Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 2008

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

Images[edit]

Wattled Curassow[edit]

Crax globulosa.jpg

  • Nomination Wattled Curassow (Crax globulosa) --Mbdortmund 18:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is very close! --Ikiwaner 20:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not by a Wikimedian → not eligable. Thegreenj 20:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think, that we need to discuss this... these are the rules. --LC-de 20:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay... Thegreenj 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: Ineligable ->  not promoted --Thegreenj 22:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Graukogel from stubnerkogel mittelstation[edit]

Graukogel from stubnerkogel mittelstation 2008-03-19.jpg

  • Nomination Panorama of Graukogel, a mountain in Austria. -- Slaunger 13:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportThis is very beautiful. -- carol 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The valley's much to dark and lost any detail. Too much contrast? --LC-de 20:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Pudelek 09:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with LC-de. --Manco Capac 14:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no details in the middle part of photo --Leafnode 11:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose ->  declined --LC-de 20:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Santa Barbara Sunrise[edit]

Santa Barbara Sunrise 4798.jpg

  • Nomination Santa Barbara Sunrise. --Dori 16:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In my opinion this is a quality picture: interesting subject and very good composition. It shoud be promoted. --Alessandro Zangrilli 11:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Topic not sharp. Lycaon 16:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Topic not sharp. --Nevit 09:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor light --Manco Capac 10:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose ->  Decline --LC-de 20:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

Monument valley north east pano[edit]

Monument valley north east pano.jpg

  • Nomination Highway near Monument Valley. --Dschwen 16:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice image. --Nevit 19:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not so fond of the noise in the sky and the... pink? clouds. Lycaon 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Much noise. But pink clouds don't disturb me -- Stephanemartin 22:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy --Manco Capac 07:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose ->  Decline --LC-de 20:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

Noise.gif[edit]

Noise.gif

  • Nomination Noise. -- carol 17:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What kind of noise is it? White noise, pink noise, red noise or generated by some kind of physical process? Useless without additional informations. And 100x100 is a way too small. Yes, a larger "noisy" picture wouldn't contain more informations, but it would look much more nicely... --LC-de 15:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Web media -- tilable; it can fill whatever size that fits your needs; only with noise though.... -- carol 02:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Leafnode 07:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Am I mistaken, or is there a blank image in the cycle? Why? Anyway, there are clearly different levels of noise in the animation, and the reason for this remains foggy, even noisy... - Till.niermann 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It is noise from my web site -- nothing more, nothing less. It sits atop a stack of pages about other noise of various strengths and goodness and not continuous nor always definitively perfect. This one starts to make little bands because sometimes the other noise seems to gather together like that and start to look like something. Usually it is just noise though. I am honored(?) that it took so long to decline this! -- carol 20:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  Declined) --LC-de 21:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Borago officinalis (flower)[edit]

Borago officinalis (flower).jpg

  • Nomination Borago officinalis L. Borage near Font de Tita, el Perelló (Catalonia), Spain — Lycaon 14:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Colors reproduced accurately. --Nevit 20:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Over-saturation; joke not that funny. -- carol 09:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info No oversaturation involved (have a look at Borago officinalis). The colours are exactly as I saw them. Lycaon 12:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Borago officinalis is an old friend of mine. At first invited to stay a summer and then welcome as a weed where ever he wanted to go. This photograph is way to saturated. -- carol 14:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • And another thing -- did you give up on PSP? -- carol 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Guess you're stuck with the washed out version ;-). Kidding apart, I used to have the paler version in my garden here in Belgium too, but the sunshine and the dry conditions in Spain (see geolocation) seem to bring out the bright colours. (And BTW, ACDSee was only used to reduce file size from 1% compression (for storage use) to 5% compression as a good on-line compromise. PSP still rulez!!)Lycaon 14:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I considered changing my vote -- it is a beautiful photograph. If what you are saying about not manipulating the contrast (the background seems quite blue...) and other color things is true, I am thinking more about it being an evolution of the species. The paler borages -- the strong of these colors does not make them any less beautiful; I don't think that this plant will ever get the occasional pink flower, for instance. A QI whose time has not come yet? I have strong feelings about this species; they are the flavor that is closest to cucumber that I will willingly consume; yet the color often indicates the taste. -- carol 06:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ı like the colors. --Manco Capac 14:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Because of colours -- Stephanemartin 20:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful shot – the colours are credible. –Dilaudid 12:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  Promoted --LC-de 20:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Viola arborescens[edit]

Viola arborescens (plant).jpg

  • Nomination Viola arborescens L., plant near el Perelló, Catalonia, Spain — Lycaon 07:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Valuable for the rarity but foreground flowers not in the field --B.navez 03:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Does it have to be all in focus? I thought the centre one would have sufficed. Other opinions? Lycaon 11:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like this one. -- carol 14:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I remember as Lycaon several times opposing because of dof. He get it too. --Beyond silence 06:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You know, I thought about that and wondered why the heck is mr sans sillyart nominating this image? The only logical supposition I was able to divine from this is the potential of the complicated process of justifying the procurement of new equipment to the domestic dependents who might be involved and decided to point to the very nice image, which exists in the commons collection that does indeed measure up to the standards that have already been set by the nominator of this unqualifying image. -- carol 10:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm so stupid I can scarcely understand what you usually say here (I suspect irony though). Would you mind show some pity to less favoured beings who contribute here and speak with more clarity ? -- Stephanemartin 18:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Certainly, as soon there is a less favored being. -- carol 18:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
          • (I should have used "gifted" rather than "favoured") I hereby candidate as a less gifted being :-) -- Stephanemartin 21:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support just because. -- carol 13:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive colours, subject is focused. -- Stephanemartin 18:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor light. --Manco Capac 10:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose ->  Declined --LC-de 20:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Statue of Karl I[edit]

