Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 2008

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

Image:Ab spider 009.jpg[edit]

Ab spider 009.jpg

  • Nomination Thomisus onustus --Butko 07:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Rename please. --Dschwen 16:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Leaf in the foreground is distracting. --Eusebius 09:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I retouch leaf --Butko 14:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Retouch is very visible, sorry. --Eusebius 14:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I couldn't see the retouch, since I hadn't see the original and had no preconceptions. I compared the two images to find the site and the retouch looks pretty good to me. TimVickers 23:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK, now look closely at the two stones (pink and grey) near the bottom border of the picture, middle-left... --Eusebius 07:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 or 2 oppose → Promote?More votes?Decline?   -- Lycaon 22:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Windmills D1-D4 - Thornton Bank.jpg[edit]

Windmills D1-D4 - Thornton Bank.jpg

  • Nomination Windmills D1-D4 - Thornton Bank, Belgium. -- Lycaon 13:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF -- Don Quixotye 16:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Yes? What about DOF? --Dschwen 16:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice --Pom² 08:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hard to do a better job. --Specious 14:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good picture (although the bird is distracting, please shoot him before taking your photograph next time!). --Eusebius 17:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's always good to see this picture again! --Mrmariokartguy 15:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bwah! --Richard Bartz 19:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive mussel poles ! But what for so big anemometers? --B.navez 20:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it! --High Contrast 13:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 22:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Urbana_Free_Library_entrance.jpg[edit]

Urbana Free Library entrance.jpg

  • Nomination Urbana Free Library. --Dschwen 16:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI don't know what's with the sky, but it does not look good. I like the building, though. --Eusebius 16:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info standard polarizer image. --Dschwen 16:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The polarizer effect does not bother me, I think the picture is good, the perspective might be open to argument, but I think it puts the statue on the right in evidence and is appropriate here.--PieCam 17:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Polariser introduces vignetting. Lycaon 10:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC) You may be right... Lycaon 01:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    • This is technically incorrect. There is no vignetting in this picture. There is a subtle gradient in the sky, and I do not believe it warrants an oppose. --Dschwen 14:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
      I agree that there is no vigneting here. What disturbs me is not the gradient but the pixellated (?) aspect of it. I can't see how it can be caused by polarization, but I'm not a specialist. --Eusebius 13:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image. There's a small dust spot in the sky next to the top-left corner of the building. --Specious 21:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 22:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Brotvermehrungskirche BW 2.JPG[edit]

Brotvermehrungskirche BW 2.JPG

  • Nomination Church of the Multiplication in Tabgha, Israel --Berthold Werner 11:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment5x8 crop is visually disturbing. -- carol 08:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • en:Golden ratio is disturbing? Curious... --Berthold Werner 14:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I always understood the "golden mean" to be a line dividing an image that was not in the center yet treated as if it was. The crop is to the "golden rectangle" (as I read) which is not the same thing. I also am not fond of 4x5 (8x10). -- carol 18:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough to become QI. --Mrmariokartguy 15:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Oklahoma State Capitol.jpg[edit]

Oklahoma State Capitol.jpg

  • Nomination Oklahoma State Capitol --CPacker 15:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective. - Till.niermann 12:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that its perspective is good not bad--CPacker 00:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A little overexposed (front of the building) --Pudelek 08:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Eusebius (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nantes - Duguesclin.jpg[edit]

Nantes - Duguesclin.jpg

  • Nomination Statue of Du Guesclin in Nantes. --Eusebius 18:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks like a bit too much noise reduction. --Dschwen 16:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    Please note that the stone has been eroded. Denoising has been applied here, but loss of detail on the sculpture is mostly due to the weather and the nature of the stone (no marble here...). --Eusebius 12:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've uploaded a non-denoised version over this one, and then reverted, so that you can compare both and decide whether there has been too much denoising. --Eusebius 14:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks OK to me. --Coyau 13:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 22:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mya November 2008-1.jpg[edit]

Mya November 2008-1.jpg

  • Nomination My name is Mya and I feel comfortable -- Alvesgaspar 23:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strange and unclear composition. I don't even see the value of this snapshot for the Wiki-projects --LC-de 19:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically fine and large size. Lycaon 22:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor composition, most of the animal is not visible in the image. TimVickers 17:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well composed. - Till.niermann 19:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Late, was already declined. Lycaon 10:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Eusebius (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Katowice - Bazylika Św. Franciszka 01.jpg[edit]

