Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 2009

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

File:Thomas_Bresson_-_Stal-2_(by).jpg[edit]

Thomas Bresson - Stal-2 (by).jpg

  • Nomination Stalactite inside the Salbert fortifications. --ComputerHotline 13:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not bad for a difficult subject.--Mbz1 15:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs some noise reduction in the background and is a tad underexposed. Lycaon 19:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Mbz1. The background could probably use some noise reduction, but that's entirely unrelated to the subject. If the question is "is this a quality image of a stalactite," then my answer is yes. --Notyourbroom 17:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ianare 03:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - nice photo. Jonathunder 16:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 16:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Waldschafe.jpg[edit]

Waldschafe.jpg

  • Nomination Waldschafe --3268zauber 06:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportgood details and composition --Mbdortmund 06:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stimme zu. Fingalo 19:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy. --Eusebius 16:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Vandtårnet ved Ringgadebroen 2.jpg[edit]

Vandtårnet ved Ringgadebroen 2.jpg

  • Nomination Old Water Tower in Århus, Denmark--Villy Fink Isaksen 11:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support high quality shot --AngMoKio 13:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Compression artefacts (look at the left end of the roof) --Berthold Werner 13:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)--Berthold Werner 15:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment uploaded a new with less comprssion --Villy Fink Isaksen 14:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks OK --Mbdortmund 17:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good --Simonizer 17:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Eusebius 10:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Information table - Jasna Ski Resort.JPG[edit]

Information table - Jasna Ski Resort.JPG

  • Nomination Information table - Jasná Ski Resort, Slovakia --Pudelek 16:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition, main object to small --Mbdortmund 20:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question what is wrong with composition? --Pudelek 20:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You called it "information table" and that table doesn't fill 10% of the picture and is unreadeble; what else is the object? --Mbdortmund 20:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'am afraid but Mbdortmund is right --Richard Bartz 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 06:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Orgia recens.jpg[edit]

Orgia recens.jpg

  • Nomination Orgyia recens --Ivengo(RUS) 18:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposePictogram voting comment.svg Comment DOF is a bit 2 shallow --Richard Bartz 19:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Die Raupe ist scharf und kontrastreich durchgezeichnet. Fingalo 21:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortune focus (DOF), lacking sharpness for the given size -Richard Bartz 19:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad focus, head is unsharp -- Pro2 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 06:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Superphénix.jpg[edit]

Superphénix.jpg

  • Nomination Superphénix, a fast breeder reactor, France. Yann 19:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Der Reaktor kippt nach links. Fingalo 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am sorry, but that's not true. Yann 23:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is indeed an angle in the verticals of the left side of the reactor building. --Eusebius 16:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 1,43 Grad to the left on the left corner, could be corrected. --Mbdortmund 19:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I corrected a slight tilt (0.80°). Yann 13:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's o.k. Fingalo 14:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Focus on main building is soft, not convinced by composition --Ianare 23:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not bad, good for QI --Pudelek 14:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 06:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good enough for QI-status --High Contrast 08:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Already closed as promoted. --Eusebius 08:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Stokroos_R03.jpg[edit]

Stokroos R03.jpg

  • Nomination Common Hollihock (Alcea rosea). -- MJJR 22:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Brillantes Bild Fingalo 20:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed. --Eusebius 16:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Eusebius, sorry --Richard Bartz 16:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 06:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Sunset lüdenscheid germany.jpg[edit]

Sunset lüdenscheid germany.jpg

  • Nomination Sunset in Lüdenscheid, Germany. -- Pro2 14:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportCorrect colors. --ComputerHotline 14:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - No details, too dark, poor composition, unfocused horizon -- Alvesgaspar 14:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Too dark. Jonathunder 16:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Farben gut, Horizont scharf, sauberes Schrerenschnittrelief. Fingalo 20:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Meets the QI-criteria. --High Contrast 21:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support difficult decision, but its interesting someway --Mbdortmund 00:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 06:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Franziskanerkirche-Dortmund-2009-0012.JPG[edit]

