Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 2008

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

Image:Motorboat in Oslo harbour.jpg[edit]

Motorboat in Oslo harbour.jpg

  • Nomination Motorboat in Oslo harbour --Pudelek 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done. Barabas 01:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNoise in water, nothing is sharp. -- carol 05:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I see that all is sharp. noise in water? where?? -Pudelek 08:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    • What is the subject of this photograph? -- carol (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
      • motorboat in harbour -Pudelek 08:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The fact that I had to ask is perhaps a problem here. -- carol 16:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unsharp and dull --Simonizer 09:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, there is nothing special about the photo. --Kjetil r 13:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Quality images does not need to be special, featured pictures need to. Leo Johannes 19:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 22:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Monument Valley Morning Snow MC.jpg[edit]

Monument Valley Morning Snow MC.jpg

  • Nomination Monument Valley after a snow storm. --Chmehl 20:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are 2 big stains in the sky. Otherwise very beautiful picture! --Simonizer 22:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I thought to discuss this because I can only see one stain and in the discussion, maybe the other can be circled? -- carol 04:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I removed the stain that is also visible in the other version and updated this image. I also cannot see another stain. Could you point me to it so I can remove it? Thanks. --Chmehl 06:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I cant see it anymore too ;-) Maybe it was on my display. I cleaned it today. So I promote now! --Simonizer 13:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 14:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wunstorf_Abtei.jpg[edit]

Wunstorf Abtei.jpg

  • Nomination Abbey in Wunstorf, Germany. (and yes, thumbnailing is currently broken on commons!) --Dschwen 20:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline *Pictogram voting info.svg Info removed a dust spot right of the roof. -- Klaus with K 12:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose low-saturated blacks, oversaturated greens --Simonizer 00:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC). Hm, I processed this from raw to capture the entire dynamic range. Didn't go so well, did it? I might give the original another go with enfuse this time. --Dschwen 15:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC), P.S.: what are low-saturated blacks btw.? I have yet to see a saturated black ;-) --Dschwen 15:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC) he he, ich meinte damit, dass die schwarzen Balken an dem Fachwerkhaus nicht schwarz sind obwohl sie in die Richtung gehen müßten. --Simonizer 22:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Die gehen eher ins grünliche --Simonizer 13:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine image. -- Barabas 23:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ich stimme Simon zu. Ursprung der etwas unnatürlichen Wirkung im Baum und im Schwarz des Fachwerks ist wohl ein missglückter Versuch zur Reduzierung des Kontrastes resp. der Aufhellung der Schatten. Für ein wirklich hochkarätiges Bild spielte das Wetter hier nicht mit. Liebe Grüsse --Ikiwaner 18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Laufende Summe 1 Unterstützen (mit Ausnahme der nominator), 1 gegen -> (stimmen) -- karola (sprechen) 14:24, 31 Juli 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sehr witzig, Karola! --> Very funny, carol! Sorry for using german but it was easier for me in that moment and Dschwen understands it --Simonizer 19:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Heh, by the looks of it it is me and the google translator who should be making the apology! :) carol 22:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way this would be the right translation:

Aktueller Stand: 1 dafür(mit Ausnahme des Ernenners), 2 dagegen -> (mehr Stimmen?)  --Simonizer 19:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Simonizer 09:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vermilion_River_Kickapoo.jpg[edit]

Vermilion River Kickapoo.jpg

  • Nomination Vermilion River Kickapoo SP, East Central Illinois. --Dschwen 14:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice! (Please remove the dust spots near the upper right corner). -- MJJR 21:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Heh. I counted 4 or 5 other spots also.... -- carol 02:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please remove the spots before promoting this. Also the vignette should be weakened and CA fringes removed. –Dilaudid 09:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dilaudid. Lycaon (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 05:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Björn_Kjellman_reading_Harry_Potter_7-15.JPG[edit]

Björn Kjellman reading Harry Potter 7-15.JPG

  • Nomination Björn Kjellman reading Harry Potter 7 at its' release in Sweden. --Leo Johannes 11:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong CA fringing and white glow. –Dilaudid 09:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would corpping make it better? --Leo Johannes 09:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Cropping out the hand and the book where the CA is strongest would sort of ruin the whole idea of the picture, wouldn't it? :) (Though cropping out a bit of the left-hand side could make the composition more interesting.) I gave it a shot at weakening the CA, but couldn't save it because the fringing is so strong and varied. –Dilaudid 09:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 05:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

NYC Brighton_Beach 2[edit]

NYC Brighton Beach 2.jpg

  • Nomination Brighton Beach boardwalk. --Dschwen 15:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Variante 1 erzeugt deutlich mehr Spannung, wahrschinlich liegt's am Vordergrund, du bist näher dran. --Ikiwaner 18:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC),
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ok, but does the comparison with version 1 vindicate a decline? Afterall we are not tagging the one very best quality image. --Dschwen 12:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What to do about on again off again users here who may or may not know about VI? -- carol 14:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- [[[User:Lycaon|Lycaon]] 05:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Santa Ana River Mouth2.jpg[edit]

Santa Ana River Mouth2.jpg

  • Nomination Santa Ana River Mouth with the Pacific Coast Highway crossing. Basar 00:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see what makes this one outstanding. The composition is standard 50% sky 50% earth. The bridge is not that special. And I have the feeling that this cut bus on the right is just there by accident. --Ikiwaner 19:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality images do not have to be "outstanding". As far as composition is concerned it is sufficient if it is not terribly wrong. In this case I would say it is about average. Some would say it is above the average, some would say it is below. But in my view in no way the composition is such so that it would disqualify the image as far as quality image status is concerned. Barabas 23:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It seems to be about 66% blue which is interesting for a photograph which is "50% earth". -- carol (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality substandard (not sharp). Lycaon 14:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not very sharp and the waves are overexposed and some stones too --Simonizer 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 09:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sankt Paulin BW 3.JPG[edit]

Sankt Paulin BW 3.JPG

  • Nomination Germany, Trier, Sankt Paulin, inside --Berthold Werner 14:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fantasic image, the light is beautiful ARBAY 19:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it is a few notches away from sharp. -- carol 06:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful subject, but very underexposed. I adjusted levels here. -- Barabas 19:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It makes an illustrative and well done full screen image. When viewed at larger sizes it's rather unsharp. --Ikiwaner 19:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too dark --Simonizer 22:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support high res --Beyond silence 23:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Really too dark, and chromatic noise to boot. Lycaon 14:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 05:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Passerelle Simone de Beauvoir de nuit.jpg[edit]

200px

  • Nomination Passerelle Simone de Beauvoir (Paris XIII) by night --Romanceor 11:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks interesting. Quality is certainly good. --Dschwen 18:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Deletion request pending. Lycaon 11:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Guess it doesn't really matter: if it gets deleted, it will be gone, QI-seal and all. If it stays, it passed QIC anyway. QI-stamp should however not become an argument for the deletion request. Lycaon 13:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 14:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Paronychia argentea (flowers).jpg[edit]

Paronychia argentea (flowers).jpg Paronychia argentea (flowers)-weird.jpg Paronychia argentea (flowers)-cloned.jpg

  • Nomination Paronychia argentea close up. Sardinia, Italy. -- Lycaon 12:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good, the unusual DOF, colours and composition all serve a purpose. –Dilaudid 19:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A very weird line in it that is unexplainable based on my experiences with digital manipulation of images. -- carol 10:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you point me to that line. The only manipulation done was a crop to bring it to 4:3 format and cut some OOF stuff (original out-of-camera-res: 4288 × 2856, now: 3413×2560; or from 11.7 to 8.3 Mpx). Lycaon (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Due to a previous experience, I downloaded the flawed image before marking it for discussion and a screen grab of the file time can confirm that. Do I need to reupload the problem image so that the outlined image that I just made makes sense? -- carol (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, if I needed to come up with a guess about what caused the problem, my guess would be that the battery was just beginning to need recharging when the image was taken. -- carol (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
???? The file hasn't changed since 11:31, 23 May 2008, when it was uploaded Lycaon 18:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I downloaded a different image than the one that is here. -- carol (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Where from? Lycaon 18:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Too early in my day and the room is too bright, perhaps. The line is still there. Please accept my apology for the accusatory reaction I had to not being able to see the same thing! -- carol (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel accused, I only would like to see the 'line'. BTW, I took 55 more pictures that day and probably many more the next day (I don't often need recharging). Lycaon 18:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Weird. It is there indeed. Back to the original. Lycaon 18:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The original was without the line. Something must have gone wrong during saving or uploading. I made a new crop from the original. Thanks for noticing. Lycaon 19:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The new crop was a disappointment compared to the original. I tried my hand with the clone tool by the light of day and uploaded it into the namespace with the outlined flaw. Please consider using that one instead! -- carol (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reverted that -- carol (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I am unable to change my opposition to the image, the first "crop" was that much superior to the new one. -- carol (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Corn_fields_near_Royal,_Illinois.jpg[edit]