Bergisel-0037.JPG Bergisel-0037 Kopie.jpg

  • Nomination Austria, Innsbruck, Bergisel, sculpture of Karl I, rain --Mbdortmund 13:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much DOF: the background is too present, thus the statue is not clear enough. Maybe you should also add some contrast on the statue itself ? -- Stephanemartin 13:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Illustrates the subject well, even if the background is not ideal. Thegreenj 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It may have caused difficulties, if I had tried to clean the background from the disturbing trees *g* --Mbdortmund 17:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh, please. Difficulties in clearing backgrounds are no excuse; it's a cinch once you get one of these guys. :-) Thegreenj 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Well I can give it a try (blurring the background) during next week if you don't mind -- Stephanemartin 09:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much DOF.--Nevit 17:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How about the second version? --Mbdortmund 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The BG still draws too much attention. --Nevit 20:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
      • You need a good mask to blur the background, and this one clearly shows its seams. Also, gaussian blur is not that good at replicating out-of-focus blur; from what I understand, Photoshop and the GIMP have decent lens blur functions. And besides, the main problem is not the amount of blur in the background, but the fact that it is lighter than the statue and draws the eye away from it. That said, I don't think that it is a major problem in the picture. Thegreenj 21:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  'not promoted -- Lycaon 04:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dom in Utrecht[edit]

Koorlantaarn 2.jpg

  • Nomination Dom in Utrecht by Pepijntje --Mbdortmund 22:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent composition. I've uploaded an edit with much needed chroma noise reduction. Thegreenj 00:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is indeed great, but to me there is too much noise, not only chroma. --Leafnode 06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Definitely too noisy. Lycaon 06:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much noise. What a pity, the composition is so great... -- Stephanemartin 17:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too noisy --Chrumps 16:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose ->  not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Gull 4837.jpg[edit]

Gull 4837.jpg

  • Nomination A western gull in morning light. Dori 21:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the light, though sharpness is not picture perfect. Lycaon 21:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I also really like the light and composition, but the sharpness is just not there at all. Look at the brown feathers, for example, which are devoid of any kind of texture. Thegreenj 23:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, it's meant to be soft (soft light, nice fluffy gull), I have other images where you can count the hairs, but that's not the point of this composition. Matter of taste I guess. --Dori - Talk 01:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - in my opinion - sharpness is enough - Pudelek 17:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Matter of taste, indeed... For me here we have a good image: wonderful subject, nice lighting and accettable sharpness. Miku i mir nihet në dit të veshtir. --Alessandro Zangrilli 09:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  (promoted to QI -- Lycaon 19:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Chamelea gallina[edit]

Chamelea gallina.jpg

  • Nomination Chamelea gallina Striped venus clam near Riumar, Baix Ebre, Catalonia, Spain — Lycaon 07:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support well done, sharp, I like the sand background, it makes the clam look more natural --Gerolsteiner91 11:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Shadow has an awkward crop. -- carol 14:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC) -- carol 09:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC) composition problems.... -- carol 08:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Symbol support vote.svg Support really good details, but Carols remark is right. Now fixed. --Mbdortmund 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Fixed concerns. Lycaon 05:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the composition is still lacking -- it is too close to the lower portion of the frame with so much at the upper portion. -- carol 08:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with carol about the composition, but I think the picture is good enough for QI -- Stephanemartin 10:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  (promote?) -- Lycaon 16:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice color match with the sand. I like the composition. --Manco Capac 14:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted to QI.

Larus ridibundus[edit]

Chroicocephalus ridibundus (summer).jpg

  • Nomination Larus ridibundus Black-headed gull at but not in the Antwerp Zoo, Belgium — Lycaon 07:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral DOF seems a bit too narrow (back leg is OOF), but otherwise very good details --Ianare 04:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Cropping might add to the value. Upper part of BG seems a bit distracting to me. --Nevit 20:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why is there a black outline over the back of the gull? Sharpening? Dori 22:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey, that's weird. I've seen light sharpening lines on other contributor's images but never a dark one. Sharpening could be the reason indeed. I will have to fix this :(. Thanks for scrutinizing. Lycaon 05:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Areas neighbor to dark colors are lightened, areas neighbor to light colors are darkened. --Nevit 20:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version uploaded. Lycaon 16:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For new version.--Nevit 21:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 04:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Purlingbrook Falls Edit[edit]

Purlingbrook Falls edit.jpg

  • Nomination Edit: Downsample, selective curves and contrast adjustments, sharpen. Thegreenj 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support The detail isn't great, but given the resolution and after some adjustments, I think it barely scrapes the QI standard. Thegreenj 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support well-composed and generally well-executed --Donaldytong 12:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too much noise, many visble artefacts --Ianare 02:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I follow the previous comment: too much noise in the rocky parts -- Stephanemartin 20:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tend to agree. The only thing I can think of is that the rain has interfered in some way - camera normally does better than that at 100 ISO - looks more like 400 iso when I look closely --WikiWookie 07:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1.5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted -- Thegreenj 04:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Röhriger Affodill[edit]