Franziskanerkirche-Dortmund-2009-0012.JPG

  • Nomination church portal in Dortmund, Franziskanerkirche --Mbdortmund 19:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok. --Berthold Werner 09:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted, slightly distorted (perspective correction not perfect, but would not warrant an oppose on its own), not centred (I think it should be). --Eusebius 16:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enought 4 my taste --Richard Bartz 16:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support that's ok for me. --AngMoKio 21:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 11:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Mer de nuages dans le Rouergue.jpg[edit]

Mer de nuages dans le Rouergue.jpg

  • Nomination Cloud sea in Rouergue area, Aveyron, France. Yann 12:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportBrillantes Stimmungsbild. Fingalo 20:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy. --Eusebius 16:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree to Fingalo --3268zauber 20:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise and jpg artefacts --Simonizer 14:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a pity - wrecked by heavy postprocessing --Richard Bartz 16:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    There is no postprocessing here. Yann 22:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
There are no exifs, which camera do you use ? IMO even a handycam would have lesser noise without sharpening/tweaking :-) --Richard Bartz 16:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
That's mentioned in the description. The photo is from 1989. There was no digital camera at that time. It is a slide taken with a Canon T70, and then digitized. Yann 09:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Digitizing is a kind of postprocessing, too - anyway - the quality is not the best, I'am afraid --null 14:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Bryggen panorama.JPG[edit]

Bryggen panorama.JPG

  • Nomination Panorama of the World heritage site of Bryggen in Bergen, Norway. --Sveter 16:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like this perspective --Pudelek 08:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I rather like it, it has a certain Escher-esque quality to it ... --Ianare 03:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)--Villy Fink Isaksen 09:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great --Simonizer 17:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it ----Ltshears 17:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Macht die grade Straße krumm. Fingalo 20:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ac Pudelek --Lestath 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is good, perspective in this case is so to speak ... artistic freedom --Richard Bartz 19:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good overall. I find the perspective ok --High Contrast 20:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support interesting, but I would not like to promote many examples for this possibility --Mbdortmund 00:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is good enough. Should be enough votes for Promotion. -- Pro2 11:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the artistic impression. :) --Siipikarja 20:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 9 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Lacock Abbey view from south.jpg[edit]

Lacock Abbey view from south.jpg

  • Nomination Lacock Abbey in the village of Lacock, Wiltshire, England --High Contrast 11:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposee.g. -- Pro2 15:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment FP-decline should be no agrument for QI IMHO --Mbdortmund 15:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
True..but the pic is distorted. --AngMoKio 16:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
mainly on the right side --Mbdortmund 16:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Guys, here we evaluate quality-images and not featured images! --High Contrast 16:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Flaw is flaw, a proper perspective correction is a quality feature, too --Richard Bartz 19:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Park_Ranger.jpg[edit]

Park Ranger.jpg

  • Nomination Park ranger with car in the Everglades.Dschwen 14:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition, has a snapshot feel to it --Ianare 09:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
How so? --Dschwen 15:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It 'feels' like a tourist pic for some reason ... the ranger has something to do with it. --Ianare 14:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
60% of all pictures nominated at QIC and FPC are tourist pics :-) This feels more like a reporter or documentary report picture --Richard Bartz 22:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please disregard my vote, QI reviews should be based on technical merits, not feelings. Apologies --Ianare 15:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is acceptable. --Richard Bartz 22:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 11:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Perugia 030.JPG[edit]

Perugia 030.JPG

  • Nomination Fontana Maggiore detail, Perugia, Italy --Grifomaniacs 21:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too strong noise reduction and/or compression in my opinion, geolocation neccessary --Berthold Werner 08:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sharpness, luminosity is good and definition OK. Nice contrast also, take a look at the water drops. Altough unnecessary to meet quality images criteria - this is not a valued images matter - I added the geolocation. --Grifomaniacs 13:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Stranahan_House_1.jpg[edit]