Katowice - Bazylika Św. Franciszka 01.jpg

  • Nomination Basilica of St. Francis in Katowice. --Lestath 18:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Altar too dark and unsharp --Tango7174 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't agree. Please for another opinion. --Lestath 21:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me, just think it's contrast of light top/dark bottom, --Pom² 08:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Did you notice the "ghost" on the stairs (between the altar and the lower table)? There seems to be some kind of phantom image from another pic, so not particularly a quality image. Forrestjunky 03:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - It's sharp and not dark --Pudelek 20:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's good for QI--Beyond silence 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Forrestjunky . Lycaon 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Due to spiritualist SFX. :) TimVickers 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:FreeRunner.jpg[edit]

FreeRunner.jpg

  • Nomination Neo FreeRunner smartphone --Mex3 23:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Strong product image --Fletcher6 17:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too low DOF for a studio pic. Lycaon 22:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy, and the phone's screen doesn't look perfect. Studio pictures should be very high quality. This phone needs to look appealing. --Specious 13:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- carol (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's ok to me. --Mrmariokartguy 15:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Vote is too late. Sorry. -- carol (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bonde_Sta_Tereza01.jpg[edit]

Bonde Sta Tereza01.jpg

  • Nomination Tram viacuct in Rio de Janeiro by Wolfhardt. --Dschwen 16:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Mbdortmund 20:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technically insufficient. Lycaon 04:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp, and no joins visible. TimVickers 23:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, actually it is not sharp, it is noisy and the clouds are overexposed. Lycaon 22:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I've never considered whether or not clouds are perfectly exposed to be very important when the clouds are just part of the background and the subject of the image is well exposed. This is indeed important in landscape shots, but not in shots illustrating a particular object, such as a car, building or animal, when the background isn't a significant part of the composition. TimVickers 23:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Over-exposed clouds, selection marks or CA around buildings, significance of composition is not a QI technical requirement nor is previously unconsidered a good reason to support. More interesting than the votes is wondering what the hell were Dschwen's intentions? -- carol 00:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This vote too late by 1 hour and 3 minutes. -- carol (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good, meets the crieria --High Contrast 20:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   -- 22:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Santiago Galiza nov 2008 San Fiz de Solovio 17.jpg[edit]

Santiago Galiza nov 2008 San Fiz de Solovio 17.jpg

  • Nomination Portal of the church of Saint Fiz de Solovio, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia--Lmbuga 02:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What's between the virgin Mary and the head of the kneeling wise man? --Eusebius 09:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    A phone? -- carol 17:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    I think is a metallic piece to take the chain to touch the bells. --Lansbricae 19:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Anyway, it doesn't seem to be part of the sculpture and I find it distracting. I otherwise find the picture nice (although maybe a little bit noisy). --Eusebius 15:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image has the appearance that it has been altered to restore the curve to the architecture but in doing so has added an unusual slant to the caricatures within. -- carol 02:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm really not sure that slant is caused by postprocessing. I think it makes the subject interesting. --Eusebius 12:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 01:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Angriffstrupp mit Atemschutz und Schaumrohr.jpg[edit]

Angriffstrupp mit Atemschutz und Schaumrohr.jpg

  • Nomination Two Fire-fighters wearing a SCBA during a Training Scenary --Stefan-Xp 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great lighting, composition, very interesting image. Could benefit from some NR - but not if it reduces sharpness too much. --Fletcher6 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great lighting, composition, very interesting image, but really too noisy for a QI stamp. Lycaon 22:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I fear you'r right... but ISO Speed 1600 was necessary für this Image, it was dark and too foggy for flash... --Stefan-Xp 06:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support according to meta data iso was 800, this is a QI its a good execution/result in the circumstances, the noise isnt an issue in these circumstances to me its enhances the image by portraying what working in such conditions is really like. Gnangarra 00:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Gnangarra. - Till.niermann 19:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 01:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

Image:MG_3158_1600.jpg[edit]

MG 3158 1600.jpg

  • Nomination Tent rocks, National Monument, New Mexico, USA --JuliusR 19:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special by any means, thus this is not a quality image. Also, the filename is not descriptive. --Siipikarja 16:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment"Nothing special, thus not QI" is not a receivable argument, we're are not judging FP candidates. This geological landscape is worthy. --B.navez 02:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment True, this geological landscape is worth photographing, but the phtograph itself is not worth a QI-stamp because the photograph is nothing special by any means. --Siipikarja 08:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please review according to the guidelines! Your own interest in the picture is irrelevant here, this is not FP. --Eusebius 09:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Below the size limit (this is in the guidelines). --Eusebius 12:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Below size limit. TimVickers 17:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Eusebius 12:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Częstochowa - III Aleja1.jpg[edit]