Asphodelus fistulosus (flowers).jpg

  • Nomination Asphodelus fistulosus L. near el Perelló, Catalonia, Spain by Hans Hillewaert --Mbdortmund 18:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the sky in the background. Excellent DOF. FP?. --Ikiwaner 19:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not categorized -- can the new bot determine when discussion is the next step? (I know it is very complicated.... -- carol 11:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think Carols argument is not valid. Plants get organized by articles. The article Asphodelus fistulosus points to this image. If you put categorys in the image some people may even take it out. --Ikiwaner 17:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The same happens with galleries. The only difference between a gallery and a category is that category cannot be moved, but redirection is possibly a more human friendly solution to that. BTW, this is commons where they are gallery not 'article'. Commons is for image storage. Like a library. Gallery are like the ends of the shelves and category are like the shelves. In a library, both are used (and I usually find what I am looking for on the shelves....) It is an extremely complicated idea that both can be used, one day perhaps all human brains can expand and grow enough to comprehend such functionality capabilites. I am not going to hold my breath while waiting for this though. -- carol 02:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, what Ikiwaner has described is a limitation (or the psychological profile) of a gallery maker. I can give evidence of a gallery maker who removes categories -- I would not be able to provide evidence of a category maker removing images from galleries nor from removing galleries. I would further suggest that part of the psychologicial profile of such a person is the need for attention andthat is how such children are perceived in the elementary schools here, often motivated by jealousy or the feeling of insignificance. I do not like psychology though, especially among adults. The fact that both can (and perhaps should) exist is a fact and reflects real life models of similar collections. -- carol 02:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
        • French people call that kind of discussion "Querelles byzantines". Unfortunately I don't know the English for it :-) Byzantine priests were supposed to argue about the sex of angels even though the Ottomans had put Constantinople on siege. To feed the troll, I'd like the picture to be categorized too. -- Stephanemartin 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good colors, composition, detail. Dori 21:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ianare 07:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great colours and composition -- Stephanemartin 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Chrumps 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted to QI -- Lycaon 17:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Salvinia auriculata[edit]

Salvinia auriculata.jpg

  • Nomination Salvinia auriculata, in Pantanal of Mato Grosso, Brazil. --Mateus Hidalgo 15:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite clear. Arria Belli 17:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quite overexposed, pale washed out colours. --Stefan Vladuck 19:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to composition, DOF, and light (each on its own I don't think it's a critical flaw). Dori 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted to QI Lycaon 04:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Musée d'Orsay[edit]

EPO 0980 wiki.jpg

  • Nomination Orsay Museum in Paris, France by Eric Pouhier --Mbdortmund 11:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent light. Arria Belli 14:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poorly framed : the roof is not complete -- Stephanemartin 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Unless you want a fisheye projection, how could it be? Thegreenj 19:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
      • What disturbs is that we can see neither the roof nor the ground correctly. To my mind that kind of composition is better. Obviously the light is very good in the submitted picture. More reviews needed ! -- Stephanemartin 22:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Pudelek 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted to QI -- Lycaon 20:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Erigeron annuus[edit]

Erigeron annuus profile.jpg

  • Nomination Erigeron annuus in profile. Thegreenj 13:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm torn on this one. Light is really good, but composition is a bit jumbled. Needs more reviewers. Lycaon 16:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree on the nice light, but I like the composition. It almost looks like the one in the background is a mirror image of the one in the foreground. Arria Belli 12:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the composition. Some noise in the lower right dark part I think. -- Stephanemartin 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 15:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A dog violet[edit]

Dogviolet6.jpg|

  • Nomination A dog violet. Thegreenj 01:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I look like a bit Posterisation on the lower part. A moist flower is very nice :) _Fukutaro 08:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    •  :] I've checked the histogram for the lower 65 pixels, and it is not showing posterization. I think there is a little noise from ISO 400, even after noise reduction. Thegreenj 14:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I meant edge of the leaf at the lower center ~ right. I see the noise may from ISO400 on the whole background. _Fukutaro 15:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I think that you are just seeing the bokeh on this lens, which does not render high-contrast backgrounds well. Compare to this, in which there is a similar bokeh effect on the leaves in the top left corner. Thegreenj 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Hmm.. This is bokeh? It seems so that to me, which with ISO400 noise? You mentioned that bokeh of the image, I seem to it's beautiful and naturally bokeh. _Fukutaro 12:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While there is some noise, I think that the color and composition make up for this; it's a beautiful image. --Ianare 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  promoted to QI -- Lycaon 15:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Purlingbrook Falls[edit]

Purlingbrook Falls.jpg

  • Nomination Purlingbrook Falls in Springbrook National Park, Qld, Australia --WikiWookie 07:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful site, but would be better with more background; too dark colors --Stephanemartin 16:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think too dark on background. Though, it seems to unsharp may from jpg compression. Composition and color are good, but I would like some opinions. _Fukutaro 07:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry I've been unclear: I think that globally the picture is too dark. And I also would like to have more background around the subject (eg more trees...). Please correct me if my English is too bad :-) -- Stephanemartin 13:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment great view , but nothing seems to be really sharp on the picture --Mbdortmund 13:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I had to underexpose slightly to avoid losing detail in the water --WikiWookie 13:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Having looked at the edited version (thanks for giving it a go) I do need to lighten it a bit. The only way I could get more in would be to do a stitched panorama (I don't think a wider lens would look good...). --null 05:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Oops, re-signing --WikiWookie 05:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  not promoted -- carol 13:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bougainvillea[edit]

Bougainvillea3.jpg

  • Nomination Flower of the genus Bougainvillea in Itararé, Brazil. --Mateus Hidalgo 01:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, most of the subject is not in focus. Dori 03:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is at least as much in focus as that hibiscus was. -- carol 13:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF problem to my mind: I find it difficult to see what is the subject and what is the background -- Stephanemartin 13:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness . --Nevit 19:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose ->  not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 15:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Green Violet-ear, Edit[edit]

Colibri-thalassinus-001-edit.jpg

  • Nomination Green Violet-ear (created by Mdf, edited by Laitche) --Laitche 19:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good --Richard Bartz 20:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question How did you add new background of the left side to original? clone? _Fukutaro 06:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
That's clone out. :) -- Laitche 10:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Okey. It's fear of into deceive : Corrected composition with cloning background. _Fukutaro 13:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but add retouched template. --Dori - Talk 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done -- Laitche 19:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Nevit 19:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But isn't it already featured? --Mbdortmund 22:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Not yet, but I guess that is going to be FP soon. -- Laitche 04:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted to QI -- Lycaon 19:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Green Violet-ear, Original[edit]