Stranahan House 1.jpg

  • Nomination Stranahan House, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. --Dschwen 14:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Looks clockwise tilted. --Berthold Werner 18:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. I do not think it is tilted. --Mbz1 00:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose good quality, but needs slight CW tilt fixed --Ianare 09:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info rotated by 0.55deg CCW. Purge cache to see new version. --Dschwen 15:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ianare 14:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 11:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Ostenfriedhof-Dortmund-2009-0157.JPG[edit]

Ostenfriedhof-Dortmund-2009-0157.JPG

  • Nomination Gravesculpture in Dortmund --Mbdortmund 21:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment would support if framed similar to this one, ie no trees on left Gnangarra 08:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info done (x) --Mbdortmund 01:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gnangarra 00:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 11:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Weintraube 2008-2-20.JPG[edit]

Weintraube 2008-2-20.JPG

  • Nomination by Hedwig Storch --Mbdortmund 23:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Symbol support vote.svg SupportSieht gut aus. Pro2 11:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but the image is poorly cropped --Richard Bartz 17:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment hatte der Autorin schon gesagt, dass sie die Bilder etwas zu eng beschneidet, aber dieses finde ich dennoch sehr ausdrucksstark --Mbdortmund 19:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Welche Rebsorte? "Weintraube" ist zu unspezifisch. --Berthold Werner 13:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Melbourne Skyline and Princes Bridge - Dec 2008.jpg[edit]

Melbourne Skyline and Princes Bridge - Dec 2008.jpg

  • Nomination The Melbourne skyline and the Princes Bridge. --High Contrast 20:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Obvious QI --Richard Bartz 20:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good indeed. --Siipikarja 09:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry to play the devil's advocate here, but there is a substantial tilt and a lot of CA. It may be sharp, but that's no excuse. --Siipikarja 10:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now that you mentioned it, yes there is CA. Not sure about the tilt though. --Siipikarja 10:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Image:Héron cendré.jpg[edit]

Héron cendré.jpg

  • Nomination Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea) --Bgag 22:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Obvious quality image material--Jolly Janner 22:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose is it ? I see noise and slightly off focus on head. --Ianare 15:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Focus --Richard Bartz 18:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Kirche in Wallerdorf.jpg[edit]

Kirche in Wallerdorf.jpg

  • Nomination Church in a German village in Bavaria --High Contrast 18:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good colours on the church make it stand out and look very clear and crisp. Looks like it needs more sharpness in full resolution, but I'm no expert. --Jolly Janner 20:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ooops, needs perspective correction, sorry --Richard Bartz 21:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What Richard Bartz said. --Siipikarja 10:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Trichterspinne01.JPG[edit]

Trichterspinne01.JPG

  • Nomination Araneomorph funnel-web spider on the hunt for a blowfly --Böhringer 07:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'll promote. Not the best quality but at least I really like the composition. -- Pro2 14:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree on the composition. As much I love the works by Friedrich but I have to say that the quality isn't really good, I'am afraid. Needs consensual review IMO, as sad it is. --Richard Bartz 16:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
My oppose is mainly because of DOF/focus problems on the spider --Richard Bartz 21:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality looks good enough to me --ianaré (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File:MichelangeloDavid.jpg[edit]

MichelangeloDavid.jpg

  • Nomination Vertical panorama of the David by Michelangelo --Massimo Catarinella 17:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it's a good shot but... the wall in the background is bright and the statue is in dark shadow, it should be the opposite. --Alejo2083 08:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The shadow doesn't obscure details and isn't distracting in my opinion. I would like more feedback. This is a technically sound image and I didn't nominate it for FPC. --Massimo Catarinella 15:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the main object ist centered in the lower part of the center and sharp *g* think it is OK for QI because of the details, although lighting is not perfect --Mbdortmund 21:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good details, sharp. If lighting was better would suggest FP --Ianare 15:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Schloss-Nordkirchen-DSC 5766.JPG[edit]