Częstochowa - III Aleja1.jpg

  • Nomination Aleja Najświętszej Maryi Panny - main street in Częstochowa by night --Pudelek 13:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice perspective, but the weather conditions give the picture a bit dull feeling. Also, the sky is a bit grainy. --Siipikarja 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose General insufficient quality for QI (light, shapness). Lycaon 11:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 11:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cariatide Wallace 4.jpg[edit]

Cariatide Wallace 4.jpg

  • Nomination Wallace fountain detail. --Coyau 12:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please provide informations about the location and a description in English --Mbdortmund 16:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. Location is anecdotal for a standard piece of furniture. --Coyau 18:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Shouldn't this be rotated slightly clockwise judging from the horizontal lines at the top of the picture? --Siipikarja 16:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. Coyau 20:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a bit tightly cropped but technically OK --Mbdortmund 23:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Eusebius 09:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Warszawa Ogród Saski rzeżba i fontanna.jpg[edit]

Warszawa Ogród Saski rzeżba i fontanna.jpg

  • Nomination Saski Garden in Warsaw, Poland. --Sfu 11:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Shadow on the left is very "strong", maybe there is too much contrast. I think there are slight CAs on the leaves (top right) and on the face/neck of the statue. --Eusebius 11:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Who made the statue and when? Lupo 20:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info Fryderyk Karol Deybel (18th century) --Sfu 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good colors and excellent composition. This kind of picture, however, could use better DOF. --Siipikarja 16:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per previous comments. Lycaon 10:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 10:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Brotvermehrungskirche BW 6.JPG[edit]

Brotvermehrungskirche BW 6.JPG

  • Nomination Door of the Church of the Multiplcation, created by Elmar Hillebrand --Berthold Werner 10:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special by any means, thus this does not qualify as a quality image. Or is there a common interest for the particular subject? Please give a caption in English also. --Siipikarja 16:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting question.svg QuestionWhat do you mean exactly by "nothing special"? I don't get your point. --Eusebius 20:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A quality image should meet the quality image guidelines so that the picture is a) of especial technical merit, b) of a particular subject or c) the picture is created in a particular manner. For me this picture satisfies neither conditions a) or c). It might satisfy condition b), thus the question remains: is there a common interest for the particular subject? --Siipikarja 07:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    This is not quoted from the guidelines. It's only the way QIs are sorted and is quoted from COM:QI (and "particular subject" has nothing to do with interest here I think). Guidelines are technical and can be found here. --Eusebius 07:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    Fair enough, but I'm still opposing since the image is not a QI in my opinion. Thanks to Berthold Werner for adding the English description. --Siipikarja 08:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    You have the right to oppose of course, but you have to provide a technical reason, other than "nothing special". --Eusebius 09:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Added the name of the creator and an english description --Berthold Werner 15:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 10:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nantes - Île de Versailles 3.jpg[edit]

Nantes - Île de Versailles 3.jpg

  • Nomination: Japanese garden. --Eusebius 08:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm not sure if this is a typical japanese garden. But the picture seems to be ok. --Berthold Werner 18:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose OK composition, but the picture is technically not good enough. It's a bit unsharp which gives the picture a bit restless outlook. --Siipikarja 15:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 1 support, 1 oppose => Draw. Eusebius 09:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Banyas BW 6.JPG[edit]

Banyas BW 6.JPG

  • Nomination: Pillar in the archeological site in Banias, Israel --Berthold Werner 09:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unclear subject - the image is described as "an archeological site", but the image is of a stone pillar. Either the description is insufficient, or the composition fails to illustrate the subject. TimVickers 17:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Description now matches image. TimVickers 17:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg InfoDescription corrected --Berthold Werner 08:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 0 support, 0 oppose => Draw. Eusebius 09:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Juvenile Humboldt Penguin (zoo de Vincennes).jpg[edit]

