Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 2010

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

File:Cheetah_portrait_side.jpg[edit]

Cheetah portrait side.jpg

  • Nomination Portrait of a Cheetah --Bilby 11:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment because of the missing sharpness --Carschten 17:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As per the Meerkat, I placed the focus at the eye and front of the face. - Bilby 22:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sharpeness is acceptable. Can be enhanced by software, but this is not necessary for QI. -- Smial 22:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've uploaded a slightly sharper version.- Bilby 00:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Eye is hardly visible, and nose isn't sharp either. --Ikar.us 00:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same problem as with the Meercat. V2 of this image is oversharpened (look at the whiskers), yet eye and nose are still not right. It's beyond sharpening. It's still a great image, just not QI. I have many images like this myself. Sigh. Fred Hsu 20:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see my comment at the top --Carschten 09:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Herbythyme 14:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Castelbouc Gorges du Tarn.jpg[edit]

Castelbouc Gorges du Tarn.jpg

  • Nomination Castelbouc, in the Gorges du Tarn (France). --Myrabella 07:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice spot - nice image --Herbythyme 07:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question is it me, or I see a part of the left side of the ruins unsharp ? --Jebulon 23:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Me too, missing DOF? --Ikar.us 13:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Do you think so? The photo has been taken with F Number=f/9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrabella (talk • contribs) 2010-03-29T10:45:57 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The plants and stones near the tip are sharp, only the tip shows little structure. But now I think it's just too dark. --Ikar.us 11:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Feldhase, Lepus europaeus 5a.JPG[edit]

Feldhase, Lepus europaeus 5a.JPG

  • Nomination Lepus europaeus --Böhringer 19:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but too small. Maybe you could try VI? Yann 09:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Ooops, I need a calculator... Yann 09:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Numerical size is sufficient. 1500² = 2250000 > 2000000 --Ikar.us 10:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Size is suitable for nominee. Good capturing.--PetarM 17:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 2 megapixels is normally the lower limit. The subject is also unsharp --Carschten 18:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Pixel is not bit nor byte. Photo is according to rules. (See Ikar.us calculation) --PetarM 22:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe a little unsharp, yes. But a wonderful shot. I support.--Jebulon 16:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the dificulty of the subjectdoes for the flaws i believe. -LadyofHats 08:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Mediaş (Mediasch, Medgyes) - city center with St. Margaret Church.jpg[edit]

Mediaş (Mediasch, Medgyes) - city center with St. Margaret Church.jpg

  • Nomination Mediaş (Mediasch, Medgyes) - city center with St. Margaret Church --Pudelek 23:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Busy and confusing composition. Fred Hsu 03:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is QI not FP --Pudelek 11:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree this is QI not FP however the foreground does distract attention from the church which is the intended subject of the image. --Herbythyme 12:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The big three mash the tower ... --Croucrou 12:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Fred and Herbythyme --Ankara 12:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination -Pudelek 12:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Who says church is subject? Title and description say city center is subject. I like the composition. --Ikar.us 19:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The title say City center With ST. Margaret Church. For me the subject is the city center and the church --Croucrou 22:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support see above – nice work --Carschten 19:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overlap of tree with tower is very unfortunate. Could have made one step to the right for a better angle. --Elekhh 00:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline? Herbythyme 14:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Flowers of New Zealand flax (Phormium cookianum).jpg[edit]

Flowers of New Zealand flax (Phormium cookianum).jpg

  • Nomination New Zealand flax flowers (Phormium cookianum). -- Avenue 13:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood to me --Herbythyme 17:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO needs more contrast and the colors need adjusting. --kallerna 16:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree with kallerna. --Elekhh 00:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI've updated a new version with more contrast, which has incidentally heightened the colours. --Avenue 10:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the background is overexpose --Croucrou 12:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You can actually take the image up in exposure half a stop before you get highlight clipping. I think it is still qi to me. --Herbythyme 12:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Subject is good, background not disturbing. --Ikar.us 19:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background imo distracting --Mbdortmund 20:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Still odd colours. --kallerna 16:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the true colours were somewhere between these two versions. Can you be more specific about how this differs from what you'd expect? Here are a few other photos of this species: [2][3][4] -- Avenue 21:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The whole image is purple. --kallerna 11:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Now it's obvious - thank you! I was too focussed on the flowers before to notice. I've uploaded yet another version, with the colours adjusted; my apologies to the earlier reviewers. --Avenue 12:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Now it is too green. I'll make new version. --kallerna 13:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, it couldn't do it with my jpg-program. I would need raw-file. --kallerna 13:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Not available, sorry. Thanks for trying. I've now had one last attempt. I'm happy with the improvements, even if it's not a QI. --Avenue 14:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't know nothing about the real colours of the down under flowers. But if Avenue is happy now with improvements, it's a QI for me. Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon 14:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposured background distracting per Croucrou and Mbdortmund . --Elekhh 00:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose dont like the background -LadyofHats 08:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Eastereggs ostereier.jpg[edit]

