Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 2009

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

File:Ice crystals on the box.jpg[edit]

Ice crystals on the box.jpgIce crystals on the cake's box 3.jpg

  • Nomination Ice crystals.--Mbz1 22:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The almost square crop and questions about "the cake box" make me hesitate before promoting this image. -- carol 01:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    Carol, thank you for the interest in my image. Please take a look here File:Ice crystals at the cake box2.jpg (it is not the same image that was cropped of for the nomination, but similar). You see the cake in a box with ice crystals. If I did not crop my image, sure somebody would have been complaining about background. So, I cropped it. I like ice. There's no ice in San Francisco, except local grocery stores.Thank you,--Mbz1 18:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support (first version) It was easier to understand by seeing the whole photograph, thank you for providing it. More than snow, I miss the real and often quick changes in the air pressure no matter what the season. -- carol (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 03:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Pill MMB 09 Harbour.jpg[edit]

Pill MMB 09 Harbour.jpg

  • Nomination Boats in the creek at Pill (Somerset). Mattbuck 23:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Four or five dust spots in the sky, probably one in the water (near the right edge of the picture). Once corrected I'd gladly support. --Eusebius 21:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Corrected these things. Mattbuck 14:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Support now. --Eusebius 14:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Still at least four dust spots (three left top sky, one left of tallest mast). Lycaon 16:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Removed those too, but frankly those were invisible without messing with the levels. Mattbuck 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 19:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 03:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Krutvatnet_NR.jpg[edit]

Krutvatnet NR.jpg

  • Nomination Lake Krutvatnet (Norway) --Siebengang 11:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too noisy --Pudelek 21:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree, some film grain visible. Uploaded new version with some noise reduction applied (present filename / link is new version) --Siebengang 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? carol 03:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As said before, the present version is much better concerning noise and the only opposing comment refers to an old version of the image. --Siebengang 16:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps re-nominate the improved version. -- carol (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:SchwebfliegeMorgentau4.JPG[edit]

SchwebfliegeMorgentau4.JPG

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw Eusebius 11:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Icicles Partnachklamm rb.jpg[edit]

Icicles Partnachklamm rb.jpg

  • Nomination Icicles --Richard Bartz 03:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm ambivalent on this. It's a good photo, but I don't really like the bit on the left. IMO it's not good enough to promote, but not bad enough to decline. Mattbuck 15:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you should have remained neutral and not sent this to CR. --Eusebius 12:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a tiny bit noisy, but impressive detail and DOF --Ianare 18:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 21:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Aachen Cathedral North View at Evening.jpg[edit]

Aachen Cathedral North View at Evening.jpg

  • Nomination Aachen Cathedral, north facade. -- Aleph 15:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good point of view, but too much shadows on the trees and the cathedral. -- MJJR 19:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    As this is a north facade, there never is more light. You have to wait for evening at summer, until the sun lights this part of the cathedral. You can check other images, if you like. -- Aleph 21:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    I understand your problem, but nevertheless the shadows are too disturbing for a QI qualification IMO. MJJR 17:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    Is your screen adjusted correctly? You can clearly see in the histogram that there are no underexposed areas. In fact, the opposite is the case: There is a small amount of overexposure. -- -- Aleph 13:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nobody said it was underexposed, only that the shadows were distracting. --Eusebius 14:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree, this might be one of those candidates for cloudy days. It will be a bit more flat, but the light will be even. Dori 03:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 21:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Episkop BW 1.JPG[edit]

Episkop BW 1.JPG

  • Nomination Episcope --Berthold Werner 16:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is too much space at the sides, but not enough at the top. But overall, it's well done. -- Aleph 15:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Too tight crop at the top. Also, for a studio shot could be sharper. A good picture anyhow, but I'm not sure if it is worth a QI stamp. --Siipikarja 22:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine by me. Diti 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 13:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Israel Masada BW 12.JPG[edit]

Israel Masada BW 12.JPG

  • Nomination Masada, Columbarium --Berthold Werner 07:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok in my opinion. -- Aleph 14:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is there a name for the columbarium? The white balance seems to be bit off, i.e. the sky is reddish. --Siipikarja 22:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The columbarium has no name and it's an assumption that it is was a columbarium. Colours corrected. --Berthold Werner 08:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment White balance still looks a bit out to me. Red channel is a bit over exposed. Also there is a strange edit artifact on the left hand edge: a couple of bricks down the wall there is a oddly coloured grey bit (view at 100%), perhaps an accidental edit. --Tony Wills 11:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 13:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Reflections of Earth 11.jpg[edit]