Colibri-thalassinus-001.jpg

  • Nomination Green Violet-ear (The original) -- Laitche 13:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn

Pictogram voting delete.svg -- Laitche 16:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  (there is still time to vote or withdraw!) -- carol  13:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

omotion

Riebeckplatz[edit]

Halle-Riebeckplatz.jpg

  • Nomination Riebeckplatz in Halle/Saale germany. -- Kolossos 11:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice and clean, don't see any faults with it. Dori 03:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Excellent composition. How did you manage to get just that few people? Unfortunately it misses the resolution requirements. Quite strong colour aberration on the pillar. --Ikiwaner 18:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For all the reasons Ikiwaner listed. ~1.9M and the composition makes up for this in my opinion and there has been lengthy discussions about the size limitation being a suggestion -- lets just skip that; spend the time finding the diffs yourself if you would like to see how that went. -- carol 04:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To the first question: Is was not difficult to get that few people on the image on saturday morning. For the resolution question, I believe all is visible in this image what should be visible in this scene. If I would have i.e. a motive with a fine ornament or so I would uploading a higher resolution. --Kolossos 21:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the composition. --Mbdortmund 22:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  (promoted to QI -- Lycaon 15:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Myiagra inquieta[edit]

Restless flycatcher04.jpg

  • Nomination Myiagra inquieta by User:Fir0002 --Nevit 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small Lycaon 21:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's really a good picture and it is not far beyond the guidelines concerning the pixels --Mbdortmund 22:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I turn a blind eye because it's very good --Richard Bartz 00:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another case where some extra "empty" background wouldn't really add much but put it over. Dori 01:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGreat colors, contrast and exposure are good, no motion blur. --Stephanemartin 17:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could then at least the EXIF information be added, please? I know some manipulation may destroy it, but I also know that a knowledgeable contributor (as Peter is) can restore that information easily. Lycaon 06:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Peter is unlikely to contribute till June. Message on his page. This is why I nominated some of his images which I liked. --Nevit 13:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice clear photo and nicely framed. Bidgee 18:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Small... but... Nice.(^^)/ -- Laitche 14:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Large enough and an otherwise good photo. --Thisisbossi 17:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted to QI -- Lycaon 13:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Geastrum saccatum[edit]

Geastrum 20070721.jpg

  • Nomination Geastrum saccatum in Badangi Reserve, Wollstonecraft, Australia --WikiWookie 06:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice subject but the image seems blurred and noisy--Nevit 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I think this was orignally a decline -- CarolSpears 13:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perhaps it's just my screen, but I see no noise that detracts from the main subject even at full size. Arria Belli 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support fairly scary fungus -- how big is it? --carol 13:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • About 5-6cm across --WikiWookie 04:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
So approximately:
  • 1200px : 6cm (I skipped trying to compensate for the curve and the angle)
  • 1cm : 200px
  • 1mm : 20px.
I honestly imagined that this fungi was large enough to hold in my hand! It is less scary now, I thank you for the additional information :) and if I could vote positively again, I would. -- carol 06:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted -- carol 12:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Homemade Flan[edit]

Homemade Flan.jpg

  • Nomination Homemade flan, by Cary Bass. Arria Belli 22:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy. Lycaon 15:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportI did not hear anything. -- carol 02:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Have a close look ;) Lycaon
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You might be right about the image, but isn't the next step to discuss and that is where and when you express your opinion? -- carol 11:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Oh you were serious?? I thought it was just another funny remark ;-)). Lycaon 20:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well... mostly no. -- carol 21:19, 10 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High resolution. --Beyond silence 17:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mmm nice... Majorly 23:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can see lots of artifacs too. Sharp and vivid colors ! --Stephanemartin 18:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • When will you vote though? -- carol 04:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
      • If you insist... not an easy decision -- Stephanemartin 11:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great colors -- Stephanemartin 11:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted -- carol 12:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)~

Osteospermum-ecklonis.jpg[edit]

Osteospermum-ecklonis.jpg

  • Nomination An Osteospermum Ecklonis. --Mschel 23:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful colors, good use of DOF. Arria Belli 23:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I don't agree with the DOF, and the low light. Dori 03:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High resolution.--Beyond silence 17:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The single flower that is in focus should be all in focus. -- carol 13:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very tasteful view for me, nice composition by DOF with that be has definite sense. Though it's a bit cracked tone curves from hard editing, and then which is lost Image Quality, I guess. So I'm sorry to vote. _Fukutaro 14:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support i think it is a beautiful image.--Ltshears 21:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful? Yes. Technically ok? Sadly, no, because of mentioned DOF issues. Lycaon 05:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose My eye is driven to the unfocused part of the picture due to the composition. Feels uncomfortable... In other words, DOF problem. -- Stephanemartin 19:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose ->  not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 15:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Roses in Salzburg[edit]

1749 - Salzburg - Stiftskirche St Peter - Rose.JPG 1749toneadj - Salzburg - Stiftskirche St Peter - Rose.jpg 1753 - Salzburg - Stiftskirche St Peter - Rose.JPG 1753toneadj - Salzburg - Stiftskirche St Peter - Rose.jpg

  • Nomination A rose at the Stiftskirche St Peter in Salzburg, Austria --Thisisbossi 03:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too dark, poor lighting.. _Fukutaro 12:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The original photo voted on is on the left. A tone-adjusted version is beside it; then next is another original of the same flower but another shot -- with a tone-adjusted version of that one on the far right. Any improvement? --Thisisbossi 02:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support second or fourth (from left) but not both. I am not a big fan of the flower and I don't know what the real color should be, but with these hybrids, if those colors don't exist they can make one? -- carol 13:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm, this was declined in February for not being identified.... -- carol 13:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Have you been having some of idea what it is darkness? I think, it is not necessary that should be lightness on the whole. If just only one point (e.g : center of the flower) is lightness, it would be more better. _Fukutaro 14:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no proper identification. Lycaon 08:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  decline -- carol 12:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cucurbita pepo[edit]