Juvenile Humboldt Penguin (zoo de Vincennes).jpg

  • Nomination Young Humboldt Penguin (Spheniscus humboldti) --Diti 19:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --Pudelek 10:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find it noisy. --Eusebius 10:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ISO 1600 was obligatory if I wanted to take a good picture (due to really bad weather). The zoo of Vincennes is now closed and other photos of Humboldt Penguins here will be possible in 5 years minimum. Also, see my other “comment” to TimVickers right below. Diti 23:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Needs cropping. TimVickers 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I uploaded an uncropped version, with less noise (but the penguin's head was blurry; so I uploaded a new version again). Feel free to crop it so it suits to the QI needs (if possible). I have the RAW file if needed. Thanks. Diti the penguin 23:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For its encyclopedic value (see image description), and because it's a nice pic; waiting to see the cropped version of TimVickers. -- Elfix 16:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I uploaded a new version, based on the previous two others: see Image:Juvenile_Humboldt_Penguin_(zoo_de_Vincennes).jpg#filehistory (I personaly find it weird, but noise was criticized —which is normal— and I tried something. This is my first try for a QA and I wonder if my photos are good enough for this). There is less noise, the penguin is clearly visible, and cropping seems ok. Its encyclopedic value is to show this penguin in his “habitat” (zoo de Vincennes), hence the visible ground.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with the EV, so I would support this for VI. However, the difficult conditions mean that the quality is not enough for QI -- noise and the penguin is a bit blurry. Also, I would favour the original crop, or maybe slightly taller. --Specious 13:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough for QI. Lycaon 10:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 10:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vespiary of Polistes gallicus.jpg[edit]

Vespiary of Polistes gallicus.jpg

  • Nomination Vespiary of Polistes gallicus--Butko 17:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sadly not sufficiently identified. Lycaon 20:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Lycaon 14:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment identified - Polistes gallicus --Butko 12:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Requirement: Descriptive name The image needs to be re-named. "insect", "flower", "plant" are reasonable names until the genus or ideally the species name is determined. -- carol (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done The image was renamed, but as the file name affects the technical quality of photos? Usually, when I upload images I do not know how called species. Hence the "insect", "flower", "plant", etc. Other users of Commons and Wikipedia help me identify the species. Just use a template {{Rename}} if you are sure that the correct name of the species --Butko 07:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I spent some time reducing the backlog of images with non-descriptive names; it was before the bot that renames the images was running (that I know of). I happen to believe in the usefulness of descriptive image names and it is part of the technicalities of quality for an image which is part of a collection of millions of images and in my opinion, an important thing for any image that receives any token of community approval. The assistance of others towards identification is a nice detail here, once the assistance is received, it is good for some follow through from the receiver? Commons should be an image server and not so much of an image dump. Also, I wanted to take {{requirement}} for a run; kind of cool how it allows its description to be changed.... -- carol (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, a bit of motion blur on the left, but overall quality OK for a QI. TimVickers 17:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Eusebius (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Częstochowa - III Aleja.jpg[edit]

Częstochowa - III Aleja.jpg

  • Nomination: Aleja Najświętszej Maryi Panny - main street in Częstochowa by night --Pudelek 13:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too symmetrical, lack of sky, subject is too centred, try rule of thirds. --Coyau 13:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The thirds are vertical, for me, it is finally an image from this uploader which doesn't make me feel queasy (other QI) -- carol 18:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not really convinced: Tower is almost touching the top edge. --Coyau 21:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like! Composition is fine for my taste. Captures the sensation of being there quite well, IMO, and good quality. --Specious 13:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition may be OK, but quality is insufficient IMO. Lycaon 10:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 2 support, 2 oppose => Draw. Eusebius 09:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Opolska Wenecja nocą.jpg[edit]

Opolska Wenecja nocą.jpg

  • Nomination Flats in Opole (Oppeln) on the Młynówka (Mühlgraben; old channel of Odra river) by night --Pudelek 11:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted to the right, creates the illusion of the houses falling backwards (bad perspective). Nice shot otherwise, you should take another. --Florian Prischl 23:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - new version--Pudelek 10:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 11:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lake clifton gnangarra 03.jpg[edit]