Eastereggs ostereier.jpg

  • Nomination Easter eggs by --Nyks, nominated by --Anna reg 10:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp and beautiful colors and i dont find the framing so poor --Croucrou 25 March 2010
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor framing --Alvesgaspar 22:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment for now. I didn't understand the framing comment but now I look at it I think maybe I understand. The handle of the basket would have/should have been rotated by 90 deg to make a far better composition --Herbythyme 14:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought Alvesgaspar ment that there isn't a lot of space around the basket (especially on the bottom) - but well, I'm not claiming any 'artistical knowledge' - I just really liked the picture... (which is in my opinion one of the best Easter pictures - perhaps that will change during the next weeks? ;-) ) --Anna reg 16:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - Exactly, let the poor thing breathe!... -- Alvesgaspar 16:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Subject is the eggs, the basket is enough frame for me. --Ikar.us 19:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Framing looks ok to me! --Jovianeye (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Framing is fine for me as well. Juliancolton 13:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Herbythyme 14:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Madaba BW 8.JPG[edit]

Madaba BW 8.JPG

  • Nomination The famous mosaic floor in Madaba, this part shows Jerusalem --Berthold Werner 18:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline *Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very valuable but unsharp at full size and even downsampled to 2 megapixels still unsharp in the bottom left corner. --Elekhh 20:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is the best image from the Category:Madaba map category. With default NoiseNinja settings I got a reasonable image. Fred Hsu 22:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Das Original ohne Entzerrung gefällt mir besser! -- Smial 09:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    Above comment was "I like the original without the perspective correction better". OK let's discuss. --Elekhh 00:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Such a static, flat motif should be sharper. --Ikar.us 21:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Ikar -LadyofHats 08:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

File:MHPF avers.JPG[edit]

MHPF avers.JPG

  • Nomination Medal of Honour of the French Police, with reduction, face.----Jebulon 21:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion Resolution and sharpness ok, but tinted and some noise. -- Smial 08:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Noise and tint reduced. -- Smial 08:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support- i would accept it as it is -LadyofHats 08:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

File:MHPF revers.JPG[edit]

MHPF revers.JPG

  • Nomination Medal of Honour of the French Police, with reduction, back. Name cancelled by nominator. ----Jebulon 21:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Resolution and sharpness ok, but tinted and some noise. -- Smial 08:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Now noise and tint reduced. -- Smial 08:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- to me it is a bit anoying that both ends of the medal are out of focus wich isnt the case in your other entry -LadyofHats 08:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

File:SugarCookie.JPG[edit]

SugarCookie.JPG

  • Nomination Sugar cookie --Jonathunder 15:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tight crop but tasty Smile --Herbythyme 17:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Too tight, in my opinion. Framing is an important element of quality - Alvesgaspar 21:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Recropped; less tight now. Jonathunder (talk)
      • Not enough, in my opinion. A bit of context around the subject usually adds to the value and aesthetics -- Alvesgaspar 16:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok now.--Ankara 18:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for QI. Would be too close for FP though. Juliancolton 17:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The cloth is sharp everywhere. Not the cookie, I'm afraid...--Jebulon 16:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree, not sharp. --Ikar.us 00:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Easy subject, DOF should be better. --kallerna 11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Circulatory System en.svg[edit]

Circulatory System en.svg

  • Nomination Circulatory system --LadyofHats 08:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great work! Well done --George Chernilevsky 08:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For me there is a problem with the keys (text) and the coloured lines (arrows) on the left side of the picture. Sure could be corrected.-----Jebulon 08:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    • could you be more especific. wich problem do you have ? for me it shows correctly -LadyofHats 18:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)~
    • i uploaded new with a diferent font. twice. i even dowloaded the fonts that wikipedia sugest and the text keeps apearing in a diferent place. i can not upload it as paths as i usually do becouse it was a request on the feature picture in the english wikipedia.. do you have any sugestions? -LadyofHats 19:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now. Seems to be fixed. I saw this file first on another computer, maybe it was wrong ? Now it is perfect with this font. Many thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    • ended up outlining text since it started to show wrong on my own computer-LadyofHats 21:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 05:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