Corn fields near Royal, Illinois.jpg

  • Nomination Corn fields in the American Midwest. 21MP. --Dschwen 00:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion *Faint spot, seam error. -- carol 06:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Where? Just post the coordinates you obtain from GIMP, no need to upload a marked version. --Dschwen 16:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The fact that it's possible to see a stich given an infinite amout of time is no reason to oppose for me. Else we could upload 3MP images and everything would be fine. The photographic quality (composition, colours, contrast) is strong. --Ikiwaner 16:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Huh? -- carol (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 01:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:2008-07-23 Lucky Strike chimney in Durham.jpg[edit]

2008-07-23 Lucky Strike chimney in Durham.jpg

  • Nomination Lucky Strike smokestack --Specious 03:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion copyright issue IMO, the logo is not accidental on the picture. It is the main subject! --Simonizer 18:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC) I asked on Commons talk:Licensing and it's not a copyright violation. Could you please review this picture based on technical merit? --Specious 14:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    ok changed status back to Nomination --Simonizer 16:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    Two spots. -- carol 06:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    Cloned the spots out. --Specious 14:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent composition! You have a really good photographic eye! The sharpness and noise level is not overhelming but acceptable. --Ikiwaner 16:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 01:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:2008-07-23 Lucky Strike tower in Durham.jpg[edit]

2008-07-23 Lucky Strike tower in Durham.jpg

  • Nomination Lucky Strike tower --Specious 03:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment copyright issue IMO, the logo is not accidental on the picture. It is the main subject! --Simonizer 18:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ok changed status back to Nomination --Simonizer 16:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There used to be between 25 and 35 spots in the sky in this image. -- carol 06:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC) -- carol (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Cloned out between 25 and 35 dust spots. Thanks, Carol! I really need to clean my sensor. --Specious 14:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The spots are gone now, but there is a weird new one between the brick building and the first set of lights on the right. My support of the image keeps it from being declined for a few more hours, perhaps that can be repaired also? -- carol (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I repaired the spot you're seeing. You've got a great eye for these! --Specious 18:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It is still there but the image is more than good enough with it. -- carol (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 01:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Robert Maiilart bridge[edit]

Vessy pont.jpg

  • Nomination old Ferroconcrete bridge --Ikiwaner 08:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great sharpness and size. Good composition as well. Unfortunately left side is bit dark --Simonizer 19:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Obvious stitching errors both in the water and on the bridge. Lycaon 13:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You are right. I didtn recognize it --Simonizer 21:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What are you referring to? After having a very close look I managed to find some small errors on the bridge. I corrected them. But in the water I can't see obvious stitching errors. That barrier where colour suddenly changes certainly isn't one. --Ikiwaner 14:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much better. The slight downsampling has also improved the noise level and made the fault in the water all but invisible (it is still there but no more disturbing). Well done. Lycaon 16:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 01:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Orange child[edit]

OrangeOrange.jpg

  • Nomination Freisteller --Böhringer 20:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Digitally altered image without notification, no photo subject (yes, image can be impressive and have no value for Wikipedia). #!George Shuklin 12:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't agree with the assessment. Lycaon 13:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I dont agree as well. We are not at wikipedia --Simonizer 14:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see how the digital alteration adds to the quality (IMO it detracts). Dori 18:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it's great at thumb size but at full resolution is noisy and has obvious editing traces --Ianare 05:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 01:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bowl of Strawberries.jpg[edit]

Bowl of Strawberries.jpg

  • Nomination A bowl of strawberries on a counter --ShakataGaNai 21:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Counter not in frame. -- carol 02:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Strawberries are. Lycaon 11:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes they are indeed. -- Klaus with K 15:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp and nice colours. --Ikiwaner 18:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gorgeous and delicious looking too Bastique 22:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 01:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Navnløst tre i åker.jpg[edit]

Navnløst tre i åker.jpg

  • Nomination Landscape shot from Hedmark, Norway. Kjetil r 13:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice landscape. I wish the trees on the horizon weren't there, though. -- TheWB 14:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose All blurred. Lycaon 11:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose yup, blurry. Ianare 05:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 01:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Trier Sankt Matthias BW 2.JPG[edit]

Trier Sankt Matthias BW 2.JPG

  • Nomination Germany, Trier, Tower of St. Matthias --Berthold Werner 08:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp, and nice composition. Leo Johannes 08:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It seems tilted. -- carol 09:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC) I got that completely wrong!!! -- carol 07:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Which direction and how much? --Berthold Werner 05:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 01:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kosciol pokoju w swidnicy wisnia6522.jpg[edit]

Kosciol pokoju w swidnicy wisnia6522.jpg

  • Nomination Church of Peace in Świdnica, Poland. --Wisnia6522 16:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well handled whites. There's slight CA & strong perspective correction makes it look somewhat awkward but all in all it's well done. –Dilaudid 06:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Visible CA & strong perspective correction. --Lestath 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose After some thinking, the perspective correction is too strong making the building look unnatural. –Dilaudid 08:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is fine. -- Barabas 18:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 01:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rothenburg BW 5.JPG[edit]

Rothenburg BW 5.JPG

  • Nomination Germany, Rothenburg o.d.T., Historiengewölbe --Berthold Werner 08:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeMotion blur due to long exposure time, CA fringing. –Dilaudid 19:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Blur may be, but are you sure it's from long exposure? The Shake Reduction of the K10D should avoid this at 1/30 s. Perhaps the autofocus took the wrong part of the picture and DoF is also not so good. --Berthold Werner 15:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
      • It looks like it's at least partially motion blur. Remember that Shake Reduction only goes so far; the numbers it is supposed to compensate for assume quite a steady hand. Thegreenj 21:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavy CA at the bows --Simonizer 15:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support To me the picture is sharp enough and CA affects only a tiny portion of the picture, so I support it. Barabas 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LC-de 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Reflections of Earth 8.jpg[edit]

Reflections of Earth 8.jpg

  • Nomination: The Reflections of Earth fireworks at Epcot. --Bdesham 13:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks good to me Ianare 05:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Difficult picture, but too much CA for QI. Lycaon 08:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw after voting period --LC-de 20:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Black-legged-Kittiwake.jpg[edit]

Black-legged-Kittiwake.jpg

  • Nomination Rissa tridactyla at Helgoland. Körnerbrötchen 09:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment background looks not good on my monitor, only my problem? --Mbdortmund 23:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It looks odd to me as well. The bird seems fine, though. --Bdesham 14:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Looks like blurred (OOF) water (wavelets) to me. Which is fine. The picture was taken from above, so it is unlikely to be sky... ;-) -- Lycaon 15:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, you never know… it could have been a really lucky shot from an airplane ;-) --Bdesham 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good to me. --Bdesham 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --LC-de 18:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Peeling paint 2.jpg[edit]

Peeling paint 2.jpg

  • Nomination I swear I see Jesus in there... --Dschwen 16:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Then surely you must geolocate this then!! -- carol 17:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Put it on ebay and I'll bid thirty pieces of silver! Thegreenj 19:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice colors and mood, but the sharpness is not that great. --Bdesham 21:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No, just, no. It is pretty much completely sharp at 12MP. Please find another reason. --Dschwen 13:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm looking specifically at the left edge, from the center to the bottom. Other than that section, I suppose, it's up to QI standard. --Bdesham 16:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose usually positive for minimalistic images but this one does not convince me photographically. I have the feeling that a more interesting crop had been possible. --Ikiwaner 16:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have to agree with Ikiwaner here. For a texture image, the composition just isn't enough for me. Thegreenj 16:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is fine. Barabas 00:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --LC-de 18:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Cygnets Portrait[edit]

Cygnets Portrait.JPG

  • Nomination Cygnets Portrait --Böhringer 19:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The background could benefit from noise reduction. –Dilaudid 06:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Dilaudid and there is a big, bright stain right next to the beak. Otherwise great picture --Simonizer 19:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. Background is not noisy for me. Where are noise and stain? _Fukutaro 02:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The stain is a bit right of the eye --Simonizer 09:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I believe those are blurred glimmers on the water? –Dilaudid 13:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Do not see that point. Just glimmers of the whater. Körnerbrötchen 17:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose glimmers should not be round. Those are spots, they can be repaired. -- carol (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is pretty good. Barabas 18:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The stains should be removed. --Mbdortmund 22:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --LC-de 18:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Schloss Obernzenn SK 0003.jpg[edit]

Schloss Obernzenn SK 0003.jpg

  • Nomination Castle Obernzenn --Simonizer 12:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad Composition. With the camera more right it should be possible to make a picture from te castle without the tree. Please sign! anonymous vote. Lycaon 05:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes that would be right. But I could only made a picture from the gate, the rest of the fence is covered by bushes. And to go into the park you need an authorization --Simonizer 22:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment But who opposed? --Simonizer 21:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Building looks tilted. Lycaon 05:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 05:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is fine. Barabas 18:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   after voting period --LC-de 18:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Paldiski Lighthouse.jpg[edit]

Paldiski Lighthouse.jpg

  • Nomination The red lighthouse of Paldiski, Estonia. –Dilaudid 06:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The grass is rather blurred, but the main subject - i.e. the lighthouse - is O.K.; nice light. -- MJJR 20:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy and unsharp for me. Lycaon 09:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise, tilt --Ianare 05:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Awesome and typical image of a minah bird and a hyena playing pinball! (And the photograph is also definitely QI) -- carol 07:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is fine. Barabas 18:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Other version had no opposes. Lycaon 11:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Paldiski Lighthouse edit.jpg[edit]