Lake clifton gnangarra 03.jpg

  • Nomination thrombolites observation walkway Lake Clifton Gnangarra 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition --Simonizer 19:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree on composition, but background is quite blurry. --Eusebius 19:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is one of the rare images where enlargement makes the subject (the thrombolites) not visible anymore. "Blurry" background is not a problem. That is always the same discussion with fractal matters such as vegetation : you could always have finer resolution and you have to stop it at some moment. In addition windy weather. --B.navez 07:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • What are " thrombolites "? --Mbdortmund 11:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
w:thrombolite, cementation of sedimentary grains by biofilms of microorganisms these form a dome see this image Gnangarra 01:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not outstanding, but definitely a QI. Good composition, interesting subjects. Blur acceptable. --Florian Prischl 16:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Eusebius 17:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Geirangerfjord LC0188.jpg[edit]

Geirangerfjord LC0188.jpg

  • Nomination View on Geiranger and the Geirangerfjord, Norway --LC-de 11:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Find it very good, meeting the criteria --B.navez 14:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What happened to the EXIF? Lycaon 22:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Meets the criteria --High Contrast 20:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Oversaturated. Diti the penguin 15:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol wtf vote.svg Overprocessed: Saturation, downsampling, oversharpening. Lycaon 10:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversharpened and oversaturated, lacks EXIF, due to the perspective it seems slightly tilted. Nice scenery, though. --Florian Prischl 16:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sadly the opposers are right --Simonizer 08:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Eusebius 09:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
What a lot of templates(6) and symbols(5) (Templates: {{sup}}, {{question}}, {{Oversaturated}}, {{Overprocessed}}, {{opp}}, {{QICtotal}}. Symbols: Symbol support vote.svg, Pictogram voting question.svg, Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg, Symbol wtf vote.svg, Symbol oppose vote.svg) --Mrmariokartguy 01:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nantes - château.jpg[edit]

Nantes - château.jpg

  • Nomination Nantes castle. --Eusebius 21:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's good for QI --Pudelek 20:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Almost everything is in the shadow. If taken later in the day, the sun would properly illuminate the scene. --Specious 19:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's good for QI --Beyond silence 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lighting --Mbdortmund 21:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to lighting, especially when comparing it with the background building. --Florian Prischl 17:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I think I was too late, sorry. --Florian Prischl 17:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Nope, 21:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC) would have been too late. carol 19:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
"...a maximum period of 8 days, counted from its entry" Its entry designs last vote?? (I'm not defending the picture, just trying to understand the rules) --Eusebius 20:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 19:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Paulownia_tomentosa_à_Place_d'Italie.jpg[edit]

Paulownia tomentosa à Place d'Italie.jpg

  • Nomination Paulownia tomentosa on Place d'Italie, in Paris --Romanceor 17:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline Misidentified. This one seems to be Paulownia tomentosa. Change name please. --B.navez 18:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Done. Thanks. --Romanceor 21:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very disadvantegous lighting - too much shadow, no single leaf is clearly visible. Also blurry and cropped off. --Florian Prischl 13:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Lestath 19:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Oppeln by night.jpg[edit]

Oppeln by night.jpg

  • Nomination Opole (Oppeln) by night --Pudelek 21:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Find it very good --Böhringer 13:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Towers on the left are blurry and distorted. --Eusebius 13:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's OK. --Mbdortmund 11:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The whole image is quite blurry - something that should not happen in this setting and is particularly noticeable at the church towers. --Florian Prischl 16:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A bit dizzying. --JalalV 12:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Eusebius 12:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Taba_Heights_Marina_R01.jpg[edit]

Taba Heights Marina R01.jpg

  • Nomination - Taba Heights Marina (Sinai, Egypt). -- MJJR 22:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What exactly the subject should be is unclear: If it is the yacht, then it should be cropped tighter and therefore declined. If it is the marina, then the subject is not sufficiently covered and therefore declined. --Florian Prischl 23:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not so bad --Mbdortmund 19:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --Pudelek 20:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good picture --JalalV 12:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Eusebius 12:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:MS Sonnenkönigin 01.JPG[edit]

MS Sonnenkönigin 01.JPG

  • Nomination a new ship MS Sonnenkönigin --Böhringer 11:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice View, precious moment, nice reflexions on the Ship! --Stefan-Xp 16:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice picture, but quite noisy. --Eusebius 12:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Where is this? The building in the background is visible well enough to be mentioned. Or maybe you can add coordinates? - Till.niermann 19:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy, especially along the ship's hull and the shore wall. Nice picture otherwise, maybe it can be cleaned up? --Florian Prischl 15:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree a bit noisy. --JalalV 14:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Eusebius 14:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lake clifton gnangarra 04.jpg[edit]