File:North over Start Bay from Beesands.jpg[edit]

North over Start Bay from Beesands.jpg

  • Nomination Looking north up Start Bay from Beesands, Devon, UK. --Herbythyme 16:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion * Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. --Berthold Werner 16:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 19° CW tilt. Lycaon 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Reuploaded --Herbythyme 08:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It still looks slightly tilted to me, about 0.35° CW. --Avenue 20:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice image. A good show of the english weather (background, not foreground ! Smile)----Jebulon 21:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 05:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Kerak BW 5.JPG[edit]

Kerak BW 5.JPG

  • Nomination Jordan, Al Karak, a reused capital in a wall --Berthold Werner 12:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurry in the top --Carschten 19:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Made a tighter crop. --Berthold Werner 16:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good work --Carschten 19:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 05:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Mors quatre anneaux.JPG[edit]

Mors quatre anneaux.JPG

  • Nomination Mors quatre anneaux. Four annels bit.----Jebulon 17:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Sorry, very badly posterized. --kallerna 21:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC).
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, I'm not sure you really understand what is the subject of this picture. I would like to show the specific metallic part of this horsebit, which is unusual. (unknown in "Commons", IMO).--Jebulon 22:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Noise reduction and sharpening are too strong. Bring it back a little bit, so that the hair looks normal. It's not like you have noise problems as I do with my gorilla image. Fred Hsu 22:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC) .
  • ✓ Done.----Jebulon 22:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund 18:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the new version is good enough. But if I have your original file before any noise reduction and sharpening, I volunteer to take a shot at making it even better. I think you still have too much noise reduction (see whiskers), and now too little sharpening. Fred Hsu 02:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, high-quality and useful. Juliancolton 14:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Elekhh 22:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 05:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

File:TVN24 Łyse 2.JPG[edit]

TVN24 Łyse 2.JPG

  • Nomination TVN24 OB Van --Crusier 16:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question And what happen if I am the girl left, and if I disagree to have my photo in "Commons" ? ----Jebulon 09:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentTemplate:Personality rights/pl say: Zezwolenia nie wymaga również rozpowszechnianie wizerunku (...) osoby stanowiącej jedynie szczegół całości takiej jak zgromadzenie, krajobraz, publiczna impreza. translation from Google tranlator (my English is bad): authorization does not require dissemination of the image (...) a person constituting only a detail of a whole, such as a meeting, landscape, public event. --Crusier 11:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support persons are unavoidable. Nice picture, nice resulution → QI --Carschten 13:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for answering. Not sure about unavoidability of the persons right and left. Not sure they are a detail, even they are not the subject of the picture. Maybe something to do with the framing ? Never mind, it's a nice picture. I Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jebulon 14:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 05:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

File:ComputerHotline - Fort de Roppe (by) (18).jpg[edit]

ComputerHotline - Fort de Roppe (by) (18).jpg

  • Nomination Underground under Roppe fortifications. --ComputerHotline 17:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sarp & well expose QI for me --Croucrou 22:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose slightly better than the other tunnel image. But still not QI IMHO. --Fred Hsu 22:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not bad I guess but I really don't like the floor lights and their effect - not sure I'd be happy with it being QI. --Herbythyme 14:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As Herbythyme said, the lights bothered me. So did uneven lighting. I did say I think in the other image that I knew lighting was very hard. Fred Hsu 20:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support even when i agree about the lights i can hardly see how he could have aboided those problems. i would make it a QI. -LadyofHats 08:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it is titled counter clockwise (or is the tunnel oblique?), could you fix that? --Dein Freund der Baum 16:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 05:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Ripon Building panorama.jpg[edit]

Ripon Building panorama.jpg

  • Nomination Panorama of Ripon Building in Chennai by Planemad. --Jovianeye 02:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like this. But do you have a not-so-oversharpened version? Fred Hsu 03:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Unfortunately, no :( cant seem to find my originals --Planemad 10:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me --Carschten 11:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me too --Elekhh 22:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund 22:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 03:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Beetle May 2009-1.jpg[edit]