Reflections of Earth 11.jpg

  • Nomination The Reflections of Earth fireworks at Walt Disney World. --Bdesham 04:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurry image, also please rotate clockwise -Dmottl 10:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've rotated the image. I don't think it's blurry… which part of the photo are you referring to? --Bdesham 03:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment . Thank you Bdesham. I think houses can be somewhat sharper, sorry. --Dmottl 22:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I've improved the sharpness down at the bottom of the picture. --Bdesham 22:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
          • ... like previous - not much difference, imho. It is rather difficult to take sharp images at night :) --Dmottl 22:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 14:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

File:Sea Mills bridge rust2.jpg[edit]

Sea Mills railway station MMB 17.jpg

  • Nomination: A rusty bridge over the River Trym in Bristol. Mattbuck 00:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good, can't find any faults. Dori 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose low resolution for this image size --Dmottl 21:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You're opposing because the file size is too large? It's the file size the camera took it at, so I would assume it is the right file size. Maybe it's because of detail in the rust there aren't many commonalities to allow easy compression. Mattbuck 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A little detail, I think -- Dmottl 10:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> Draw -- Lycaon 14:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

File:Larus_delawarensis_flight_4.jpg[edit]

Larus delawarensis flight 4.jpg

  • Nomination Larus delawarensis in flight. --Ianare 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is significant overexposure. Dori 03:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good shot --Dmottl 15:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Overexposure in the neck of the gull, but overall a quality image. --Siipikarja 23:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit unsharp, but very nice! Diti 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 13:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Grenoble - Saint-Louis - orgue.jpg[edit]

Grenoble - Saint-Louis - orgue.jpg

  • Nomination Organ of the church Saint-Louis in Grenoble. --Eusebius 17:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Organs are often difficult to shoot. Think it's ok --Berthold Werner 15:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Its not good sharpness. And, I don't like this composition what is cut off ground and arch tip. _Fukutaro 15:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The same reasons what Fukutaro said. --Siipikarja 13:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 13:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Snow RB.jpg[edit]

Snow RB.jpg

  • Nomination Snow --Richard Bartz 03:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yawn.[2] -- carol 04:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Uniqueness etc isn't a requirement for QI, what are the technical faults? --Tony Wills 09:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    If you feel that I mishandled this image, feel free to change it to discuss. -- carol 13:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe it should be declined, but it is traditional to state the reasons ;-) --Tony Wills 19:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't actually remember considering any of the criteria for QIC consideration before (and since) declining this image. -- carol (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I have to say I don't think this is a particularly good image. There's not anything technically wrong with it per se, it's just... not that good. Mattbuck 16:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I just don't get your point here. It is a nice still life photograph, image quality is good. The composition could be a bit less centered, but we are not talking about Featured Pictures here. -- Aleph 14:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not enough detail, should have more DOF IMO. Dori 03:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSymbol neutral vote.svg Neutral What Mattbuck said. --Siipikarja 23:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 13:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck says moreless nothing and this smells like arbitrariness. Starting deciding based on a subjective impression is a strange trend - if you haven't a concrete opinion then you dont need to put in your two cents. If you think it's boring or you can't do anything with it then remain neutral. I mean what's wrong with the picture ? It's simply snow - no banging landscape panorama, maybe not entertaining but this isn't a entertainment channel here. It displays snow in a very minimalistic way. You can even look beneath and the shadows are very fine. There are hundred of QI pictures with a centered composition --Richard Bartz 01:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is not an entertainment channel here, you're right. This is an educational channel. From Commons upload form: "Wikimedia Commons is for educational or informational content." Commons already has plenty of pictures from snow. Now, what does this picture contribute? As Tony Wills pointed out earlier, uniqueness is not a requirement for a QI. I don't see any technical flaws in the picture, so I change my vote to neutral. But from my point of view, the picture still has little or no educational/informational content. --Siipikarja (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It shows a state which is called crusted snow a layer of snow on the surface of the snowpack that is stronger than the snow below, which may be powder snow. So I can't see a reason why it should be useless, moreover it's inventive packaged for such a dry subject . --Richard Bartz 15:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fair enough. Please add the information you provided to the description template of the image. When someone needs an image of crusted snow, he/she will find your image easier. --Siipikarja 15:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF, colours --Mbdortmund 01:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: the last oppose does not count as it was added after the 48 hours, however, the outcome would have been the same with or without it. -- carol (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Gyejoksan Fortress.jpg[edit]