Lake clifton gnangarra 04.jpg

  • Nomination salt crust on the surface of Lake Clifton Gnangarra 17:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that image plane (focus) is ahead of the grass. --Eusebius 19:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looking at the image at 400% it does appear ok to me, but the plant isnt the primary subject the salt crust is it floating on the water surface moving with the wave motion. Gnangarra 12:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a really tricky candidate. I do not think it is 100% QU material due to the somewhat blurred plants and possibly(?) blurred water surface, but that is too hard for me to judge. The uniform surface makes it very hard to distinguish much. I'll look at it some more. --Florian Prischl 16:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'll withdraw this image while theres been consideration and discussion no one has voice an opinion either way though the discussion is leaning towards decline. It was a difficult subject matter the other images I took I'm not happy with the compositions, taking whats been said its only 120 kms(60-70 miles) from here so next time I'm out that way I'll see if I can improve on this image thanks to everyone for their input. Gnangarra 12:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fly drops.jpg[edit]

Fly drops.jpg

  • Nomination Pollen is edible, but probably less tasty in this form --Tony Wills 22:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What a unique series of photos! Good capture. --JalalV 13:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment An id on the hoverfly (Eristalis sp?) would be nice. Lycaon 23:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
    ✓ 'Tis done --Tony Wills 18:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 07:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cufut Qale kenassa.jpg[edit]

Cufut Qale kenassa.jpg

  • Nomination Cufut Qale kenassa --Butko 16:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I simply like it. A quaint building.--JalalV 12:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed sky (and CA, but not too much). --Eusebius 12:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ac Eusibius. --Lestath 19:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Lestath 19:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:AchenseeWinter06.JPG[edit]

AchenseeWinter06.JPG

  • Nomination Winter am Achensee --Böhringer 13:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Da hast aber ganz schün Schieflage. Sorry but its tilt! --Simonizer 17:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    bei der Kälte :-)) ✓ Done --Böhringer 07:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good, thanks for that but after a second consideration i find it not sharp enough for QI --Simonizer 08:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I really liked this picture and thought it was sharp enough. Changed it to "Discuss" --JalalV 12:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharping is enough --Pudelek 19:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice atmosphere --Mbdortmund 08:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 09:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Stave_Hill_and_Canary_Wharf,_London_-_April_2008.jpg[edit]

Stave Hill and Canary Wharf, London - April 2008.jpg

  • Nomination Canary Wharf, London, by User:Diliff. --Dschwen 04:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very good picture... There is a bit of motion blur in the trees and the colours look a bit unnatural, because of the somewhat artificial exposure. --Eusebius 07:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is good work. I can count 4 dust spots in the sky. --Specious 19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    Removed 4 dust spots. Is it better? --Eusebius 22:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes! --Specious 16:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportSymbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why was this moved to CR in the first place? --Florian Prischl 16:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawing my inital support vote as long as dust spots are not fixed. Would support otherwise. --Florian Prischl (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Now that the dust spots are cleaned. --Florian Prischl 15:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol support vote.svg Support Images with dust spots can't be QI. It is relatively easy to remediate. Lycaon 18:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you are right. I changed my vote accordingly. This should not be too hard to fix. --Florian Prischl (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the quality anymore. Lycaon 22:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Last vote occured on (15:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)) --Eusebius 20:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 22:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Drei-Zinnen-Hütte.jpg[edit]

Drei-Zinnen-Hütte.jpg

  • Nomination The "Dreizinnenhütte" in the Dolomites --High Contrast 10:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good Work, sharp and nice. Please add coordinates ;) --Stefan-Xp 16:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have just added the Coordinates of the camera position ;) --High Contrast 15:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not too fond of the lack of crispness and the downsampling. Lycaon 22:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice composition, but very unsharp/uncrisp, some artifacts, seems a little oversharpened. --Florian Prischl 15:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek 20:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful. Even if it is not that sharp. --TwoWings 12:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Tony Wills 20:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Saba School of Medicine.jpg[edit]

Saba School of Medicine.jpg

  • Nomination The Bottom, the largest settlement on the island Saba. Image by User:Simonwwong. – Ilse@ 15:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposition, colors and details. It's OK. --ComputerHotline 17:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but it is far too small --Simonizer 17:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Size requirements not met (please check before nominating). Lycaon 19:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too small --Ianare 00:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 19:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chateau de St Germain-en-laye.JPG[edit]