Paldiski Lighthouse edit.jpg

  • Nomination The red lighthouse of Paldiski, Estonia. –Dilaudid 06:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info There's now a tilt corrected, colour adjusted, denoised new version available. –Dilaudid 21:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support better now Ianare 03:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Slight improvement. Makes the cut. Lycaon 06:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --LC-de 18:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Slavkovský štít–panorama.jpg[edit]

Slavkovský štít–panorama.jpg

  • Nomination Panoramic view from Slavkovský štít, High Tatras, Slovakia --Sfu 10:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Definitely above the bar. -- Barabas 00:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the crop. The foreground confuses the background or visa versa. Lycaon 13:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    I don`t understand how does it work. Could you tell something more? --Sfu 09:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The crop is too tight vertically, the people on the foreground disturb and there is no depth in the image because of the narrow window. Lycaon 19:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It's clear now. --Sfu 12:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You tried to catch a nice mood. However I think the panoramic has an inappropriate aspect ratio. It's almost impossible to view the image without scrolling. Then there are technical errors: The blue lady is half a ghost and one image is significantly brighter than the others. --Ikiwaner 18:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ac Ikiwaner + different sky colours (too visible). --Lestath 23:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --LC-de 22:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Life Belt Ionian Sky-tilt adjusted[edit]

Life Belt Ionian Sky-tilt adjusted.jpg

  • Nomination A life preserver on the boat Ionian Sky. Original by AlMare, "tilt" adjusted by carol. -- carol 22:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It seems ok.--Kolossos 14:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Either the background will be tilted or the foreground will. The quality is decent otherwise, but this photo can't help but "look wrong." --Bdesham 13:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilt / distortion. Dilaudid 16:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I was going to request that the word "composition" be included in the reason to support this image before the bot deposited it in the QI galleries.... -- carol 19:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The photograph was taken from a ship, so I believe the tilt is normal. A false horizon would be a greater problem. I like the colors and the Idea of the composition. But ok. --Kolossos (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LC-de 22:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Alexandria street mosaic.jpg[edit]

Alexandria street mosaic.jpg

  • Nomination A mosaic in the streets of Alexandria. I believe it's a nice use of perspective. Nikola Smolenski 15:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree, but the crop is too tight. –Dilaudid 17:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to get a second opinion. I don't think that the tight cropping detracts from the quality of the image, and I don't see what would it gain by a wider cropping. Nikola Smolenski 05:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    • See our guidelines for assessing quality images. Composition and cropping are related and largely technical matters that affect eg. how the image can be used. In this picture part of the subject is cut off, which I see as a serious fault – I don't see what the picture would lose from a more generous crop. :) –Dilaudid 16:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Larger part of the street and the white fence would be visible, which would detract from the subject (the mosaic). Nikola Smolenski 06:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that the crop is uncomfortably tight. Coupled with the awkward perspective, I don't think this is a QI. --Bdesham 19:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is pretty good. Barabas 19:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LC-de 22:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nyctea-scandiaca-snowy-owl-0a.jpg[edit]

Nyctea-scandiaca-snowy-owl-0a.jpg

  • Nomination Snowy owl. Adamantios 21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Mbdortmund 13:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Feathers bordered with green CA. Lycaon 14:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is fine. Barabas 00:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon, and the whole is a bit noisy. _Fukutaro 05:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA --Simonizer 18:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Beyond silence 22:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise is unfortunate Ianare 04:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --LC-de 22:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Cygnus olor Family[edit]

Cygnus olor Family.JPG

  • Nomination Cygnus olor Family --Böhringer 19:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Its ok! --Simonizer 19:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The right and center birds are overexposed, and not much sharpness. _Fukutaro 02:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposure on the right hand side bird. –Dilaudid 06:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The question should be: Is that little piece of overexposure distracting? Is this an excellent composition? I'd say no to the first and yes to the second question. Photography is more than counting overexposed pixels. --Ikiwaner 19:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support like Ikiwaner --Mbdortmund 11:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To me the overexposed spot is very distracting. Barabas 00:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Fukutaro --Sfu 18:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --LC-de 22:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Místek, Kostel svatého Jakuba, zákoutí.jpg[edit]

Místek, Kostel svatého Jakuba, zákoutí.jpg

  • Nomination CZE, Frýdek-Místek, enter to the St. James Church --Daniel Baránek 21:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good composition --Mbdortmund 22:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose but lots of chromatic noise. Lycaon 06:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tried to reduce the noise. Is it better now? --Daniel Baránek 07:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's overcorrected now and looks plastic. The composition is very strong no doubt a QI. What disturbs me is that it's leaning to the left. --Ikiwaner 18:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As Ikiwaner I find the composition very good, but mitigation is an FP concept, and here on QI technical quality is very important. Noise may have reduced but sharpness id still not acceptable, sorry, my oppose stands. Lycaon 19:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tried one more edit from original (milder reduction of noise and rotation). If still not OK, I don't know how to do. Never mind, thanks for your time :) --Daniel Baránek 19:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Plastic appearance. Barabas 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposenoisy -LadyofHats 20:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --LC-de 12:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sv. Cyril a Metoděj.jpg[edit]

Sv. Cyril a Metoděj.jpg

  • Nomination Cross with sculpture on the Radhošť Mountain commemorating Saints Cyril and Methodius with Chapel of Saints Cyril and Methodius in the back (Moravian-Silesian Region, Czech Republic) --Ondřej Žváček 19:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline Strange colours: too much yellow. Also very noisy. –Dilaudid 19:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Uploaded new version with less noise and milder colours.--Ondřej Žváček 16:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting subject, but the picture is way oversharpened. Barabas 00:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks, uploaded new softened version.--Ondřej Žváček 15:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Software sharpening is not a way. Try again with better light. It's not sharp enough now. Interesting photo otherwise. --Sfu 08:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LC-de 12:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Trier Frankenturm BW 1.JPG[edit]

Trier Frankenturm BW 1.JPG For comparison the orignal version. In reality the building looks like the corrected and  stretched Version

  • Nomination Germany, Trier, Frankenturm --Berthold Werner 06:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too strong perspective, building looks unnatural. –Dilaudid 19:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes. But you cannot get a picture of this building from a greater distance (or you pull down another building). For buildings QI mean to get the best of a situation. In this case: to wait for the right time and weather, searching the best point to photograph and then try to adjust perspective. --Berthold Werner 08:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support to keep the balance. Although I would prefer slanting lines instead of architectural projection, just because one has to point the camera upwards for this kind of shot. -- Klaus with K 20:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is fine. Barabas 00:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dilaudid. Lycaon 13:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think, it meets QI requirements --Mbdortmund 11:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Which one? Lycaon 14:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
      • the left one --Mbdortmund 21:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The perspective has gone from one extreme to the other, neither is an accurate representation of what the eye sees. Somewhere in between would look much less awkward. --Calibas 01:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Wich image is the one we are voting on? --LC-de 22:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --LC-de 08:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bytom - Ul. Józefa Kwietniewskiego 01.jpg[edit]

Bytom - Ul. Józefa Kwietniewskiego 01.jpg

  • Nomination Tenement house on the Józefa Kwietniewskiego Street in Bytom. --Lestath 19:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this one is the best from all the images subitted but it is still overexposed. so i would like to have a second opinion on this one -LadyofHats 10:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No, it is not overexposed, I checked the histogram to be sure. It is blurred though and suffers heavily from JPEG-compression (JPEG-artifacts visible). --Massimo Catarinella 00:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 08:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Katowice - Ul. Słowackiego 33.jpg[edit]

Katowice - Ul. Słowackiego 33.jpg

  • Nomination Tenement house on the Słowackiego Street 33 in Katowice. --Lestath 19:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed and color aberrations (specially at the side of the white and yellow color fields)-LadyofHats 10:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Another deline of my photo by LadyofHats. Please for another, obiective opinion. --Lestath 12:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment composition is OK, but in the full solution it is not really sharp, maybe a Problem of the camera/objective, not of your work. Sometimes it helps to take the picture a little bit darker and to work out the highlights later. --Mbdortmund 10:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 22:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Katowice - Kasztanowiec - Kwiaty 01.JPG[edit]

Katowice - Kasztanowiec - Kwiaty 01.JPG

  • Nomination Aesculus flowers. --Lestath 19:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed, oversaturated and blury in full view. still an interesting plant :P-LadyofHats 10:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't agree with Ladyof Hats decision. Please for another, obiective opinion. --Lestath 12:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The whites are blown. The "oversaturation" is possibly due to the same harsh lighting which made the whites too white which was in reality a bright and pretty day there and then. If you could get the same photograph on a not so clear day it all of the problems would probably go away. -- carol (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Date of picture is in the future ?! Lycaon 13:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry. My mistake - I changed it. --Lestath 16:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 08:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chromatic aberration on the left and right side of photo --Kosiarz-PL 08:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Seusslitz-Luisenburg.jpg[edit]

new version

  • Nomination Seusslitz near Dresden. --Kolossos 19:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Needs perspective correction. –Dilaudid 05:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
    I do it and upload it as new version. --Kolossos 18:21, 13 August 2008 Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks! But it still experiences quite strong barrel distortion. Otherwise it seems fine so once this is fixed I can support. –Dilaudid 22:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I upload a new image with barrel correction and a little bit darker. --Kolossos 08:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support- tic overexposed, still good enough-LadyofHats 22:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support like LadyofHats Sorry, no unsigned appreciations. Lycaon 12:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for the new version --Mbdortmund 00:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? new version -- Lycaon 13:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Visa river near Spiterstulen1.jpg[edit]