Gyejoksan Fortress.jpg

  • Nomination Gyejoksan Fortress --YooChung 04:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline * I would decline, because the colour of the sky does not look realistic to me. But I'd like another opinion here. --Aleph 15:18, 29 January 2009
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice picture. But it seems that the sky was manipulated, which caused JPEG artifacts. -- MJJR 19:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    The sky wasn't manipulated, although I did notice the sky being unnaturally clear and blue. I just attributed it to being early in the morning with very clear skies. On the other hand, I may have raised the saturation a bit too much ... -- YooChung 15:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    I believe you when you say the sky wasn't manipulated, but the problem of the JPEG artifacts in the transition zone between the darker and the lighter blue remains. MJJR 17:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - You should consider taking your photographs in RAW format rather than in jpeg format. Then tune the white balance manually on your computer. You will achieve much better results then. -- Aleph 14:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversaturated image --Dmottl 10:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Oppose, oversaturated --Siipikarja (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Siipikarja 11:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Butterfly portrait.jpg[edit]

Butterfly portrait.jpg

  • Nomination Butterfly portrait --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 17:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not identified. Lycaon 20:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Lycaon 11:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg QuestionHans, what are the silvery 2 dots underneath the eyes, left and right of the snout? --Richard Bartz 01:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now identified and updated the description page --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 04:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support i like this angle, usually not seen in butterfly pictures. nice job! --Ianare 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this is good for QI --Böhringer 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund 23:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Siipikarja 11:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Równica drogowskaz na szczycie p.jpg[edit]

Równica drogowskaz na szczycie p.jpg

  • Nomination Równica - Trail signs, Beskid Śląski, Poland Przykuta 08:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I quote Mattbuck from another image as it is what I think of this image: "I have to say I don't think this is a particularly good image. There's not anything technically wrong with it per se, it's just... not that good." --Siipikarja 14:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please state a concrete reason --Richard Bartz 15:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Concrete reason: it does not please my eye. Should have narrower DOF to bring out the subject from the background. --Siipikarja 15:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 07:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Trier Kaiserthermen BW 1.JPG[edit]

Trier Kaiserthermen BW 1.JPG

  • Nomination Imperial Baths (Kaiserthermen) in Trier --Berthold Werner 13:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Judging from the vertical lines, the image should be rotated clockwise. Interesting subject, anyhows. --Siipikarja 15:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    Corrected. --Berthold Werner 17:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Changed my vote. Although I must say, that the image still seems a little bit inclined. Since you've probably checked that it is not inclined, it must be only an illusion that the wall limiting the field creates. --Siipikarja 10:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund 00:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 07:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Hypernova in Ružomberok.jpg[edit]

Hypernova in Ružomberok.jpg

  • Nomination Hypernova hypermarket in Ružomberok, Slovakia --Pudelek 13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subject too dark. --Siipikarja 14:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment this is NIGHT --Pudelek 15:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sure it is, but the subject is still too dark. --Siipikarja 15:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 07:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Vlkolínec - houses.JPG[edit]

Vlkolínec - houses.JPG

  • Nomination Vlkolínec - historically a separate village, now part of Ružomberok. Since 1993 is part of the UNESCO World Heritage. --Pudelek 10:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please geocode. --Siipikarja 14:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info done --Pudelek 15:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks. --Siipikarja 15:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very natural. --Manco Capac 15:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 07:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Pisaura mirabilis on Plantago lanceolata.jpg[edit]

Pisaura mirabilis on Plantago lanceolata.jpg

  • Nomination Nursery web spider (Pisaura mirabilis) on Ribwort Plantain(Plantago lanceolata) in lurking stance --Richard Bartz 23:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support has the long legs :-I --Böhringer 07:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good use of DOF, strange composition. --Siipikarja 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Adding to my previous comment: not using the rule of thirds, yet not centered. --Siipikarja 14:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The textbook, yes - working on a 3x3 grid is the only satisfaction ? Cheese, joy and pancake. Can you show me a rule of thirds on this picture, please ? --> Kowloon Clock Tower June 18 2007 rectified.jpg How about tension and artistic freedom ? --Richard Bartz 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The rule exists, because photos composed conforming to the rule please eye. Not the other way around i.e. photos should conform to the rule just for the sake of the rule. Anyhow, I would center the subject in this picture because there is too much space on the left side. --Siipikarja 10:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment About this picture: Kowloon Clock Tower June 18 2007 rectified.jpg, there is no rule of thirds, but we're not evaluating that picture. --Siipikarja 10:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's OK - let's be piky --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good DOF, quality, background. A perfect QI and also a good FPC --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 20:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 07:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Livorno Monumento Leopoldo II Piazza XX Settembre 2.jpg[edit]