Chateau de St Germain-en-laye.JPG

  • Nomination Saint-Germain-en-Laye castle. --KoS 14:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad perspective, distortions. --Lestath 19:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment could be good enough if perspective would be corrected --Mbdortmund 14:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lestath. Lycaon 07:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like the perspective as it is (with this POV, perspective correction would look very artificial) but barrel distortion (due to short focale?) is distracting. --Eusebius 14:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Eusebius 12:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Arbutus andrachne leaves (Ab plant 101).jpg[edit]

Arbutus andrachne leaves (Ab plant 101).jpg

  • Nomination Arbutus andrachne leaves --Butko 16:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • No main feature to focus on. --JalalV 12:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a botanical shot. Leaves are the topic. Lycaon 23:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful. _Fukutaro 17:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I suppose I need to add the "opp" button. I realise leaves are the topic, but my eye isn't drawn to any particular angle, branch, leaf, etc. When I look at the picture, my eye keeps wandering, looking for something to focus on. --JalalV 01:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Lycaon 07:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Hohenzollern Castle03.JPG[edit]

Hohenzollern Castle03.JPG

  • Nomination Castle Hohenzollern --Böhringer 22:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough, I'm afraid. Apart from that I like it! --Eusebius 13:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sharp enough. --Ianare 20:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and very noisy. _Fukutaro 16:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurry, noisy, pixelated/artifacts - multiple problems. --Florian Prischl 18:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
no support votes, should no have been in CR. Lycaon 13:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Larus novaehollandiae gnangarra[edit]

Larus novaehollandiae gnangarra 01.jpg

  • Nomination Larus novaehollandiae, Silver Gull Gnangarra 01:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportCorrect details, color and exposure. --ComputerHotline 13:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sharp enough at full resolution. --Ianare 20:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Much too unsharp, very fuzzy around the head. --Florian Prischl 18:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 23:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Glowstick.svg[edit]

Glowstick.svg

  • Nomination How a glowstick works --Pbroks13 02:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportLooks ok to me. Lycaon 07:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks good, but could the vial be completely broken into two pieces in the last frame, just to make the process more visually obvious? --Bdesham 19:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Pbroks13 01:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks! --Bdesham 04:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeMmm... I think not good illustration when see the reality and quality of drawing. It easy to knowing, though. _Fukutaro 15:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I'm sorry, but what do you mean? What is wrong with the quality of the drawing? Pbroks13 16:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I can see that it is easy work for QI. _Fukutaro 18:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --High Contrast 17:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would like to see more realism on the glass vial : in the second section it's not angled at the crack (if it's not angled, how did it break ?); in the last section I think a line showing that it is round would make it look more realistic, as of now it looks like too flat. --Ianare 21:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I concure with Ianare, but also thing the whole stick needs a better perspective. Currently it looks a little off to me, although I cannot say exactly what is bothering me, sorry. I think it might be the fact that the glass vial is too flat, making the whole glowstick look strange. I would like to see this improved, though, because I think it would be a good addition to the Commons as a QI! --Florian Prischl 18:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 15:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Domestic cat felis catus itching.jpg[edit]

Domestic cat felis catus itching.jpg

  • Nomination Domestic cat --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Correct downsampled. Lycaon 21:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Re:2.7mp well above 2mp requierement Muhammad Mahdi Karim 05:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --High Contrast 17:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- DOF a bit too shalow --Ianare 20:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very shallow DOF. --Florian Prischl 18:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 15:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Claddaghring.jpg[edit]

Claddaghring.jpg

  • Nomination Gold Royal Claddagh Ring Lvova 11:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Background is not white. --ComputerHotline 12:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it is better not to have a white background, as white would be too much contrast. I support the colors as-is, and move to discuss. --JalalV 16:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image is tilted (line of simmerty not vertical).#!George Shuklin 18:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --High Contrast 17:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilted, distracting background (uniform color, not neccessarily white, would have been better). --Florian Prischl 18:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 15:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Housefly on Moringa.jpg[edit]

Housefly on Moringa.jpg

  • Nomination Housefly --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 09:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great details, correct exposure. --ComputerHotline 11:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much undisclosed manipulation (stitched leg ??). Lycaon 19:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Manipulation was a focus stacking. I have added that to the image page. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 03:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Focus stacking is disturbing here, there is a noticeable gap between sharpness planes. --Eusebius 10:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, great attempt, but having bands in focus, out of focus, then in focus again (look at the plant) is disturbing. --Tony Wills 11:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It was my first attempt at focus stacking and only fifth or so shot with my prime macro lens, so it was bound to go wrong. :) Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Eusebius. --Florian Prischl 18:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Canavalia rosea flower[edit]