Cucurbita pepo - another new bud - Kourou.jpg

  • Nomination Cucurbita pepo, new bud. Arria Belli 11:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good DOF which is difficult in a macro. As the image is green in green the subject is peeled only by DOF. Innovative! --Ikiwaner 22:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Define macro in the context being used here.... -- carol 02:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment According to DIN 19040 it's a reproduction scale of 10:1 to 1:10. This is approximately the case here. --Ikiwaner 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That particular DIN is not in the list of standards; I observed the nomination processes here for several months -- I determined for myself not to just use photographic terms without understanding them as there were some exceptional photographers involved. Colloquially, I find it extremely difficult to call this image a 'macro' when there are photographs of subjects that can barely be measured in millimeters being represented in good focus at digital sizes of thousands of pixels. Emotionally I want to oppose the image due to the review; I am not going to do that for all of the right reasons. Comically (with exaggeration to make a point) I supported an image of a huge building elsewhere suggesting that the image was going to be setting a new standard that reflects current activity; much of that is implied and might not be obvious. Personally that DIN thing means nothing to me; groups of self-appointed authority have a long history (since mankind could form little groups of authorities, even) of not keeping up with technology. -- carol 00:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Invalid argument to bring this to CR. Image fulfils QI requirements. Lycaon 19:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You don't think that there is an attempt being made to redefine macros to fit cell phoneys? -- carol 02:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  promoted -- carol 12:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Highlight Towers Munich by night[edit]

Highlight Towers Munich by night.jpg

  • Nomination Highlight Towers Munich by night --Richard Bartz 16:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There isn't enough light to see what's what in most of the image. I realize that it's a night image and that it's sufficiently exposed, but there just isn't enough light. Dori 03:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is that what you had in mind? -- carol 12:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The original file is good: The lamps show the outline of the building. There are no large overexposed areas. The image looks like shot in the dark which is true. The image is sharp and high-res. @Carol: Please read the manual and put images here if you want to discuss! --Ikiwaner 21:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh, all images marked for discussion get put here. Please feel free to go explain to people how VI image nomination works as it is new and needs someones attention to get it to run.... -- carol 01:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I really like the concept of the photo: the contrast between light/dark is neat. However, the light side a lot of artefacts in the sky and the overexposure of the building is a bit on the high side. You might be able to pull off a little photo-trickery by taking two separate photos -- one photo set for unlit conditions and the other set to account for the lamp -- then stitching them together across the diagonal (unless that's already what was done... I'm not quite sure if this is a single photo or if it's already a composition). --Thisisbossi 02:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • My theory is that the alien fungi finds posterization to be a worthwhile attribute -- carol 03:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Are you seriously going to have a revert war over a silly joke? Dori 03:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
        • No. I seriously think that the photographer can manage his own photograph. If Richard reverts it, I will not change that. Unless of course you are talking about the first revert made by Thegreenj; then I will let that user explain reasonings. That user seems to think it was uploaded on April 1st and it was uploaded on April 4th. What would Richard do? -- carol 04:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, no user owns their Image pages on this project, so why would you only quit if Richard reverted you? Dori 04:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
            • You mean only if Richard reverted the image I uploaded after following the instructions back to the original upload? -- carol 05:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
              • This image seems clear to me that Richard left very clear instructions for how to handle it. On the otherhand, while everyone worries about this image, Richard is giving almost completely incoherent how-tos at the Help Desk -- perhaps someone could be actually useful and help out there.... -- carol 13:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
                • ! --Richard Bartz 00:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • I am very confused with all the reverts... but I do like the King Kong version. I'd say it would make an valuable addition to our photographical repository of media on the classical topic of giant apes wreaking havoc upon skyscrapers. --Thisisbossi 03:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
                    • There has lately been an advertisement on the television here for a computer game called Scholarship in which the hallways of a school are filled with mid-pubescent bullies. It would be nice to have the feeling that the television here and the wiki are unrelated; I wait patiently for that. It is interesting how people write here 'No ownership' when they do not want their edits reverted. Interesting and boring and only fun for some. I dug out an image that wasn't nominated anywhere and found where a well-known photographer around here had called me a well-deserved 'Psycho' in the process of looking for that image. After QICBot cleans the turds off from this page, I will nominate it. There is a big difference between fun for some and fun for all though, isn't there? -- carol 06:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Could set a new standard by which to measure all commons macros. -- carol 04:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice sharp.--Beyond silence 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Dori. Lycaon 19:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Uhmm yeah, there is a difference of a fancy "glow in the dark" nightshot with 3 min bulb exposure to make the night a day or a realistic approach. This building is looking during the night as i adjusted the exposure. Its absolutely realistic. Does anybody been there ? So you have 2 trust me.--Richard Bartz 01:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)~
  • weakSymbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Dori, just too dark. If you have idea what like you should to show the shining light of ramps, I think black part too large. Noise and sharpness are nice for nightshot, but composition is destroyed by empty background Black. _Fukutaro 07:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose ->  not promoted -- carol 12:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cemetery sculpture[edit]