Visa river near Spiterstulen1.jpg

  • Nomination Visa river near Spiterstulen, Jotunheimen mountains, Norway --Pudelek 17:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unclear composition. Whats the main subject? The river hidden behind the rocks or the mountains wich were cut in an unfavourable way? --LC-de 18:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the main subject is a Visa river and the mountain are the background for her --Pudelek 22:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- even when it has better contrast as the other two it is blury and partially noisy -LadyofHats 22:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 13:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Visa river near Spiterstulen.JPG[edit]

Visa river near Spiterstulen.JPG

  • Nomination Visa river near Spiterstulen, Jotunheimen mountains, Norway --Pudelek 17:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm tempted to decline this same reason as Image:Visa river near Spiterstulen1.jpg: unclear composition. But I think these pics are discutable. --LC-de 18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - misses contrast -LadyofHats 21:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 13:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Motorcycle of Police in Bergen.JPG[edit]

Motorcycle of Police in Bergen.JPG

  • Nomination Motorcycle of Police in Bergen, Norway --Pudelek 12:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support meets QI requirements --Mbdortmund 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much CA fringing. Lycaon 11:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose plain composition and ligthing -LadyofHats 21:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 13:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sugar cubes-closeup.jpg[edit]

Sugar cubes-closeup.jpg

  • Nomination Sugar cubes which were "lifted" from a nice restaurant. -- carol 07:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Irregular lighting. --Kosiarz-PL 18:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Technically speaking, that could also be expressed as "interesting lighting" or "unusual lighting". QI is about technical merit. -- carol 00:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - i think the irregular ( as in, not coming from the same direction) lighting comes from the form of the white plate that refects the light. wich as result removes a bit of the "volume" feeling on the sugar cubes wich then again oposes to the defined volume and light reflections on the plate. another reason to oppose is the amount of background (plate) without any real information to the main subject (sugar).the composition is interesting. ( as in unusual, and nothing to do with technical merit but still worth mentioning it ;) )-LadyofHats 21:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • weak Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Technically if the lighting were not so unusual, the ratio of the image would be technically wrong -- half and half or less, not into three. Technical is how images are judged here, so if you can find even a weak link that explains your problem in more technical terms, it would assist not only your reputation for reviewing but also educate others in the technical aspects of photography. -- carol (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me for perhaps interfering with the redefining of QI. It will be easier for others to follow these new reviewing guidelines (so that no time is wasted nominating images which are certain to fail the new guidelines) could you possibly edit them? -- carol (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 13:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Gamle Bergen - houses[edit]

Gamle Bergen - houses.JPG

  • Nomination Houses in Gamle Bergen (Old Bergen) - open air museum in Bergen, Norway --Pudelek 15:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is ok. Barabas 20:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy. JPG artifacts is there. _Fukutaro 08:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposeas per Futukaro-LadyofHats 21:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 13:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cuscuta europaea (plants)[edit]

Cuscuta europaea (plants).jpg

  • Nomination Greater Dodder (Cuscuta europaea) a parasite, close to Visp, Wallis, Switzerland. -- Lycaon 11:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Please review. Lycaon 09:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice and beatiful, but details are washed out in highlights. Barabas 20:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In my eyes (resp. on my monitor) the flowers shows enough detail even in highlight areas. DOF is shallow but acceptable. --LC-de 13:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's cute flower, but very distractive composition:(. The body of this flower is vine? or stalk? And some of leaves that were seen on the whole are other kinds? _Fukutaro (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is a holoparasite, so no green leaves, only the reddish vine and the flowers. Always a very chaotic plant if you want to 'catch' more than the flowers alone. It often starts of on Urtica dioica (nettle) or the larger Fabaceae but tends to spread out and engulf several different species in the process. Other species are quite host-specific. Lycaon 11:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If show the ecology in the large text, may even this enough. But it need such explanation as you said, I think. _Fukutaro 13:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- exposure problems, both DOF and composition are better in the other image this subject -LadyofHats 21:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nothing too wrong with this photograph. Perhaps an identification of the bug that is there also? -- carol (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a very good illustration of Cuscuta which is an odd plant and not any photgraphic problem in my opinion --B.navez 03:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 13:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cuscuta europaea (plant)[edit]

Cuscuta europaea (plant).jpg

  • Nomination Greater Dodder (Cuscuta europaea) a parasite, close to Visp, Wallis, Switzerland. -- Lycaon 11:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Please review. Lycaon 09:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice and beatiful, but details are washed out in highlights. Barabas 20:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In my eyes (resp. on my monitor) the flowers shows enough detail even in highlight areas. DOF is shallow but acceptable. --LC-de 13:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • weakSymbol support vote.svg Support- there is much detail in the image, but there are many parts (including in the main subject) that are out of focus. -LadyofHats 21:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)~
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Both pictures are valuable, the above one showing chaos made by the plant, this one showing details of the individual flowers --B.navez 03:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 13:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:2008-08-11 University Tower from Petty Rd.jpg[edit]

2008-08-11 University Tower from Petty Rd.jpg

  • Nomination University Tower in Durham, NC --Specious 04:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good perspective, balanced composition, no tourists around --Ikiwaner 19:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition: the electric lines are too prominent; they, not the university building, seem to be the main topic. –Dilaudid 05:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
    What a lucky coincidence that the electric lines frame the building without crossing it. The lines form two axis giving the otherwise static composition a dynamic touch. In addition to that they add perspective to the image because the lines go closer together. --Ikiwaner 16:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good diagonal... --Mbdortmund 20:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the cables give it a dinamic feeling to a otherwise rather plain composition -LadyofHats 20:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestath 17:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 12:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lago-Maggiore 1327.JPG[edit]

Lago-Maggiore 1327.JPG

  • Nomination Baveno, church SS Gervasio e Protasio, baptistery --Mbdortmund 00:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the black thing on the right side should be removed, then it's ok. --Berthold Werner 12:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    done --Mbdortmund 14:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK. --Berthold Werner 15:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality. --Lucarelli 23:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-LadyofHats 20:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 12:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Presidential Palace, Vilnius[edit]

Vilnius presidential palace.jpg

  • Nomination Presidentail Palace, Vilnius, Lithuania --Sfu 09:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The point of view is well chosen and the stitching good. However I think because of the tree the image would perform better in winter. And the group of senior citizens could be avoided in a panoramic --Ikiwaner 20:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Are these really such a problems? Tourist are a part of this place. Should I go to them and say: go away, I want to make a picture!. It's not VI – here image must be technicly good, it don't have to show the whole subject. Why didn't you write this words: composition is bad? It's because there is no point to say this. --Sfu 08:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Just wave a machete around yelling obscenities, that usually gets them moving. Ianare 15:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Colors and composition are OK. Good QI. --Kosiarz-PL 09:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-i dont think the tourists or the tree afects the composition to that point-LadyofHats 20:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 12:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Campanula glomerata 08.jpg[edit]

Campanula glomerata 08.jpg

  • Nomination Campanula glomerata - Wda Landscape Park, Poland. --Kosiarz-PL 13:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it's unsharp --Pudelek 13:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sharpness was set on the centre and two nearer flowers. Only parts of the flower afar off are unsharp. I think this composition is OK. -- Kosiarz-PL 17:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-LadyofHats 20:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose most of subject is out of focus. -- carol (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 12:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sankt Paulin BW 3a.JPG[edit]

Sankt Paulin BW 3a.JPG

  • Nomination Germany, Trier, St. Paulin,(New version, previous nomination was declined as too dark) --Berthold Werner 10:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion just a question: Isn't the point of sharpnes some meters in front of the main object? --Mbdortmund 11:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    Hm. Take a close look at statues over the gate (in reality they are a few meters behind it) --Berthold Werner 13:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support DOF is short, but good composition and light must be difficult --Mbdortmund 15:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • weakSymbol support vote.svg Supportbecouse the image has a ton lots of elements one kind of mises how noisy it actually is. also even when the composition is really nice it forces to either all small and undefined or big and noisy. and still I think it can be QI ...-LadyofHats 20:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 12:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Picea-abies-norway-spruce-resin-n-bark-hdr.jpg[edit]