Schloss-Nordkirchen-DSC 5766.JPG

  • Nomination Schloss Nordkirchen, main building --Mbdortmund 11:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Photo not from the center taken, not symetric. Can you take it again?
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have a symmetric one but I wanted to have the lusters on both sides --Mbdortmund 21:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Amgoldfasan Nahaufnahme Kopf[edit]

Amgoldfasan Nahaufnahme Kopf.JPG

  • Nomination Amgoldfasan --3268zauber 20:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp, good colours --Mbdortmund 23:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ... but excessive noise --Ianare 05:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice! --Dellex 09:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's fine until you zoom in all the way -- at which point you see the problem with modern point-and-shoot cameras: excess noise and heavy-handed noise reduction. --Carnildo 21:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, unsharp. --Eusebius 09:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Eusebius --Richard Bartz 18:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Hew and cry hut, Burgh Island.JPG[edit]

Hew and cry hut, Burgh Island.JPG

  • Nomination Remains of a chapel and huers hut on Burgh Island. Not sure if a crop is required. --Jolly Janner 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Person should be cropped out --Ianare 21:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Which person? There are five people in the picture. Jolly Janner 00:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad cropping. The person on the right is halved. --Siipikarja 10:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I have now cropped the person on the right out of the picture. --Jolly Janner 13:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Better, but I'm still not convinced. The persons on the right are a bit distracting. Also, the photo is a bit blurry from the corners. Minor chromatic aberration on the left. --Siipikarja 09:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, you managed to make it really crisp and clean. Good work! --Siipikarja 21:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll crop the person standing up on the left out later today. I think the three people sitting down are not a distraction. I will also revert to the version which had the original sharpness. I thought it was too sharp, so blurred it. Excuse my lack of knowledge, but what is CA? Jolly Janner 13:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done I also noticted the chromatic aberration to the left, although mainly on the person standing, so I didn't think it was such an issue. He's been cropped now anyway. Jolly Janner 18:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Clear image, good subject. --Herbythyme 15:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK now --Ianare 20:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 08:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Refueling panorama gnangarra.jpg[edit]

Refueling panorama gnangarra.jpg

  • Nomination refueling a helitanker Gnangarra 11:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good in preview but a bit weak in full size, except the fuel truck (sharpness). But QI, yes --Richard Bartz 12:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It also has some strange sharp/unsharp areas on the helicopters windows. --AngMoKio 12:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    oops....thanks Richard! editing QIC can be confusing :) --AngMoKio 16:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The unsharp areas are caused by focal plane differences when stitching .. Should we send it to consensual review ? --Richard Bartz 17:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I just found 2 stitching errors: one the far left side near a rotor and also on the rotor on the right. This should get fixed i think. Composition-wise i really like the pic! --AngMoKio 18:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • thx...dam I introduced the stitching error in the second version, will redo tonight. Gnangarra 00:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done I've uploaded the fix for the stitching issue, and reduced the number of images across the craft which has reduced the distortions on the windows noting that the windows at the front are cone shaped to enable the pilot a greater field of view Gnangarra 01:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio 09:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment there's some weird things going on with the focus in the middle of the choper, you can see the image boundaries. I'm not aware of the technical difficulty of panoramas so will refrain from voting. --Ianare 16:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I can see what you mean diagonally across the FESA logo interesting there isnt an image boundary in that area all that include the area are clear, that means its been introduced by the software, I'll redo and see if I can reduce the amount of images that overlap in that region. Gnangarra 01:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Gnangarra 22:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 08:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Fitness Böhringer 1.JPG[edit]

Fitness Böhringer 1.JPG

  • Nomination Kleinkind in einem Eschenbaum --Böhringer 12:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion No interest, I think. --ComputerHotline 09:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems to be QI-material --Mbdortmund 19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Technically good, but has little encyclopedic value. --Siipikarja 21:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Has the quality. Valuable for physical strain. Image name says all, isn't it ? --Richard Bartz 13:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Water strider Gerris lacustris.jpg[edit]