IMG 6419-Ostfriedhof.JPG

  • Nomination Dortmund, cemetery "Ostfriedhof", grave of the families Hoffmann/Knoll --Mbdortmund 01:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Here I like the carefully chosen crop and the diffuse lighting. --Ikiwaner 06:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The other way, I feel this cropping. I think better what is either more closeup or into the whole. _Fukutaro 14:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please put images here when you disagree with a review. --Ikiwaner 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The soft light is very good and the crop looks fine to me as well. Arria Belli 13:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise in the shadows -- carol 09:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't see noise as an issue here. It is fairly moderate, mostly luminance, and blends nicely into the irregularity of the stone surface. --Stefan Vladuck 09:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps I should explain the situation: The sculpture is, so far as I remember, in a kind of "house" with a small roof and columms left and right, it is dark there and not much space. I didn't want to use a flash, because it would have destroyed the atmosphere. --Mbdortmund 13:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High resolution sharp.--Beyond silence 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I have mixed feeling: on the one hand the statue is superb, on the other hand I think it is really poorly framed... --Stephanemartin 18:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fulfils QI requirements. Lycaon 19:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  promoted -- carol 12:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Statue of Andrew Jackson[edit]

Andrew Jackson NO oblique.jpg

  • Nomination Statue of Andrew Jackson in New Orleans. --Ianare 09:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Most of the statue seems underexposed on my screen. --Nevit 01:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subject is good, but the point of view is weird and the horse's legs seem cut. --Stephanemartin 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The light is somewhat harsh, but I see no underexposed parts. --Stefan Vladuck 08:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted -- carol 13:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Rose in the Rosengarten Bern[edit]

4494 - Bern - Rosengarten - Rose.JPG 4494sat - Bern - Rosengarten - Rose.jpg

  • Nomination A rose in the Rosengarten Bern, CH --Thisisbossi 03:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose saturated red part. _Fukutaro 12:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info How about the photo on the right -- I reduced saturation by 5% and upped the blue tones a bit. --Thisisbossi 01:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The red channel is significantly overexposed, which makes the red of the petals (visible in the shade) shift to orange (in full sunlight). This is nearly impossible to fix through editing. You might try to reduce the exposure in such circumstances, or better, if possible wait for better light (e.g. softer light at dawn or dusk). --Stefan Vladuck 14:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For what it's worth, it actually is an orange flower; not red. --Thisisbossi 19:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Red" and "orange" are obviously not precise terms. What I meant to say is that the colour is "washed out" in the sunlit parts. In technical terms, the hue is shifted due to clipping of the red channel. If you look at the image with a suitable software, you will see that there are large areas where the red channel has the maximum value, which is a clear indicator of overexosure. --Stefan Vladuck 10:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No proper identification. Lycaon 08:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I had a feeling it was red saturation being referred to as appearing orange; just wanted to make sure. I agree: this can be declined (I'm not quite sure how to withdraw). Thanks! --Thisisbossi 17:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted -- carol 13:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wisła-latawiec[edit]

Wisła-latawiec.jpg

  • Nomination Kite. Sfu 18:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline

Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeKite as the most important object to small --Mbdortmund 22:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • That`s not a reason to decline it as a quality image. Propably it`s not the most valuable image. My idea was to show kite flying over Vistula river bank. If you would say - it`s not sharp enough - I think I woundn`t discuss with it now. --Sfu 07:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, composition is one of the criteria for QI, and I tend to agree with Mbdortmund. A vertical composition from a closer distance or a greater focal length might work better. --Stefan Vladuck 08:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  not promoted -- carol 13:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Alsterblick[edit]

Alsterblick.jpg

  • Nomination View from the church St. Nikolai to the backside of the townhall from Hamburg. --Falense 10:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rather tightly cropped at the top, but certainly good enough for QI. -- MJJR 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small (barely), smallest allowed size is 1600x1250, 2M is the suggested size image is 1500x1148 <-- must be able to do some math. --Ianare 22:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC) -- edit carol 02:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a good image, but it's only 508 kb and 2Mb is the suggested size Keibr 10:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yeah, the language is quite flawed about this -- I think it starts with the camera companies, they use that 'M' to describe the size of image that the camera will produce -- the cameras make image files with specific measurements (a specific number of pixels X another specific number of pixels) -- more so than this image nomination thingie where an image that is (1,000,000 pixels X 2 pixels) is fine. Nice maths! -- carol 12:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 19:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tower of St. Vitus' Cathedral[edit]

Veitsdom Turmhelm.jpg

  • Nomination Southern tower of St. Vitus' Cathedral in Prague --PetrusSilesius 07:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good considering the heights and zoom involved. Arria Belli 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too noisy and not much sharpness. It's not for QI. _Fukutaro 12:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ac Fukutaro --Lestath 08:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 19:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cat investigates washing machine[edit]

Cat investigates washing machine 2003-07-03.png

  • Nomination Cat investigates washing machine or Everything here is mine! uploaded and edited by Coelacan -- carol 03:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Way too small --Norro 07:36, 8 April 2008
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perhaps an exception can be made for how rare such an image is.... -- carol 07:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • nominator cannot vote -- please do not attempt the extraordinarily complicated task of moving images around until you are able to grasp the finer points of the suggestions that have been made about how the nomination process actually works -- carol 02:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small. Also, I don't see how this is a rare picture. --Ianare 08:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not even sure this qualifies for QI: the photo was taken by a Flickr user and modified by a Commons user. Arria Belli 13:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The edit is not the dominant element. The main thing is not done by a commoner and thus the image not elegible. --Ikiwaner 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: Declined -> Not commoners work. Lycaon 07:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Tiger[edit]

Panthera tigris altaica at Tierpark Berlin (3).JPG

  • Nomination Panthera tigiris altaica at Tierpark Berlin --Agadez 23:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive dentition ! -- Ianare 23:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Indeed, but much less impressive over-sharpening halos. For a picture this size, I'd recommend that you use a radius no larger than .7 pixels Thegreenj 01:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree that it's way oversharpened. Dori 02:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted -- carol 01:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lafleur Homestead[edit]