Picea-abies-norway-spruce-resin-n-bark-hdr.jpg

  • Nomination Picea abies --Adamantios 13:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline Oversaturated. --Lestath 14:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That's a common effect of exposure blending (HDR), isn't it? Adamantios 16:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
    Not if it's done properly. Many HDR tone-mapping programs oversautrate the image to compensate for the lack of contrast caused when the HDR goes to low-DR in order to be saved as a jpeg. BTW, if this is indeed an exposure-blended image, it would be nice to indicate so on the image page. Thegreenj 19:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for the insightful reply. I mostly use a GIMP script, sometimes I try to do it manually (complicated). All my HDR photos are tagged as such in the filename. Isn't that sufficient? Adamantios 21:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Files may be renamed for whatever reason (unlikely here, but still), so it is better to indicate 'special treatment' on the image page. Lycaon 13:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Apart the fact this picture is not very representative to show spruce resin (botanical garden with bamboos (or Peking Willow ?) in the background, bad pruning, orange color of the resin) the chromatic aberrations are clearly too strong (green fringes under bark scales)--B.navez 14:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 05:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Praslin von Anse Sévère.jpg[edit]

Praslin von Anse Sévère.jpg

  • Nomination Praslin, Seychelles --Tobi 87 09:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Did you try to cut of the sand in the front , which is overexposured? --Mbdortmund 11:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sand is really so white and here not overexposed (footsteps are well printed). A good general view of Praslin. --B.navez 03:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The causeles shadows in the foreground are irritating --Berthold Werner 15:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 05:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
????--Berthold Werner 14:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ouch that was only a zero ;-) Lycaon 22:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Katowice - Ul. Korfantego 01.jpg[edit]

Katowice - Ul. Korfantego 01.jpg

  • Nomination Korfantego Street in Katowice. --Lestath 19:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose same as the other the image is too long exposed so that many details are burn out and the colors apear oversaturated -LadyofHats 10:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Another deline of my photo by LadyofHats. Please for another, obiective opinion. --Lestath 12:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very overexposed. To prevent this in the future, try working with histograms (if your camera shows it). --Massimo Catarinella 00:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That's the only pic, where I can follow LadyofHats argumentation. It shows some significant exposure/saturation problems. --LC-de 08:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 11:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bytom - Róg ul. Piłsudskiego i ul. Drzymały 01.jpg[edit]

Bytom - Róg ul. Piłsudskiego i ul. Drzymały 01.jpg

  • Nomination Tenement houses on the Józefa Piłsudskiego Street in Bytom. --Lestath 19:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed and tic blury-LadyofHats 22:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Another deline of my photo by LadyofHats. Please for another, obiective opinion. --Lestath 12:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per LadyofHats --Massimo Catarinella 00:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As the other pictures, it don't seem overexposed to me. It's blurry and certainly need some retouching. --LC-de 07:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? original -- Lycaon 13:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lago-Maggiore 0971.JPG[edit]

Lago-Maggiore 0971.JPG

  • Nomination pier in Baveno, Lago Maggiore --Mbdortmund 15:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The other version is much better in terms of composition --Ikiwaner 16:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment so I nominate it *g* --Mbdortmund 16:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose mediocre composition --Ikiwaner 19:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If this image is technically fine, it does not matter that there is another one of the same subject that is better composed. -- Barabas 23:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-agree composition is not that interesting but it is still good enough-LadyofHats 22:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It makes absolutely no sense to me to promote all images in a group of very similar. Let's just take the best. -Ikiwaner (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
    • on the oposite, commons is aiming to be a depository of images for all posible uses, for that reason it can not be satisfied with just an image of each subject or just an image of each user. Becouse we dont know what future use the images may have, we dont know wichone of the image in a set would be better right?. since what we do know and do is qualify the quality of each and every image, i believe is only fair to do so independently of there are similar images from the same user. or even nominated at the same time. The only reason i tend to mention other images when qualifying them is to give guideness in what is better than what. so that users can improve their images ( the actual objective of QI, i believe). ofcourse the only exception to this would be two really identical images -LadyofHats 10:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I would say that the QI-sign simply shows that the quality is OK. It should not create a list of the best pictures like our featured pictures. --Mbdortmund 11:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI is about the quality of a picture. This image has a good quality so it is a QI. It doesnt matter wether there are similar pictures --Simonizer 10:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI is about the image quality here, now, today, whether an image tomorrow is better isnt relevant as part of QI's future potential value will come with it being able to have 2, 10, 20.. images of the same place over a time period all considered technically proficient for their time to compare. Where as FP is a dynamic process thats always looking for the best available today, if something better comes along tomorrow then the old is removed. Gnangarra 13:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 05:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:L'Ametlla.jpg[edit]

L'Ametlla.jpg

  • Nomination L'Ametlla de Mar, Spain. -- Lycaon 21:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but its tilt. The picture is leaning to the right --Simonizer 18:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Removed tilt. Lycaon 11:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment But i have still the impression the boats and the water are leaning to the right. The boats must be on a horizontal line IMO --Simonizer 12:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Port wall is receding, verticals on crates on land look straight. Lycaon 12:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That cloned dust spot in the sky could be removed. But that big wall across the image makes me think that the most beautiful part of this image is hidden behind concrete. --Ikiwaner 20:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is the port wall, outside is just sea. The pituresque part are the fishing boats. Where is the dust spot btw? Lycaon 11:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice and quality image. Barabas 20:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support a wonderfull place and a very interesting angle. but seen close by the image has exposure problems in the boats. -LadyofHats 20:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice angle and precision. (Can't see the dust spot !) Stephanemartin 10:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 11:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Question, earlier you counted a weak support as zero, here you count it as one, which will it be? -- carol (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Vote was updated by user, tally was not ([1]). Lycaon 08:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Place settings on a table.jpg[edit]

Place settings on a table.jpg

  • Nomination Fine silverware on a table --ShakataGaNai 07:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose idea is good, but DOF to short --Mbdortmund 10:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment But that is the point. The spoon in knife are in focus, nothing else is. --ShakataGaNai 04:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yes maybe, but what about the fork? Wouldn't it better to have a complete set in focus then? There are also some blown highlights and maybe the table (viz. napkins) should be horizontal. Lycaon 12:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think that was the idea. DOF works for me really well here. Barabas 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm willing to forgive DOF and blown headlights given the difficulty of lighting something like this evenly, but composition is poor. Why is the spoon (and most of the other silverware) cut off to the left when there's so much room to the right? It's very distracting to me. Thegreenj 00:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- carol (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Saint_Remy_Les_Antiques_R01.jpg[edit]

Saint Remy Les Antiques R01.jpg

  • Nomination Roman mausoleum and gate at Les Antiques, near Saint-Rémy-de-Provence (France). -- MJJR 14:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose All the leafs are very disturbing. --Lestath 14:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Foreground IMHO acceptable --Mbdortmund 10:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree to Mbdortmund, but it seems to be tilted clockwise to me --Berthold Werner 14:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tried to correct the tilt, but those antique monuments aren't very straight anyway, so there will always be some tilted lines... -- MJJR 20:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Works for me. Barabas 23:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for QI, and the leaves add a welcome sense of depth Ianare 00:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cat mg 3738.jpg[edit]

Cat mg 3738.jpg

  • Nomination A cat stretching on the ground -- Rama 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Noise reduction. Thegreenj 20:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)-
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- much of the image out of focus, the paw is cropped, yet very interesting composition, would like a second opinion on this one-LadyofHats 22:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs noise reduction and has strongly blown highlights (nose, nape and paws are partly purely white: RGB(255,255,255)). Lycaon 13:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 20:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bytom - Róg ul. Piłsudskiego i ul. Drzymały 01edit.jpg[edit]

edit|

  • Nomination Tenement houses on the Józefa Piłsudskiego Street in Bytom. --Lestath 19:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • I've uploaded an edit. --LC-de 08:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support edited version --Pudelek 13:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? edit-- Lycaon 22:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jotunheimen mountains - view from Spiterstulen.JPG[edit]

Jotunheimen mountains - view from Spiterstulen.JPG

  • Nomination Jotunheimen mountains - view from Spiterstulen --Pudelek 17:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm tempted to decline this same reason as Image:Visa river near Spiterstulen1.jpg: unclear composition. But I think these pics are disputable. --LC-de 18:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment on this picture the main subject are mountains. Visa river is an addition --Pudelek 22:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose plain straight forward composition misses a lot of contrast -LadyofHats 21:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestath 13:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine picture. I do not share LadyofHats concerns. There is white and there is dark on the picture - how is it low contrast? The composition is not delicious, true, but there is no such requirement for QI. Barabas 22:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   — carol (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:ChapelleStMichel.jpg[edit]

ChapelleStMichel.jpg

  • Nomination View from the summit of Bréhat island (Chapelle St-Michel), with Benh doing the same panorama --Sanchezn 19:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That's a fun composition! Good lighting/contrast despite of difficult conditions. --Ikiwaner 13:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment in my opinion this photo is a little tilt --Pudelek 21:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but this picture is not tilted. First, you don't see the horizon line because of the mountains. Second, the mountains are not the same high everywhere and are not at the same distance from me (the photographer), so you can't use it. The only part of the horizon that is usable (horizon with only the sea) is on the right of the photo, and there there's no problem, it's perfectly horizontal. I think the clouds are responsible of an optical effect while they are mostly on the left of the picture. Sanchezn 12:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I know it is a difficult scene to capture because of its high contrast. Unfortunately it was not done well. It is too dark. Barabas 20:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support the image colors are really oversaturated and it is a vit overexposed (wich creates areas in the complete darkness). but still i find both composition and format interesting enough -LadyofHats 20:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Barabas. --LC-de 16:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I haven't authorized Nicolas to diffuse a picture of me :D Kidding, but I told him several times that it seems tilted (although we can't tell for sure) and that it's very saturated - Benh 22:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   — Ikiwaner 10:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Haslen Kirche.jpg[edit]