Beetle May 2009-1.jpg

  • Nomination A beetle of the Scarabidae family (Rhizotrogus aestivus ) showing the backwings below the elytra --Alvesgaspar 18:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood useful image to me --Herbythyme 16:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For me some part is unsharp. Perhaps DOF ? and i don't like the background - unsigned comment & I cannot find who it was
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I see nothing wrong with the background - natural surely? --Herbythyme 12:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For me some part is unsharp. Perhaps DOF ? and i don't like the background --Croucrou 20:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC) - Sorry for forgetting the signature unsigned comment & I cannot find who it was
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is QI not FP - not about whether you "like" the background but whether it is a "quality image", thanks --Herbythyme 10:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You're right, I'm not a natural English speaker, so some time it's difficult to find the right word. For me the composition it's to centred and the background distracting the reading --Croucrou 11:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Backwings and backleg unsharp, IMO. Not a QI for me. But very usefull. Maybe a VI ? --Jebulon 15:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Monastery of El Escorial 04.jpg[edit]

Monastery of El Escorial 04.jpg

  • Nomination Monastery of El Escorial, Spain --Bgag 04:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • For the fans of verticality. But looks to me like the sharpening and noise reduction result. Like a panting effect. However, the sky is still noisy - am I wrong? --Ikar.us 21:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Noise reduction and sharpening is allways a problem with cameras of high resolution, and small sensors. This photo is not absolutely perfect, but of high quality, accetable lighting, good exposure, and composition. -- Smial 00:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Agree with Smial. QI to me too.--Jebulon 17:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support and QI to me too. --George Chernilevsky 20:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice! --High Contrast 09:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Cerambyx cerdo (couple).jpg[edit]

Cerambyx cerdo (couple).jpg

  • Nomination Cerambyx cerdo Great Capricorn Beetle --Archaeodontosaurus 09:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC) (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportFor me a great QI, very useful, as usual.----Jebulon 10:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry but this is really too dark, Few details are visible. -- Alvesgaspar 11:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Absolutely true, changing the brightness it brings to light many more details.--Archaeodontosaurus 13:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oh yes, now is better. Very nice, and stylish :) --Elekhh 22:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support like it, still next time, try to leave the same amount of open space on both left and right side of the image -LadyofHats 20:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - nice. Jonathunder 20:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 02:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Donau in Regensburg.jpg[edit]

Donau in Regensburg.jpg

  • Nomination River Danube in Regensburg in the evening. --High Contrast 22:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --George Chernilevsky 05:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for me it's underexpose --Croucrou 11:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • IMO this photo is correct for image in the evening. --George Chernilevsky 19:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 14:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chosing the right moment for taking an image is also part of a QI. I don't think is enough to have good exposure and focus regardless of how one holds the camera and under what light conditions one choses to take the image. This is an unappealing composition to me, with a bright sky attracting attention, while the subject is in the dark. That being said, there is a second issue here: this image has been declined already one year ago. There seem to be some users which will simply repeatedly resubmit their pictures in the hope of a lucky promotion. I am not sure if there are any rules about this procedure, but I find it somewhat unfair to the reviewers, and can affect how serious this project is seen. --Elekhh (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Per Elekhh. Shocking. --Jebulon 11:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment High Contrast is an experienced and reliable user, I'm shure that he would never deliberately nominate a picture twice. So the critique should not be that harsh. --Mbdortmund 22:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment about the Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment : Maybe. Hope so. Sorry for the hardness of critique if you're right.--Jebulon 22:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment High Conrast's contributions count nearly 3.000 pictures and many of them are really good and useful... --Mbdortmund 12:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I missed this discussion totally. Sorry for that. The re-nomination of this image happened accidently not deliberately, as others assumed. As Mbdortmund already stated: I have uploaded lots of images that I have created. And occasionly I add some of the in the QI-candidate-list. And sometimes, I lose track, unfortunately. But I think other user do have the same problem. All in all, I withdraw the nomination of File:Donau in Regensburg.jpg. --High Contrast (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I amended my comments above. It was the third nomination of this type in one day, hence my sangvinic overreaction. There was no intention of personal offence. --Elekhh 00:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed. --kallerna 21:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --kallerna 21:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Egbert van der Poel - Marine, effet de lune.jpg[edit]