Lafleur Homestead.JPG

  • Nomination Historic cabin --Padraic 19:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful light and composition --Ikiwaner 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to the vehicle in BG; it just does not fit. --Relic38 14:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice colours and composition - Pudelek 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think the car spoils the composition, it's a tiny part in the background. My only concern is that it appears tilted, but the trees appear to be upright so I guess it's OK. Dori 02:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted -- carol 13:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Railway Tracks Near Mainz Port[edit]

Railway Tracks Near Mainz Port.jpg

  • Nomination A railway X-ing covered by snow. --Ingolfson 03:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • The image is tilted --Richard Bartz 15:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Eh.... as you can see if you look closely, the left building tilts away to the left, while the objects to the right tilt away to the right. It's simply perspective. Ingolfson 10:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, seems a bit underexposed on my monitor--Nevit 15:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have brightened and contrast-corrected the image slightly. Didn't want to go overboard. Ingolfson 06:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. I don't understand the tracks there, but I like the atmosphere and the minimal coloring of the image. There is an editorial on roads there I think. -- carol 09:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose dark, snowy, sorry --Beyond silence 10:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted -- carol 13:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pavement[edit]

- Pavement 01 -.jpg

  • Nomination Pavement, by Nino Barbieri. Arria Belli 13:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Meets the minimum QI requirements.--Nevit 15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no remarcable quality --Mbdortmund 18:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Not necessary to have an exceptional quality, this is good enough for QI -- Alvesgaspar 18:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted -- carol 13:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Saints Philip and Jacob Church[edit]

Sohrau - kirche.JPG

  • Nomination Saints Philip and Jacob Church in Żory (Sohrau) --Pudelek 09:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate angle causing an extreme geometric distortion. Image noisy and not sharp enough -- Alvesgaspar 08:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - noisy? where? -Pudelek 08:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can not see much noise but some perspective correction might be done! --Nevit 15:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distortion and crop. --Lestath 11:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose like Lestath --Mbdortmund 19:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose ->  not promoted -- carol 13:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pale Flax I[edit]

Flower March 2008-14.jpg Flower March 2008-14 edit.jpg

  • Nomination The delicate flower of a Pale Flax (Linum bienne) -- Alvesgaspar 14:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Edit
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSo sad to decline because it is a very delicate and fine picture but glittering of the pollen is too artificial, it's a pity because blue pollen is so rare--B.navez 03:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me, it's OK now. --B.navez 18:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - Improved version added -- Alvesgaspar 09:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - improved version --Ianare 06:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support edit. —Fvasconcellos 13:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support edit. --Relic38 14:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 Original: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  not promoted -- carol 13:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 Edit: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  promoted -- carol 13:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pale Flax II[edit]

Flower March 2008-13.jpg Flower March 2008-13 edit.jpg

  • Nomination A Pale Flax (Linum bienne) -- Alvesgaspar 14:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Edit
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose So sad to decline because it is a very delicate and fine picture but glitting of the pollen is too artificial, it's a pity because blue pollen is so rare--B.navez 03:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - Improved version added -- Alvesgaspar 09:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose original -- CarolSpears 08:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support edit -- CarolSpears 08:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support edit. --Relic38 14:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support original and edit - enough for QI - Pudelek 14:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support original and edit--Beyond silence 10:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 Original: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted  -- carol 13:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 Edit: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted   -- carol 13:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Arms of Suffolk.svg[edit]

Arms of Suffolk.svg

  • Nomination: Coat of arms of Suffolk. SVG, based on multiple sources (and blazon :) —Fvasconcellos 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why is it different than the image that is used as source? Can coat of arms be different from what they are supposed to be?--Manco Capac hh:mm, d March, 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info the shield itself is identical, what is diferent are the decorations, from them the only one that worries me is the ship. it must be the same ship on the top of the crown. i would also try to use a yellow no so yellow. the yellow indicates "gold" so using a bit of a more orange yellow is better- --LadyofHats hh:mm, d March, 2008
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The description specifies a Viking ship, so the source PNG is actually a little less accurate if you follow the blazon. I used the gold from Image:Heraldic Shield Or.svg. Do you think it should be darker? Fvasconcellos 21:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I see the difference on the yellow/red ribbon(reef?) each other of this and source, and this problem is O.K? _Fukutaro 10:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes. As you may see here, the mantling is not really standard. Hmm, I'm getting the feeling this is too different from the source for people to realize it's accurate... :( Maybe a do-over is in order? 14:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 13:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fvasconcellos, would you show we that some of rule of Coat of Arams? Some differences are no problem, but any differences are wrong.... I'm not sure to that is either good or wrong. _Fukutaro 13:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • As you can see here, the blazon (description of the coat) does not specify the mantling or the design of the scroll (where it says "GUIDE OUR ENDEAVOUR"). The blazon is the only really authoritative "rule" for drawing a coat; any other pictures of it are the artist's representations of what the blazon should look like. Fvasconcellos 16:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Well, sorry. I still feel that is not enough quality from which details is not good detailed. _Fukutaro 13:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  Draw  -- carol 02:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mist in the morning[edit]

Bolu-08523 nevit.jpg

  • Nomination Mist in the morning --Nevit 22:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Will probably get shot down as being too small, but I like the dreamy, quiet landscape and the shades of blue. Arria Belli 13:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - the problem is not the size but the image quality: lots of artifacts -- Alvesgaspar 14:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestath 11:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted -- carol 02:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Resolution is OK for a very abstract image. I like the mood and the perfect exposure. Where are those artifacts? --Ikiwaner 07:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Pelican 4944.jpg[edit]

Pelican 4944.jpg

  • Nomination A brown pelican I believe. Dori 00:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Little detail and not the best angle -- Alvesgaspar 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice shot for a bird in flight. --Nevit 16:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I'd like some more opinions. Dori 19:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. --Beyond silence 20:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for QI. Bird looks towards camera which is nice. Slight sharpening and brightening of shadows (e.g. highlight/shadow fctn.) might help. (Where's the catchlight from? Flash?) --Matl 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It's natural sun light. Dori 21:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ianare 06:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ----Amrum 20:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted -- carol 02:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Humboldt penguin 5080 edit.jpg[edit]