Haslen Kirche.jpg

  • Nomination Church with fog in Appenzell --Ikiwaner 22:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp, good composition --Mbdortmund 10:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lacking details. Lycaon 12:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good enough --Manco Capac 08:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose color is better for encyclopedic images Ianare 15:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    Do you mean contemporary b&w images are out of the project scope? --Ikiwaner 19:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • this is not a contemporary B&W photograph, it is a de-saturated digital color image, and as such is less valuable than the original version. Ianare (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You seem not to have understood a few things. There is no original version because I shoot raw. And I did not use the desaturation method but the channel mixer to choose those colours which should appear brighter or darker in the image. This adds to the image. Why do you wish colour in this image? The sky is very grey already and the church as the main subject is basically grey too. What remains coloured is the grass which looks dull because of the heavy clouds. This image as a colour photograph would sure not be a QI in my eyes. Photography often is about reducing your means to the minimum you need. That's why I shoot b&w unless colour really adds to the image. Maybe in a few years and some hundred images on Commons you'll understand that. --Ikiwaner 17:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great composition, enough details for QI, and Wikimedia commons project is not concerned about "encyclopedic value". Barabas 20:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • didn't you read the guidelines ? "Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia projects." --Ianare 04:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not recall reading any promise that Wikimedia projects are strictly limited to Wikipedia. Barabas 22:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 21:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestath 23:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-LadyofHats 20:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kosiarz-PL 11:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically good, nice B&W conversion. The composition could be better, because I don't like the bushes in the lower right corner. But that's my opinion. --Massimo Catarinella 11:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 8 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ikiwaner 10:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Charadrius hiaticula 2 breeding.jpg[edit]

Charadrius hiaticula 2 breeding.jpg

  • Nomination Charadrius hiaticula (Sandregenpfeifer) breeding. --Arnoldius 20:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportVery good DOF. –Dilaudid 22:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose what about that whole 'unethical nest photography' thing ?? Ianare 06:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree there should be ethic principles, but unless it is made a writen rule or it afects the quality of the image it wouldnt be ethical to use it against a nomination IMO-LadyofHats 20:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- carol (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unless the picture has been taken by the female.--B.navez 17:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as LadyofHats. Very good quality. --LC-de 16:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice image. --Kosiarz-PL 13:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as B.navez. Lycaon 05:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek 07:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support photographer was certainly very close, but it's still a nice quality picture, and I don't feel like subject was harm that much (I'm certainly wrong though) -- Benh 22:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality photograph. I would have opposed the nest photograph on quality, looking at the link. I like this one quite a bit. Maybe someone can link me to an essay on nest photography ethics so I can understand the dispute against it better. Bastique 00:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Ikiwaner (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cuscuta europaea (flowers).jpg[edit]

Cuscuta europaea (flowers).jpg

  • Nomination Greater Dodder (Cuscuta europaea) a parasite, close to Visp, Wallis, Switzerland. -- Lycaon 11:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice and beatiful, but details are washed out in highlights. Barabas 20:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Request second opinion. Lycaon 11:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support- white flowers (specially this size) are hard enough to take. i dont see much detail lost and has a good composition -LadyofHats 21:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the highlights are blown and half of the flower is lost in the blur. -- carol (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   -- Lycaon 13:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's very nice, but DOF is too shallow to me. Benh 22:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Le Zebre C5 BW 1.JPG[edit]

Le Zebre C5 BW 1.JPG

  • Nomination Le Zebre C5 from 1913 --Berthold Werner 17:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad choice of focal length --B.navez 03:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    26 mm at the K10D is equivalent to 40 mm at a 35 mm camera. I don't think this is bad. --Berthold Werner 08:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 09:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lago-Maggiore 1275.JPG[edit]

Lago-Maggiore 1275.JPG

  • Nomination Lake Maggiore (Italy), Baveno, beach--Mbdortmund 19:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough for a static picture and needs better categorization (Conglomerate?). Lycaon 08:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Discuss! -- carol 05:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is as sharp (or more) than the flower being discussed right now. -- carol (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What's the subject of the picture ? unclear composition and harsh lighting. Benh 22:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - What on earth IS it? The sand gives me a headache. Mattbuck 01:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 09:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Petrogale xanthopus - Monarto 2.JPG[edit]

Petrogale xanthopus - Monarto 2.JPG

  • Nomination Yellow-footed rock wallaby --Peripitus 04:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful image. Part of the tail is cut off, the image is a little underexposed, but great composition and interesting subject. A quality image, no doubt about it. Alessandro Zangrilli 09:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose All of the positives here are negatives for QI. -- carol 10:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose idem --Ianare 00:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The cut off tail was a compositional decision to keep the main subject filling enough of the frame. I might try selectively adjusting the exposure of just the main subject and shadows tonight - Peripitus 01:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 09:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fly June 2008-10.jpg[edit]

Fly June 2008-10.jpg

  • Nomination A fly of the Anthomyiidae family (cf. Anthomyiia sp.) -- Alvesgaspar 16:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality image with focus well placed. I think your D80s sensor has a dust problem though - Peripitus 11:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background shows compression. Crapload 03:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - No compression at all, I always work with the maximum jpeg quality. Only some noise and posterization due to low light and slight contrast enhancement -- Alvesgaspar 18:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Can we get an idea of the fly's size? --Ianare 00:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - This is smaller than a housefly, about 6mm in length -- Alvesgaspar 08:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ianare 15:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)~
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 09:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cockburn pana.jpg[edit]

original nom adjusted levels

  • Nomination Panoramic view of construction of Port Coogee Gnangarra 13:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed and low contrast. Barabas 00:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment this is potentially fixable, I'll up load an alternative with adjusted levels Gnangarra 10:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Image:Port coogee pana gnangarra.jpg new image with levels adjusted Gnangarra 10:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose original as stated by Barabas, edit as overprocessed & noisy (you can only compensate for so much). You could try downsampling & noise reduction. --Ianare 00:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 09:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Spider July 2008-7.jpg[edit]

Spider July 2008-7.jpg

  • Nomination A spider and its web (Steatoda nobilis) - Alvesgaspar 23:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This photograph is 50% QI and 50% wow and at least deserving of discussion. -- carol 10:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree, but maybe neither of the components is worth a promotion in its category (QI and FP)... Alvesgaspar 11:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Very nice to look at for a while though.... -- carol (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose focus is not on spider's head. Ianare 00:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, but the most important part of this spider for identification would be those marks on his/her body. Alves knew what he was doing when he made the description be both the critter and the web.... -- carol (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, wow ! but... I miss DOF, and, can hardly see what I believe to be the head. I'm also not too keen on the flash lighting... - Benh (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 09:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fly August 2008-1.jpg[edit]

Fly August 2008-1.jpg

  • Nomination A fly of the Tachinidae family (Trichopoda pennipes) -- Alvesgaspar 23:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Could you indicate size? Lycaon 08:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Pictogram voting info.svg Info - About 10mm long -- Alvesgaspar 08:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Motion blur. –Dilaudid 21:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is sharp enough for a QI. Barabas 00:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No problem with motion. Fine. --B.navez 19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? carol 09:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Flintlock diagramme.svg[edit]

Flintlock diagramme.svg

  • Nomination Diagramme of a w:Flintlock --Bastique 00:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question is the wood texture also vectors? or is it rasterized?-LadyofHats 14:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Wood texture is vectors. Bastique 03:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this diagramm, but I#m no expert. If it's correct, we should promote it. --Mbdortmund 22:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A decisive ditto of what Mbdortmund said. -- carol 03:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Flintlock image is good, but letter type and arrows are not really fitting the image (letters to bold face and arrows to yellow and to elaborate). Still QI. Lycaon 08:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find the graphics childish, and in a QI the arrows and typography have to be fitting. –Dilaudid 21:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The typography can be changed, and I will do so. Comments like "I find the graphics childish" are wholely inappropriate in this instance. Read the purpose of QI, which is about promotion of images with regard to improving them. Insults are completely uncalled for, here. Bastique 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon 12:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. a clear illustration. The wood texture isn't really necessary (and it doesn't show in my browser anyways). --Dschwen 17:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? carol 09:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Volcanic craters[edit]

Réunion PitonFournaise CratèreRivals surroundings2.JPG

  • Nomination Adventive craters of Piton de la Fournaise volcano --B.navez 17:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition, unearthly atmosphere, but unfortunatly compresion artifacts are visible. --Sfu 16:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I fixed it better --B.navez 18:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC) New opinions ? --B.navez 02:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks better now. There are still some hallos around the peak, but that's minor issue. Sharpness is good enuogh as for a given resolution. --Sfu 05:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question It could make it on rarity and coolness if those were "Qualities". How did you get access to this location? -- carol (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I have added geolocation. Access to this place is free and not very difficult, just one hour and half of easy walking after the road terminus. Just be cautious and sure you've got the right equipment : water and eventually some food, good walking shoes and long trousers (scorias are very sharp), protection against sun exposure, coldness and rain (weather may change very quickly). Since the main crater has collapsed in april 2007 and its access has been forbidden, visitors have been invited to go to this other place instead. Of course general access is denied when there is an imminent eruption hazard. You're welcome. --B.navez 08:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Only to keep it around a little while longer :) -- carol (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Since my plan was foiled!!! (and thank you!) -- carol (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kosiarz-PL 08:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 09:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Numbat cons gnangarra.JPG[edit]