Water strider Gerris lacustris.jpg

  • Nomination Water strider (Gerris lacustris) --Richard Bartz 23:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's little noisy. --ComputerHotline 13:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think noise is on a acceptable level for 400 ISO --Richard Bartz 14:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the noise-level is acceptable and the details of the body are good --Mbdortmund 19:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support no noise on main subject, acceptable overall --Ianare 20:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good! -- Pro2 13:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Snow and light in the forest.jpg[edit]

Snow and light in the forest.jpg

  • Nomination Snow and light in the forest. Yann 23:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice composition Gnangarra 03:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp upper edge, uncorrected perspective distortion --Mr.checker 10:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perspective corrected. Yann 18:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough from the top. --Siipikarja 19:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment maybe there's something going on with the lens ? Many of your pictures have the top (on vertical) or left (on horizontal) blurry ... --Ianare 18:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Oslo Voksenopplæring Sinsen 1 TRS.jpg[edit]

Oslo Voksenopplæring Sinsen 1 TRS.jpg

  • Nomination Oslo Voksenopplæring Sinsen --High Contrast 08:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
    Nice perspective. Fix the CA and crop away the redundant space (~1/5th of the image) at the bottom and this passes for me. While working on it, you could also run a noise reduction filter for the sky. --Siipikarja 09:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm ok with the framing and I don't think you should denoise. --Eusebius 11:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you run a noise reduction filter, run it only on the sky and not on the whole picture. --Siipikarja 19:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Unfortunately I have to agree with Siipikarja about the chromatic aberration - noise isn't a issue here IMO. Do you know how to do it ? A tutorial can be found here --Richard Bartz 23:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)~
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Versetalsperre Lüdenscheid HDR.jpg[edit]

Versetalsperre Lüdenscheid HDR.jpg

  • Nomination Klamer Brücke, Versetalsperre -- Pro2 20:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Rammsteine 05:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but images were not properly aligned during HDR merge. --Eusebius 11:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose HDR merge: see trees on the left and right areas of the image --High Contrast 06:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Urbana_Miss_America_sign.jpg[edit]

Urbana Miss America sign.jpg

  • Nomination Miss America sign in Urbana, Illinois, with dairy farm in the bg. --Dschwen 15:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose picture are displayed with a brown tint and vignetted. Fingalo 20:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoIt was taken at sunset... --Dschwen 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support tagged as discuss, I like the photograph the colours are that which one would expect at sunset, the signs is in focus and meets QI requirments. Gnangarra 08:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mach doch die Vignettierungen am oberen Rand weg --Mbdortmund 10:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Vignetting removed. Purge cache to reload new version. --Dschwen 15:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good -- Pro2 11:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --Richard Bartz 19:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The pole is distracting. Would be better from another angle. Yann 11:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Angle is chose to show the farm in the bg. And please remember that this is not FPC! --Dschwen 21:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for QI --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 13:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Illinois_State_Bar_Association_HQ.jpg[edit]

Illinois State Bar Association HQ.jpg

  • Nomination: Illinois State Bar Association - no drinks though :-( --Dschwen 21:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment wouldn't bet on that. -- carol 22:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Impressive quality, good colors. How about the perspective? --Siipikarja 09:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    Perspective is used as a compositional tool to achieve a looking up effect. I do not believe in mechanically flattening each and every image. --Dschwen 21:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Fair enough. I like the picture, but not the perspective. I stay neutral with this one. --Siipikarja 19:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> draw --Eusebius 09:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Parson Street Station 15.jpg[edit]