Canavalia rosea flower.JPG

  • Nomination Canavalia rosea flower --Ianaré 05:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct focus, DoF, colors and details. It's very beautiful. --ComputerHotline 10:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Banner blown and pixelated. Lycaon 19:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon. Also, the composition is not great - it's not a real macro, it's not a real "full" shot. This makes it a strange to look at and a little distracting. --Florian Prischl 17:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Dijon - Musée archéologique - dédicace.jpg[edit]

Dijon - Musée archéologique - dédicace.jpg

  • Nomination Dedication of the Roman thermae of Vertault, France. --Eusebius 09:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not enough light. --ComputerHotline 12:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in my opinion lighting is ok --Pudelek 21:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lighting ok. --Lansbricae 23:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Pudelek and Lansbricae, lighting is fine and enhances the photo considerably. --Florian Prischl (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 15:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Jerusalem BW 1.JPG[edit]

Jerusalem BW 1.JPG

  • Nomination Jerusalem with the Mount Moriah, seen from the Mount of Olives --Berthold Werner 15:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think is good for QI --Pudelek 16:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Edges are leaning (considerably) outwards, sky is not homogeneous (dark in the middle). Lycaon 19:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe thats because the sky is not homogeneous across large angles. One thing breaks the isotropy: the sun! The lean should be corrected though. --Dschwen 17:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what you mean with "lean". --Berthold Werner 10:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon, strong tilt along the edges, also could use some contrast enhancement. --Florian Prischl 17:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

UNIQA-Tower-Fassade-01.JPG[edit]

UNIQA-Tower-Fassade-01.JPG

  • Nomination Facade of the UNIQA-Tower, in the 2nd district of Vienna, Austria --Priwo 18:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A difficult one. The perspective shows too little of the actual facade and is more a statement or artistic observation of the facade, and not a faithful depiction. The composition creates too much sky. Overall, I decline. --Florian Prischl 19:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There was an image that was deemed "QI" which had more sky and less facade and I think it also was accepted for FP. -- carol 21:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • While I do not think it is relevant, could you give me a link to thtat? Thanks! --Florian Prischl 21:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC) TransAmerica Pyramid.jpg
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is an interesting view of the building, allowed by its particular architecture. Although the point of view wouldn't make it eligible for a VI, I see no problem for a QI. --Eusebius 15:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the composition is personal taste, but the quality is ok --Simonizer 09:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Lycaon (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Raisin Cinnamon Bagel.jpg[edit]

Raisin Cinnamon Bagel.jpg

  • Nomination Bagel with raisins and cinnamon --AlexanderKlink 22:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 13:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This being a studio shot, the DOF should be much deeper. This is too shallow. Otherwise OK. --Florian Prischl 19:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I will oppose for all those studio shots with the harsh shadow and the artificially cut background. --Ikiwaner 21:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 11:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Most Piastowski nocą.jpg[edit]

Most Piastowski nocą.jpg

  • Nomination Piastowski bridge in Opole (Oppeln) by night --Pudelek 19:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support because of the atmosphere --Mbdortmund 21:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Since the subject of this photo is the bridge, the whole bridge needs to be on it. Oppose for composition --Florian Prischl 18:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Florian. --Lestath 14:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 11:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Altstadt Lindos02.JPG[edit]

Altstadt Lindos02.JPG

  • Nomination Lindos, Rhodos --Böhringer 16:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very nice composition and for my taste still, it needs to be corrected C/A and a tilt. -Fukutaro 16:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strongly tilted. --Florian Prischl 18:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • That is easy problem. It could be corrected enough. _Fukutaro 07:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 11:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Domestic cat felis catus stare.jpg[edit]

Domestic cat felis catus stare.jpg

  • Nomination Domestic cat --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful colors, DoF and details --ComputerHotline 13:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting angle that shows the cat neither in profile nor face-on. Composition (framing) also not advantageous. --Florian Prischl 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Would support a cropped version (I uploaded one, please revert if you don't like it). The image size obviously decreased, but the depth of field of the whole image is now acceptable for me. I tried to photography my cat(s) and I can relate: it's quite hard to either have a nice depth of field and eyes in focus. Diti 15:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 22:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)