Numbat cons gnangarra.JPG

  • Nomination trap set for research into Numbats Gnangarra 01:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically OK, good illustration. I like this very special forest atmosphere. --B.navez 03:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not so shure: the sky is overexposed, not very sharp. --Sfu 09:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
can you explain, it was a cloudy day so the sky wasnt blue, what part of the sky isnt sharp? Gnangarra 15:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I ment that image as whole is not very sharp. Cloudy weather happens, but it not always end with overexposed sky. I'm not opposing. I just want a second person to review this image. --Sfu 15:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that a bat trap in a well lit location would be believable or function as that. So, of course the sky is a little too light (what little there is) compared to the dark of the woods/forest. The brightness of the sky could be dimmed without touching the subject parts of the image if this were that much of a concern. -- carol (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough. -- carol (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 09:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


Image:Marseille_notre_dame_de_la_garde.jpg[edit]

Marseille notre dame de la garde.jpg

  • Nomination Notre-Dame de la Garde in Marseille --Stephanemartin 12:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the main subject is not in focus. dommage, c'était bien vu... Ianare 15:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The image is on the softer side, but well within acceptable range in my opinion. The remote building on the hill might be affected by the haze a bit. That is not the photographer's mistake, just the existing conditions. Barabas 21:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There is little haze on the Côte d'Azur. The air is typically very dry (even next to the sea), and wind takes care of any lingering pollution... To me it looks like the image was simply taken without a tripod, which at that focal length & timing is necessary. Furthermore, the building directly in the foreground is in better focus (though still soft), clearly an error on the photographer's part. This is a shame since the composition is very attractive. However, I don't think that church will be going anywhere soon, so a re-take should be easy. -- Ianare 23:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Then there is no choice but suicide myself with shame for lacking focus. But you're right and wrong : that day was humid, there was some haze, but I also had no tripod. Stephanemartin (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • weakSymbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- find the focus a bit funny, but also the composition, since the buildings of the foreground and the main subject are both on the right side wich afects a lot the balance of the picture-LadyofHats 20:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mediocre sharpness, but just enough given the 2MP QI requirement. I like the depth that the foreground buildings provide, though I agree with LadyofHats that it does upset balance somwhat; it would be better if the basilica were in the left third. Thegreenj 19:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness insufficient and a slight CW tilt. Lycaon 12:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 12:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Norbert Gstrein O-Töne2008a.jpg[edit]

Norbert Gstrein O-Töne2008a.jpg

  • Nomination Austrian author Norbert Gstrein reading from his latest book. --Tsui 02:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark for no good reason. Crapload 02:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Four reasons: it was evening and outdoors without much ambient light, there was only one lamp at the table, a flash would have been very disturbing (to the writer, to the audience) and the contrast (the silhouette of the profile, the highlight on the book) is what creates the appeal of this image to me (more at the talk page), Tsui 04:41, 23 August 2008
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment mood is always a good reason for dark images, as is the actual environment. The question is whether its well executed and meets QI requirements. Gnangarra 06:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose White right bottom needs cropping. Lycaon 16:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC) cropped, thank you. Lycaon 16:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • strong Symbol support vote.svg Support I cropped the white corner. It is an excellent composition with Low-key_lighting. I like the lamp highlighting the contour of his face. --Ikiwaner 16:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like! --Specious 04:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is definitely a QI! In these circumstances many other photographers would have failed. It is technically perfect and furthermore it is very full of atmosphere. -- Ukuthenga 21:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 19:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pomnik Sienkiewicza w Okrzei.jpg[edit]

Pomnik Sienkiewicza w Okrzei.jpg

  • Nomination H. Sienkiewicz monument, Okrzeja, Lublin Voivodeship, Poland. --Sfu 10:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the monument looks a bit overexposured and oversharpened, composition is very good. Can you present a version without these problems? Mbdortmund
I have no other version. I can make some procesing if really needed. --Sfu 14:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Can't discern overexposure. Lycaon 15:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - lighting is ok --Pudelek 08:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 19:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Campanula thyrsoides (flower spike).jpg[edit]

Campanula thyrsoides (flower spike).jpg

  • Nomination Campanula thyrsoides - flowers, Swiss-Italian border. — Lycaon 07:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Don't like the cropping. --B.navez 10:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It is a detail picture which may have its use. Any other problems? Lycaon 22:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • No other problems and my opposition is very light. Just find this version doesn't bring more than the two others (plain & closer). IMO the cropping is a bit confusing beacuse it gives the sensation of the spike but no idea of its importance. Find just one supporter and I withdraw my half-oppose (as half doesn't count) --B.navez 14:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good enough. -- carol (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice detail. _Fukutaro (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 19:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Orgel im St. Stephansdom-Passau.jpg[edit]

Orgel im St. Stephansdom-Passau.jpg

  • Nomination church pipe organ, Passau, Germany --Tobi 87 09:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good composition, quality good for a compact camera --Mbdortmund 20:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tilted. Can be easily corrected. --Sfu 06:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I rotated the image 0.6 degress clockwise. I think it's straight now. --Tobi 87 10:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not sure about noise, but ok. --Sfu 11:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition and light very good but unfortunately lack on sharpness especially on the right side. --Berthold Werner 16:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wonderful majestic view, as that as sadly to what whole of noises. _Fukutaro (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 19:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

KLM Boeing B744 PH-BFR[edit]

KLM Boeing B744 PH-BFR.JPG

  • Nomination KLM Boeing 747-400 -- Phil13 13:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral it's sharp, composition is good, but noise --Pudelek 17:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise, not that sharp --Ianare 21:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Phil13 13:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I understand I have noise problems with that tiny weeny Powershot sensor. I'll start saving my money... Phil13 13:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cathédrale d'Amiens, portail central de nuit.jpg[edit]

Cathédrale d'Amiens, portail central de nuit.jpg

  • Nomination Amiens cathedral central portal by night --Eusebius 09:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is an image with some wow-factor even if some parts are slightly overlit but this is hard to avoid under these circumstances. --AFBorchert 09:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose But it is also noisy and not sharp. And this is QI, not FP. Lycaon 12:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Details are missing even on lighted parts --B.navez 15:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy, blurry --Ianare 20:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Churche in Kvam.jpg[edit]

Churche in Kvam.jpg

  • Nomination Wooden church in Kvam, Norway --Pudelek 23:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeWires really spoil + jpeg artefacts at the top of the spire. --B.navez 19:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Wires are unfortunate but this is not FP. Small artefacts have been fixed. Lycaon 08:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image. --Kosiarz-PL 11:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it, too. --AFBorchert 13:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good? --Foroa 13:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support meets QI requirements --Ianare 20:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Lycaon 09:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Brussels.Cinquantenaire.Museum 2878.JPG[edit]

Brussels.Cinquantenaire.Museum 2878.JPG

  • Nomination Jubelpark - Cinquantenaire at Brussels by sporadic contributor Guywets. Nom by --Foroa 06:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline Description is missing Mbdortmund- Description updated Foroa
    Nice shot but I would appreciate the image to be slightly cropped to get rid of the somewhat dark and out-of-focus parts at the bottom of the image. --AFBorchert 13:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting view and light, but a bit blurry and noisy and very akward crop at the foreground. --B.navez 19:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is are how cities are alike: beautiful spots rising above and trying to hide miserable parts. Nothing to say about the crop, composition could possibly be better. --Foroa 13:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 09:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Katowice - Silesian Museum 01.jpg[edit]

Katowice - Silesian Museum 01.jpg

  • Nomination Silesian Museum. --Lestath 19:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough -- MJJR 20:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it is oversaturated. Barabas 22:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it is oversaturated too. --Base64 12:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 09:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Temple of Zeus in Athens.jpg[edit]

Temple of Zeus in Athens.jpg

  • Nomination Temple of Zeus in Athens by Andreas Trepte Mbdortmund
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks fine :) -Pudelek 17:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Halos, posterization, was there some "oily" manipulation?, etc.... -- carol 08:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A pity for this well composed image. The inappropriate manipulation (too much noise reduction with heavy sharpening?) spills it. --Ikiwaner 16:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 09:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wine grape diagram[edit]