200px

  • Nomination A Cross-Country class 221 passes through Parson Street station on its way southwards.
    Will someone PLEASE review this. It's been a month now. Mattbuck 15:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not crazy about the composition, but quality is good. --Ianare 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Main subject (which seems to be the train, although the photo is named as 'station') is too small. Composition is not ideal, there should be more of the town on the top and less of the rails at the bottom. If the pic has been a month under review but has received no votes, perhaps you should read in between the lines that this is not a QI. --Siipikarja 10:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I look at it as a month and no one has declined it. I just want an answer, that's all. Mattbuck 14:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    It's not so easy to review because there are no big faughts in the picture, I think the main problems are the lighting, that makes it look slightly unsharp, and the missing of a clear composition. --Mbdortmund 17:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I look it this way: the pictures default as non-QI. There must be something that makes the image an QI, not the other way around i.e. there must be some faults that cause rejection. I think no-one really wants decline an image but sometimes it is just necessary. Then there are the difficult cases, such as your image in question, that really do not have anything wrong but either do not have anything that would make the image a QI. Thus it is just easier to remain silent and not review at all. --Siipikarja (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The Colours and the light are not so good. --Berthold Werner 15:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Metro Paris - Ligne 8 - Porte de Charenton w.b.c.jpg[edit]

Metro Paris - Ligne 8 - Porte de Charenton w.b.c.jpg

  • Nomination Paris underground tunnel near Porte de Chareton station on line 8. --Greenski 10:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood photo in spite of the difficult lighting condition (I corrected the color balance). Yann 22:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To noisy and not sharp. There is a tripod necessary. --Berthold Werner 08:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, if you use a tripod, you can't get the train motion in that way, and that's what is interesting here. Yann 22:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice view but quality is not good enough as per above --ianaré (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Podzamcze pałac.jpg[edit]

Podzamcze pałac.jpg

  • Nomination Palace in Podzamcze. --Sfu 21:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Subject is shot from a bad angle. Would be better if it was shot perpendicularly. --Siipikarja 10:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
    The bushes would have cover some part of the building. Sfu 10:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a matter of taste, of course, but I like the perspective. The quality is good: colours, light... and no distorted vertical lines. One inferior point however: some minor dust spots in the sky. -- MJJR 19:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose True about the dustspots. They should be removed. --Siipikarja 19:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC) --Siipikarja 11:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --Sfu 18:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ianare 16:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karora 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cemetery in Donovaly.JPG[edit]

Cemetery in Donovaly.JPGeditedit

  • Nomination Cemetery in Donovaly, Slovakia --Pudelek 18:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question what do you think about taking out some blue like in File:Cemetery in Donovaly-a.jpg? --Mbdortmund 21:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks good, but mayby to much contrast? --Pudelek (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment new version with less contrast copied over my first proposal --Mbdortmund 15:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This second version is fine --Pudelek 16:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I made a second try, which I believe to be acceptable, but I cannot vote for my own edits ... --Mbdortmund 17:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question So which one of the three is nominated? --Siipikarja 10:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cemetery in Donovaly-a1.jpg TimVickers 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until versions are separated and a clear support is possible. Lycaon 15:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose while I think that 'Cemetery in Donovaly-a1.jpg' is the right way to go, closer examination reveals way too many artifacts (which are not present in the original). The metadata has also not travelled well. Geocoding would be nice too. --Karora 12:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Lima Lima.jpg[edit]

Lima Lima.jpg

  • Nomination Lima Lima flight team --JMSchneid 18:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support crop a little tight but good composition and colours --Mbdortmund 14:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At least 11 dust spots. --Eusebius 20:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • indeed, thought they were on my screen.... --Mbdortmund 00:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I uploaded another version after cleaning up the spots.JMSchneid 12:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I remove my opposition, it looks at least better. The sky is a bit noisy and none of the planes is really sharp, but I guess this kind of picture is difficult to take so I won't assess. --Eusebius 12:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support With those dust spots gone this is fine. --Karora 22:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

File:University of Otago Registry Building2.jpg[edit]

University of Otago Registry Building2.jpg

  • Nomination University of Otago Registry Building --Benchill 12:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversaturated sky --Berthold Werner 17:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I think is Ok --Pudelek 23:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As well as being mildly oversaturated, the image is fairly small for something that is relatively easy to photograph. Apologies for not signing. Karora 22:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Please sign your vote. Thank you. --Berthold Werner 06:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - maximum resolution from this camera (3.2MP), reuploaded with slight saturation reduction. Benchill 08:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)