomes little fishes in,

With gently smiling jaws!

Oppose Not so much on its technical merits - it is sharp enough and has sufficient light - but the subject is too much hidden in it's environment to generate an outstanding image, a wow factor. I understand that hiding is the predator's intend and yet as a photographer I have to have the patience and yes luck to find it in a situation where it stands out and presents itself in all its beauty (well here beauty is relative) to the viewer. Wwcsig 23:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose due to technical quality, and I hope people are not getting themselves in dangerous situations just to get FPs. Dori - Talk 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I said elsewhere that I was not going to be participating in these things, but this photograph is awesome! I know that the collection which is the Featured pictures is not necessarily mentioned in the guidelines but if you look at the collection; the photographs that are there and the photographs that are missing and judge photographs like you would how a teeter totter works where it is a total weight not just both sides being perfectly matched. As far as safety goes, the more crocodile photographs there are, the less of a need for them and that much more is understood about photographing them. I can see a day in the future when a photograph of a crocodile is not supported because the Featured pictures collection has 30 of them and 4 dead photographers as well. My support hopefully will move these photographers into a future like that. Thank you for not only giving this photograph to the commons collection but having the balls to show it here where the bug and flower people will try to hurt your feelings. -- carol 05:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment This kind of so-called support vote is actually there to debase photographer who do an effort to sit still for hours trying to capture a high quality botanical or entomological picture. Sarcasm has become the rule in FP. It doesn't matter whether you make a picture of a fly in your garden with your 100€ digital camera or whether you are fortunate (as in having lots of money) enough to make that shot with your state-of-the-art camera on the top of the world. A good picture is a good picture. Every good syrphid picture gets my support, every bad Asian tsunami pic my oppose, and vice versa. If the only thing you are here for is to insinuate and spew sarcasm, it would be better if you stayed away. Criticize pictures not people, you can always start FPh (Featured Photographer) if you want to do that. I can very much appreciate critics (in al senses) from people who contribute and show they know what they are talking about but in your case it is as we say in Dutch "De beste stuurlui staan aan wal", Lycaon 06:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, sir or madam Lycaon, I love those Macro shots as well. I really do. Lord knows, they do not get the support they deserve around here and I will try to vote favorably for more of them. Thank you for correcting me. -- carol 07:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, do the Commons Photographers use a buddy system when getting photographs like this? I was wondering if there was a gallery of photographers being eaten by their subject yet or plans for one in the future? You know, things just happen and it would be nice to have a camera around when they do happen. -- carol 13:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh my, what happened there, Carol? Did a million neurons just zap instantaneously in your brain causing a spasm of arbitrary keyboard commands followed by a violent jerk unwillingly pressing you finger on the mouse button while having the pointer positioned over the Save page button? (This is not meant as sarcasm. This is meant as concern.)-- Slaunger 13:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope. And no offense is taken. I was imagining hanging from a tree getting photographs of a crocodile and thought it would be nice to have a photograph of this photographer taking that photograph -- regardless of the outcome. There was that bird photograph and Dori mentioned (or hinted) that the photographer had to be lying on his belly in the wet sand to get it. There is a joke somewhere within all of this about imagining imagery imaging but I can't make it work out correctly. I began all of this with the assumption that the photographer knew the equipment that was being used and was comfortable with it and was mostly safe the whole time.-- carol 14:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, so that's what you meant? I got the impression from your previous comment that you suggesting feeding Commons photographers to wild animals while photographing it. I'm glad we settled that misundertsanding of mine. I think these thoughts about imagining imagery imaging (albeit interesting) are quite off-topic for the evaluation of this FPC though. -- Slaunger 14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I would love to support this. Could someone have a go at applying an unsharp mask, please? --MichaelMaggs 07:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MichaelMaggs – I normally upload images that are mostly unprocessed, except perhaps histogram adjustments and minor color adjustments. The reason I do this is so if the image is used in print (or other media), it can be manipulated with freedom for any application, that is, from unsharp to sharp, from low to high contrast, to the measure required by the final output. Over processing may look a picture look nice on screen, but be usless for other applications. In fact, most of the time reduces the possibilities of the editor.

ALL: Well, I leave you all, and take my sarcasm away with me…. Have fun with the bees and the flowers!!! Love,

--Tomascastelazo 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - It is sharp enough all right, and if it has not enough wow factor, I don't know what has. Sometimes this evaluation process is a real farce. We accept very-very simple maps only because they are self-made, but very old and rare ones are rejected, because they are old...--Szilas 18:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

result: 5 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 22:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Salmonberry Blossom.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by en:User:David McMaste - nominated by — WεFt 18:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support WεFt 18:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose nothing special --- gildemax 18:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --Tarawneh 23:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Good picture but nothing exceptionnal or informative --Luc Viatour 16:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 12:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - very good, sharp pic showing both the flower and leaf very well - MPF 17:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)