Livorno Monumento Leopoldo II Piazza XX Settembre 2.jpg

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Slight chromatic aberration is visible. Could use lower depth of field to bring attention to the main subject. Composition is good. --Siipikarja 13:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting --Manco Capac 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 07:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Dijon - Palais des ducs - Minerve crop 1.jpg[edit]

Dijon - Palais des ducs - Minerve crop 1.jpg

  • Nomination: Ducal palace in Dijon. Maybe better crops can be suggested, this is the widest I can provide. --Eusebius 21:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info replaced by a better crop. --Eusebius 07:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think I would promote it except for the green/purple chromatic aberration seen down the sides of black objects like the downpipes and flag-poles (moving to discuss so that it doesn't drop off the bottom of QIC)--Tony Wills 10:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> draw --Eusebius 22:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Echeveria setosaCRH.JPG[edit]

Echeveria setosaCRH.JPG

  • Nomination Mexican Fire Cracker (Echeveria setosa) --IvanTortuga 06:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Only about half of the image is in focus. Cropping it down to the useable parts (in particular the large plant just to the left of center) would be greatly beneficial. --Jonny-mt 15:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support original photo (not croped) dated 06:53, 5 February 2009. Disagree with Berthold Werner about "useable parts" -- Dmottl 20:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I haven't said anything about this photograph!? --Berthold Werner 09:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support both versions, prefer original one --Dmottl 09:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support original photo as well (shallow DOF provides bokeh framing) Notjake13 21:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 09:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't disagree that shallow DOF can be very beneficial for framing, but this seems like too much frame to me. I think the two plants that are in focus are sharp and beautifully rendered, but in my view the significant amount of bokeh surrounding them distracts from what should be the subject(s) of the picture. The user was kind enough to upload a cropped version here that I like immensely. (It also takes care of the odd black protrusion in the top left corner of the image.) --Jonny-mt 11:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What Jonny-mt said. I like the cropped version better. The top left corner dark thing should not be there. --Siipikarja 13:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment So there are two supports for this one and two supports for the cropped? Or just two supports and two opposes? --IvanTortuga 18:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This chaos should be moved to consensual review --Richard Bartz 18:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pure white overexposed highlights disturb. Lycaon 08:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ružomberok wieczorem1.jpg[edit]

Ružomberok wieczorem1.jpg

  • Nomination Ružomberok in the evening --Pudelek 13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A bit blueish. --Siipikarja 14:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting distortion, I agree that the chosen colour temperature is too cold (although it could serve a purpose here). --Eusebius 08:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:OP-Pohjola HQ January 31 2009.jpg[edit]

OP-Pohjola HQ January 31 2009.jpg

  • Nomination A corporate HQ in Helsinki, Finland. --Siipikarja 22:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSky is too noisy for me, and there are dust spots. --Eusebius 21:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Removed noise and dust spots from the sky. Fortuitously this also reduced the file size from 6.58 MB to 4.71 MB. Thanks for your feedback. --Siipikarja 00:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective distortion. I can't find not a single horizontal line, nor a vertical. How about keystone correction  ? --Richard Bartz 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dmottl 08:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    ✓ Done You're right Richard, there was a perspective distortion. I did a keystone correction, but left the vertical lines still slightly tilted since making them dead vertical made the building look like ice cream cone -shaped. By the way, thanks for introducing me the term keystone correction. --Siipikarja 12:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome --Richard Bartz 13:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment without keystone correction looks better for me --null 17:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That's what I think also. With the correction the building does not look natural. Perhaps I overdid the correction? What do you think? --Siipikarja 22:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment After having a second look at the image, I decided to revert the keystone correction. The picture might have a perspective distortion, but the building looks more natural without the correction. This is quite a challenging image as what comes to perspective: straight lines with perpendicular planes shot from a difficult angle. --Siipikarja 10:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality looks good, and I have absolutely no problem with natural perspective in this picture. --Eusebius 08:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 11:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Larus_delawarensis_flight_2.jpg[edit]