Egbert van der Poel - Marine, effet de lune.jpg

  • Nomination Marine painting. --Eusebius 12:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry, but the painting itself - ignoring all the white space and the frame - is well under the required size. Adam Cuerden 16:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I can understand the principle of the argument about the wall, but why do you wish to ignore the frame??? It has been carefully chosen to fit the painting, this is how the work is presented to the public, I chose to show it (not only for minimum size reasons), it's part of the picture. --Eusebius 05:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Is the frame even original? It looks fairly modern to me. Adam Cuerden 06:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • And?? I really don't understand. --Eusebius 07:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, let's nominate for deletion. --Eusebius 13:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Volvo B7R Sentosa.jpg[edit]

Volvo B7R Sentosa.jpg

  • Nomination Volvo Bus in Singapore --Jovianeye 06:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn Sorry, too much CA IMO. --kallerna 11:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    I have cropped the image to remove the areas with CA --Jovianeye 01:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There's still a lot of CA and the composition is now worse. --kallerna 11:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Carabe doré recto-verso.jpg[edit]

Carabe doré recto-verso.jpg

  • Nomination Carabus auratus. --Archaeodontosaurus 16:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)(UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeAt 100% it's realy blur, if you reduce ce size, perhaps could become better ? --Croucrou 22:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC) --Croucrou (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMO now --Croucrou 21:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done great idea --Archaeodontosaurus 09:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Jonathunder 21:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund 20:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 00:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Kulich20100404 12.jpg[edit]

Kulich20100404 12.jpg

  • Nomination Kulichs (a kind of Easter cake, traditional in the Orthodox Christian faith). --Bff 12:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm sure I'd like these cakes as I like this picture. But let's discuss about the background...---Jebulon 14:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Appear to be cut out from the original photo and put onto an artsy background. Fails "Composition" for being distracting. Adam Cuerden 16:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, but would reconsider with different background. Jonathunder 03:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cut background --Croucrou 10:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Horrible background. --kallerna 11:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Aufgeschossene Leine.jpg[edit]

Aufgeschossene Leine.jpg

  • Nomination Coil knot / aufgeschossene Leine / bout lové --Skipper Michael 22:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposefor there is too much dust who need to be clean, before promotion, and the back off the white boat seem to be highligh --Croucrou 22:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough I think Yes the dust and scratches need dealing with certainly --Herbythyme 08:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Croucrou --Ianare 03:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Croucrou + quite noisy also. --kallerna 11:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I withdrew. --Skipper Michael 03:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Battle for Reichstag 1945 map-eng.png[edit]

Battle for Reichstag 1945 map-eng.png

  • Nomination Map of Battle for the Reichstag--Ivengo(RUS) 18:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clear diagram of a complicated subject. However it is only 1.5 megapixels, so fails on size. Any chance of an svg version? -- Avenue 15:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree it's big enough to be a high quality illustration, so I'm striking my initial opposition. --Avenue 00:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO, big enough. Ignore all rules--Ankara 19:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I see various labelling issues - see its talk page for details.--Avenue 11:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Ivengo has now addressed these. --Avenue 00:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose shouldnt such a diagram be in svg? -LadyofHats 08:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support SVG would be better, yes, and would make the resolution irrelevant, but I could not find any such requirement for QI. The image is not terribly lowres and I find it highly valuable, so agree to make an exception here with the minimum size rule. --Elekhh 22:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Highly valuable images should be nominated on VIC (Valuable Image Candidates), the measure on this page is Quality. --Dschwen 13:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose should be SVG or substantially larger. We are not doing a service to our users if they cannot rely on the simple quality measures of QI. This is neither VIC nor FPC, so however "useful" it may be, the center of QI is technical quality. --Dschwen 14:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Would you, based on that principle, support delisting of all images which have been promoted in the past to QI despite not meeting the 2 megapixel criteria? --Elekhh 00:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Absolutely! In fact I wanted to add a size test into QICbot for quite a while now, to avoid such mistakes. --Dschwen 01:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Well let's move this discussion to the talk page. It links well to the QI delist proposal just raised. --Elekhh 02:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Dschwen. --kallerna 22:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Tours - René Descartes.jpg[edit]

Tours - René Descartes.jpg

  • Nomination Descartes statue. --Eusebius 12:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Unsharpness of foreground (flowers) distracting, and ugly urban background disturbing (not the fault of the photographer). Need other opinions please.---Jebulon 22:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Would be better with low DOF, maybe. --kallerna 22:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition issue: the subject is not clearly distinguished from the background. The vegetation is far more apparent than the subject. Better angle, framing or low DOF could have mitigated it. --Elekhh 12:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is quite unfortunate that the statue and the building blend into each other. --Jovianeye 19:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 19:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Festung kufstein 2 sk.jpg[edit]