Humboldt penguin 5080.jpg Humboldt penguin 5080 edit.jpg

  • Nomination A penguin portrait Dori 20:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very nice detail and sharpness. But the "near-to-burned" bird's chest, with no visible detail, spoils an otherwise excellent portrait -- Alvesgaspar 08:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I withdraw my original image in favor of Richard's edit to the right. Dori 19:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Excellent quality, nothing to say -- Alvesgaspar 20:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ianare 06:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose (edit) ->  promoted -- carol 08:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sully sur Loire 2007b[edit]

Sully sur Loire 2007b.jpg

  • Nomination Castle of Sulls-sur-Loire, located in the county of Loiret/France, by Manfred Heyde. --Mbdortmund 18:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support shadow in the centre is a bit distracting, but other than that it looks very nice FRZ 19:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I feel the distortion of both side buildings by corrected perspective distortion. I would like to other opinions. _Fukutaro 11:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lines should run parallel for QI. --Richard Bartz 16:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too strong perspective correction --Ikiwaner 17:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose ->  not promoted -- carol 08:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

P-47D Thunderbolt Wicked Rabbit[edit]

P-47D Wicked Rabbit flying.jpg

  • Nomination P-47D Thunderbolt Wicked Rabbit from Kogo.--Mbdortmund 23:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Richard Bartz 15:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small. Thegreenj 19:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support there are bigger pictures with less details --Mbdortmund 21:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Your support as the nominator is implied. Thegreenj 00:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it's small, but very good - Pudelek 21:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support cropping is good so it's better to keep this size. --B.navez 14:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 1.7 MP (2 megapixels is normally the lower limit, but for 'easy to take' images, reviewers may demand more.) --Nevit 16:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Contra: Size is small, Prop motion is frozen. Pros: Superb lighting (even light underneath wing), sharpness and color good, dramatic smoky background which makes it special. Worth 1 exception to 2MP rule if this is possible.--Matl 20:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's good, some extra sky would put it over the size without adding anything. Dori 21:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestath 11:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  promoted -- carol 08:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bookshelf Prunksaal OeNB Vienna AT matl00786ch[edit]

Bookshelf Prunksaal OeNB Vienna AT matl00786ch.jpg

  • Nomination Bookshelf w. historic books, National Library, Vienna --Matl 20:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The quality is OK but I think the stairs in the foreground ruins the composition. A subjective issue, of course. Please feel free to move it to CR -- Alvesgaspar 19:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK, I did. In my subjective view, the ladder/stair saves the picture from looking too flat, it adds a foreground and a crossing element to the composition. It also hints to the big library "above" the bookshelf. --Matl 21:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Matl about the ladder. I also like the fact that we can see the bottom of the spines of the books in the upper row. Arria Belli | parlami 15:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for all the reasons mentioned by Arria Belli -- CarolSpears 23:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in my opinion - composition is ok - Pudelek 13:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support matls explanation convinces me. --AngMoKio 20:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  promoted -- carol 08:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Antartica panorama[edit]

061212-nordkapp.jpg

  • Nomination Antarctica panorama -Cascoly 16:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful! Chmehl 22:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Waiting until license issues are clarified. Chmehl 16:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Still beautiful! Chmehl 07:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose though I like the image and think its meets QI technical requirements I have a concern about the license until such time as its clarified the image should remain at CR. source has a clear statement of copyright All images are copyrighted by Steve Estvanik. Except for these links, you may NOT copy any of these images unless you pay for a download. as with all image sourced from the net the source must clearly provide a free license for the image or the author needs to email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with a confirmation of the licensing. Gnangarra 14:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment sorry for the confusion, but i AM the copyright holder for the image. the website listed is NOT the source for this image. http://pix-now.com however, IS also my site and i own the copyright for everything there. i uploaded a different version here and declared the licensing as directed. how can i avoid this problem in the future? Cascoly 20:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Seems to be just a misunderstanding, the license looks good. The website states your username (you could link to your commons userpage from your website to make it absolutely clear). --Dschwen 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support identity confirmed via OTRS (ticket #2008032410017391) Gnangarra 01:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Is this a crop of an image or a stitch of multiple images? If the latter, is is possible to upload a higher resolution? It's good as it is, but I suspect you might have something even better available (just a guess). --Thisisbossi 04:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Disqualifying stitching problem in the lower middle part of the picture --B.navez 14:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per B.navez. - Till.niermann 21:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  promoted -- carol 08:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fly 01[edit]

Fly 01.gif

  • Nomination Fly --Nevit 10:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Size is much to small --LC-de 14:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have seen animated gif's that are below the size suggested for jpeg's --Nevit 13:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Way too small and quite poor quality -- Alvesgaspar 22:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per opposers --Richard Bartz 16:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdraw the nomination. --Nevit 19:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ariane 5[edit]

Ariane 5 model at the entrance to the CSG.jpg

  • Nomination Life-size model of an Ariane 5 rocket in front of the Guiana Space Centre, Kourou. Arria Belli 20:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice Photo, Sharp and accurate! --Stefan-Xp 16:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I don't agree. The lighting is poor, the quality also. -- Alvesgaspar 20:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support i think that the lighting is ok --Pudelek 23:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too dark. --Lestath 11:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too dark sorry. --Beyond silence 13:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In this case lighting is also good for me. But sadly what without correctly centered camera position. _Fukutaro 09:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful sky. Doesn't matter if the subject is a little bit underexposed. --Pymouss44 01:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose ->  not promoted -- carol 13:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)