Wine grape diagram en.svg

  • Nomination diagram made for the Greenspun illustration project- -LadyofHats 20:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Gorgeous, useful and accurate. But Is the grape in back suffering from a bit of a transparency issue? Bastique 23:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info i aded a white background, hadnt noticed that it disapeared after the mark of the crop area-LadyofHats 13:43, 17 August 2008
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No, it's highly inaccurate, and I pointed out some small number of inaccuracies before this was put up here for Quality Image. The skin of this fruit, for example, has a peripheral vascular network that is not connected with the plant's vascular system. Highly unusual, botanically speaking. --Blechnic 14:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)(UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Information not entirely checked nor corrected (see on discussion page)--B.navez 16:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've searched through the remarks on the talk page and am having difficulty understanding exactly what Blechnic finds inaccurate and specifically what this user expects to be fixed. For instance, the concerns about the peripheral vascular network on the grape skin being "disconnected" seem irrelevant to me, a non-botanist, but perhaps I'm just assuming they're connected somewhere I'm not seeing. Not sure how important that is to the diagram to see that, but I'm sure it can be fixed if it's absolutely critical. It doesn't make the diagram "incorrect" however, merely less comprehensive as it could be. I don't think anything is going to satisfy Blechnic, judging by this user's comments here on Commons, on Meta, and on the Greenspan email list. Bastique 18:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support its reflective/accurate based on what is in the 7 sources quoted, the illustration is clear and meets the requirements of QI. I dont see any alternative sourcing quoted in the discussion to that shows there is any flaws ro problems with the image. two thing that would be nice but dont affect QI one is a small area of transparance at the bottom of the image, and the other is to number the areas so that multilingual keys could be use rather then just an english language image. Gnangarra 05:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support postponing support depending on outcome of remarks by B.navez. -- Lycaon 19:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Symbol support vote.svg Support issues seem resolved Lycaon 18:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC) The vasculature is quite correctly indicated IMO. Connection of the peripheral vascular network is relevant, but could be inferred as it is connected in parts that are not visible on the image. It is possible to make this apparent, but it is not wrong when it is not explicitly drawn. This image is a clear case of QI. Lycaon 08:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question So this striken support is actually a support then? -- carol (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Skin vessels is a minor issue but main vessels are not connected to the brush corrected. This brown color is unreal and there should be some transparency in grapes (to be shown at least in the skin). Scars are missing : scars of the stamens around the pedicelnot always visible and scar of the stigma at the tip. “Locule” instead of “locular cavity” would be simpler ✓ Done. I am not sure there is endosperm anymore in mature seeds. yes there is --B.navez 10:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC) signature for the corrections : --B.navez 13:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The reality of the color is largely irrelevant, as this is a diagram, and accurately depicts what it is intended. It is useful and gorgeous, and I am comfortable that it meets the criteria for QI. Bastique 23:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added some comments on the article talk page about what needs to be changed for information not to be wrong and thus the diagram really useful. --B.navez 11:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. TimVickers 18:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 09:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:KeizersgrachtReguliersgrachtAmsterdam.jpg[edit]

KeizersgrachtReguliersgrachtAmsterdam (corrected).jpg KeizersgrachtReguliersgrachtAmsterdam.jpg

  • Nomination Keizersgracht, Amsterdam --Massimo Catarinella 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While less jpeg compression and some perspective compensation would be nice, everything else is quite good. Thegreenj 23:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The picture was shot in RAW, so there is hardly any JPEG compression and the perspective is as correct as it can be.--Massimo Catarinella 10:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can see jpeg artifacts; something like this (8MP) should probably be 2-3MB with a good algorithm. As to perspective, there are programs that can make the perspective more "correct" than this, for example DxO. I'm not familiar with any of them, though. Thegreenj 20:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Though some of these houses are leaning IRL, the perspective is not correct. Lycaon 08:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info That is because is does not need perspective correction. I even went back to the same place to check it myself, because I was not sure either. If you look at the light poles in the lower right corner you can notice that they do not lean to the right. If you're still not convinced, I would like to see a perspective correction from your hand. --Massimo Catarinella 11:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The image to the right is perspective corrected. That doesn't mean that the houses are no longer leaning, it improves reflection axes (all lights should be perpendicular to their reflections). Lycaon 12:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I am a great friend of perspective correction, but I don't see here why it should be necessary. Also I found no JPEG artefacts (that can appear when you convert RAW to JPEG) --Berthold Werner 12:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality, good subject, attractive photograph. Illustrates the subject well. Bastique 00:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As Bastique writes - this is why I originally nominated it as a quality image -- Ukuthenga 20:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Didn't this same or almost the same image go through here recently? -- carol (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • IMHO there was another picture of then same place. --Berthold Werner 10:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clearly distorted even if some historical buildings do lean. Look at the axis of symetry of the sky perspective and its reflection in the canal : this axis should be vertical and it is tilted. --B.navez 16:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 19:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chateau du Taureau 7.JPG[edit]

Chateau du Taureau 7.JPG

  • Nomination Ile Louët by Thesupermat --Mbdortmund 23:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CCW tilt. Lycaon 15:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, but I fail to see a tilt in this image. --AFBorchert 09:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No need to be sorry, just check the horizon left and right of the island. Lycaon 19:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tried to find a clear point in the water, to measure the hight of the horizon, but there is no clear line, because what you see are other islands, not the horizon. So I tried the lines of the buildings, which are OK, but they are in the middle and give no clear indication. I think, the picture is OK and should not be rotated. Perhaps somebody finds a better way to solve this question. --Mbdortmund 12:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC) You nominated, didn't you? Lycaon 20:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It needs to be rotated 0.5degrees clockwise. TimVickers 16:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • How did you find this value? --Mbdortmund 17:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I added white dots at the sea level on each side of the island, enabled gridlines on Photoshop and experimented to find what would put the dots at precisely the same level. TimVickers 18:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support perhaps Tim is right --Mbdortmund 21:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC) No votes from nominator. Lycaon 09:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot the nomination --Mbdortmund 12:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because of overexposed highlights. Crapload 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 11:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Réunion RouteDesTamarins Chantier 2.JPG[edit]

Réunion RouteDesTamarins Chantier 2.JPG

  • Nomination New motorway allmost achieved - Réunion --B.navez 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm afraid there is some CW tilt. Lycaon 09:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Lycaon 19:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Rotated -0,4° , new opinions ? --B.navez 11:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Washed out highlights, a bit of blur and low on details, possibly because of the blur. Crapload 03:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Rose with Mantis[edit]

Rose with Mantis.png

  • Nomination A European mantis (Mantis religiosa) on a shrub rose. Huwmanbeing 16:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion

*Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The composition is amazing, a wonderful shot. Unfortunately, it's a bit soft. Other opinions? --Ianare 00:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with composition but too unsharp. --B.navez 09:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC) OK now --B.navez 15:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perhaps a crop to make the critter to be more definitely the subject of the photograph -- but it seems sharp to me. -- carol (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've applied a very mild (33%) unsharpening mask to the image; fine details are now a bit crisper. Huwmanbeing 11:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Original
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   -- carol (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Edit
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment perhaps my support should change to an oppose since the problems I saw were not repaired and the image is different now? Or a list of people to only oppose and not bother with a real review? -- carol (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I was only aware of the unsharp problem, which I addressed. What other unrepaired problems are you referring to? I see earlier you supported the current composition, so I'm a bit confused. Huwmanbeing  11:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support edit Ianare 15:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose over saturated red channel. _Fukutaro (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --B.navez 16:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose crop -- carol (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Meets technical requirements (just). Lycaon 12:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks OK to me. TimVickers 00:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 19:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Campanula glomerata (flowers)[edit]

Campanula glomerata (flowers).jpg

  • Nomination Campanula glomerata close to Visp, Wallis, Switzerland. -- Lycaon 13:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Back petals not sharp. -- carol 10:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Should they be? This is a large image after all... Lycaon 12:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Even scaled down with my magical mystery scale-tool, they are still kind of fuzzy. Resizing is no replacement for good focus and field depth. -- carol 20:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DOF could be better but good enough for QI --Ianare 00:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The standard I use here was set for QI by this photographer -- a standard that I like, btw. It is not like the QI galleries or categories are in need of images so the technical bar can stay as high as the photographer himself put it. I even suggest that the photographer withdraw the nomination as a show of approving his own standards. -- carol (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I see your point but given the resolution and magnification I feel DOF is within guidelines. Compared to other images in the species' category it is the best 'extreme' closeup of the flower. --Ianare 03:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This is how reviews are for VI, where the best image is chosen. QI is about the technical aspects of the image. VI is not where the images which fail QI go, it is where the image which is the best that is available on the commons for its subject is chosen. -- carol (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I assume the user who opposed that image did it based on VI-criterion 3. It looks to me that all other criteria were fulfilled. VI hasn't got the number of reviewers yet as QI or FP, so discussions are still rare and images are often assessed based on the opinion of a single users (I know, cause I fought a 'battle' there recently). But you're right this is irrelevant here ;-). Lycaon 09:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background shows compression. Also, I guess the flower may be overexposed. Crapload 03:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can live with critiques like Carol's, but this is absolute nonsense. Lycaon 08:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am of the opinion that it is quite possible to live with nonsense reviews; even suffering through them alone! I have done this for about one third of my nominations here and I assure you that I am very much still alive. Is it actually possible to live with a positive critique??? -- carol (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • No compression artefacts. Processed from RAW and then saved with a maximal jpg size. Lycaon 09:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Enough for QI. --Kosiarz-PL 10:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed I like the short DOF. I think it underlines the flower's curves. Stephanemartin 22:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 05:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)