Support -- I thought cropping it would help since much of the space doesn't add much to the subject. Arad 00:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The original is better. The space enhances the atmosphere and shows the bird as alone in its environment.--MichaelMaggs 06:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose ack MichaelMaggs - Simonizer 07:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - The original is much better Alvesgaspar 09:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah it's true, but don't make the much bolder. :-D Thanks for the vote. --Arad 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Map of Small Jeziorak Lake and center of Iława (Featured on Polisch Wikipedia) created by Marcin n®☼ - uploaded by Marcin n - nominated by Marcin n®☼ --MARCIN N 20:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment What are the units in the distance scale? What is the principal scale of the map? Where is North? Not all the cartographic symbols used in the representation are identified in the legend. The image seems too small to be useful as a real map. -- Alvesgaspar 23:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - lettering too small to read comfortably at full size. - MPF 13:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Yet another unfounded comment, since with SVG, full size is not defined. Please read article about en:SVG! ♦Pabixℹ 15:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - "Please read article about SVG" - read it, and don't understand about 98% of it. One thing it does say, is that "The use of SVG on the web is in its infancy" . . . in other words, you can't expect most people to be able to resize it, because their computers are too old to have it on. If I try clicking on the pic to see it full size, I just get a warning about an unknown file type, that may harm my computer. I'm not willing to take this risk. - MPF 21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - We know the format is scalable. But how to make the image bigger in this context, to facilitate the evaluation? And how to scale it to adequate size in other Wikipedia projects? I tried to download and convert the image with CorelDraw and failed. -- Alvesgaspar 15:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There're several tools wich may help you. If you use Firefox you may try this extension so you can pan an zoom SVGs directly from the navigator. Francisco M. Marzoa 00:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Opera navigator fully supports SVG, otherwise, and you can edit the image in software like Inskscape. ♦Pabixℹ 07:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose A static map like this one shouldn’t be scalable: if you reduce the scale, the lettering and other cartographic symbols might become illegible and the image crowded; if you enlarge it, you are suggesting a precision (and accuracy) that the map doesn’t have. Note that topographic maps of the same region, but with different scales, have different detail and symbology (different levels of “generalization”, as cartographers say). For this particular map I suggest the following improvements: (i) make it non-scalable; (ii) state the scale of the map; (iii) indicate the direction of North; (iv) draw and graduate one parallel and one meridian (or suggest them) so that we know where in Earth this place is; (v) improve the legend so that all symbols used in the map are explained (railroads, road tags, etc.); (vi) make the neatline (the exterior line that frames the map) more sober. Good work! -- Alvesgaspar 08:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What on earth do you mean by make it non-scalable? --Dschwen 15:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment There is something important I forgot to say: the map is beatiful and nicely done. But beauty is not enough, in this case, to being really useful and reach FP standards. -- Alvesgaspar 13:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose not all symbols are explained in the legend, no arrow that indicates north, no distance units used in scalebar. This map just does not satify some basic cartographic requisites. Tbc 11:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indicates north there is on the down in Legend. What symbols aren't explained in the legend? Marcin n®☼ 12:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The railroad and the footpath nearby the water (if it is a footpath) for example. Now I took a second look a few other things struck me: first, the roads are digitized as polygons and not as line elements (there are indeed some arguments why in some situations thsi is preferred, but not for the purpose of this map). For example: the road Narutowicza, Mickiewicza, the railroad, ... gets wider and smaller. It would surprise me if the roads really do this, it looks more like sloppiness to me (just like the footpath that leaves the grass on the right). Also the polygons are not "snapped" to one another (look at the orange building/grass contact zone in the lower right), that will create small meaningless polygons that will be clearly visible at full zoom (definately in svg). Please do not interpret these comments the wrong way, they are meant to be constructive. The map is good, but really should not be a featured one. Tbc 13:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I am sorry....the idea of the composition is nice. But the tree disturbs and unfortunatelly there is too much noise.--AngMoKio 17:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose composition norro 22:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support-- this is a really unique composition for this subject. Reminds me of being near here. I also really like the other pics from this trip, such as this, this, and this. DVD R W 02:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose ack AngMoKio, really too much noise for a FP. --Grombo 07:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the tree disturb and noise. --Digon3 13:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I tried bringing down the noise level, and it helps, but probably not enough to make a difference. If you have a raw file it might. Dori | Talk 04:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - ditto to noise. The tree is OK though. - MPF 21:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Noise and tree (could the latter be cropped out?).--HereToHelp (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Interesting idea, but I think the triming is excessive. Also needs better resolution. Maybe it can be corrected?- Alvesgaspar 20:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Resolution is the only thing keeping me from Support, I feel a higher resolution should be uploaded. If the height of cropping was increased, I would support this picture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Digon3 (talk • contribs) at 21:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose ack Digon3 -- Erina 21:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I think the image is unbalanced due to lack of a stronger first plan. Alvesgaspar 22:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose i have to oppose but only bcs of the resolution. In a much higher resolution it would be a great photo--AngMoKio 22:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose because only 30kb (is this the lowest ever submitted for FPC???). Needs to be 10-20 times that resolution to be worth considering - MPF 12:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose due to the low vertical resolution and the cut column Roger McLassus 16:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose low-res for panoramic picture. Indon 12:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose 170 px for height? Way too low resolution for FP ... --Leclerc 15:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 10 oppose → not featuredRoger McLassus 09:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support great macro with a great composition - "Richard ...bist du's?" ;-) --AngMoKio 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ich würde nie einen Fuß oder Fühler ab-oder anschneiden. Aber von der Qualität her könnte es hinkommen :) Pass auf mit deinem Support, das Bild ist nicht besonders groß (853 × 1280). --Makro Freaktalk21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Es ist ein Irrglaube, zu glauben dass abgeschnittene Teile des Hauptobjekts ein Fehler sind....das kann Teil der Komposition sein. So sehe ich das hier. Was die Größe angeht...das kann ich hier übersehen. --AngMoKio 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The crop does not help. The foreground is a bit distracting. This is not up to the standards of other insect FPs, sorry. -- Ram-Man 13:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Excellent photograph - I love the detail in the legs. I don't think I believe the exposure data, though - 1/13 sec is NOT going to result in a sharp photo like this of a live animal (or is it?) -- ChemistHans 19:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! The exposure data is right. It was a cloudy day with no wind and I did some experiments with my new remote control for the camera. I took about 10 pictures with different exposure settings to see how they come out. This one was the best. JuliusR 10:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good photo, sharp! Nice colors! And a nice Bokeh in the background -- Robo47 11:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info created by Mdf - uploaded by Head - nominated by Pharaoh Hound --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Support --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The original is better. The space enhances the atmosphere and shows the bird as alone in its environment.--MichaelMaggs 06:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment the tourists left under the tree Lycaon 11:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Neutral I need "Guidelines for evaluating SVGs" Francisco M. Marzoa 00:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