Larus delawarensis flight 2.jpg

  • Nomination Larus delawarensis in flight. --Ianare 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice! --Lucarelli 23:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think it's as sharp as it should be. Dori 03:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Larus_delawarensis_flight_4.jpg (upper photo) is better --Dmottl 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not perfect, but I like colours and composition --Mbdortmund 01:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Dori. Lycaon 14:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I understand the opposes, but I think it is good enough. I especially like the point of view we have on the bird, and the composition. --Eusebius 08:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 11:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:La foire de Beaucroissant.JPG[edit]

La foire de Beaucroissant.JPG

  • Nomination La foire de Beaucroissant, by Théodore Ravanat. --Eusebius 22:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ouch, looks very dark now that I've switched to another monitor... Neither is calibrated, so if somebody wants to adjust levels, feel free. --Eusebius 08:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Not a work by a common'er. Lycaon 10:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    Seems to have precedents :-o. Lycaon 12:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Decline. Distorted, and some rather annoying reflections on the right. Mattbuck 15:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    OK about the reflections, but not ok about the distortions, the canvas is not rectangular: I based myself on a metallic rectangular frame, just outside the picture. Not QI anyway, I guess. --Eusebius 15:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We are evaluating how well the painting is reproduced, so buckled frame and dark colours are probably a correct reproduction. --Tony Wills 11:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dmottl 07:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 11:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Den-sorte-diamant.jpg[edit]

Den-sorte-diamant.jpg

  • Nomination Harbourside facade shot of Royal Library, Copenhagen --Pbn-dk 01:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown sky. Lycaon 08:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please explain. The guidelines say that "details in a significant part of image" should be retained, which they are. --Pbn-dk 13:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Barrel distortion in the wall at the lower part of the image. --Siipikarja 21:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 08:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:October Revolution celebration 1983.png[edit]

October Revolution celebration 1983.png

  • Nomination Soviet tanks on parade in 1983 --High Contrast 11:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Super! -- Villa16 17:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Definitely valuable, maybe some kind of wow factor, but no QI for technical reasons (spots due to scanning or to aging photo paper, people in the foreground). --Eusebius 18:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very interesting picture, but sadly the small scratches and spots make this a non-QI. --Siipikarja 17:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 08:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ružomberok - night.jpg[edit]

Ružomberok - night.jpg

  • Nomination Ružomberok by night (in the background industrial area) --Pudelek 09:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice - good contrast between the fore and back. Mattbuck 12:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Should be geocoded. For the small size the lacking of sharpness on the borders, the overblown exposure on the wall on the right side (as well the lightsources) and the noise value isn't acceptable. --Richard Bartz 23:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment where is noisy and unsharp? --Pudelek 09:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On the edge region left and the upper half --Richard Bartz 10:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Richard. Lycaon 08:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed wall on the right side. --Siipikarja 17:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 08:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Cam-based analog computer.jpg[edit]

Cam-based analog computer.jpg

  • Nomination Cam-based analog computer indication device --Twdragon 13:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF looks too narrow to me (why so long a focale?) and I think the bottom crop is too tight. --Eusebius 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree - bottom crop is too tight, nevertheless - support --Dmottl 21:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much CA for me, even the shadows colour magenta left and greenish right. Lycaon 08:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "Magenta" is from one color decomposition and "Green"ish is from another. Could you choose one color model or another whence critiquing? -- carol (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I could but here one side is definite the other 'ish. Lycaon 16:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 08:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Kungstradgarden-Karl-XII.jpg[edit]

Kungstradgarden-Karl-XII.jpg

  • Nomination Royal statue in central Stockholm with comic effects --Pbn-dk 01:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown sky. Lycaon 08:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please explain. The guidelines say that "details in a significant part of image" should be retained, which they are. --Pbn-dk 13:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Also the statue has overexposed parts. A QI has to be technically (near) perfect. Lycaon 18:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Cabin at Allegany State Park.jpg[edit]

Cabin at Allegany State Park.jpg

  • Nomination A cabin at Allegany State Park in New York. --Bdesham 18:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chromatic aberration. --Siipikarja 14:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've reduced the aberration, could you please re-review? --Bdesham 03:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Re-reviewed. I changed my vote to neutral. --Siipikarja 11:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The snow in front of and on top of the cabin may be overexposed, have you tried to reduce brightness from these zones? --Siipikarja 10:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I've retrieved a lot of detail from the snow… how does it look now? --Bdesham 17:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • A lot better. I stay neutral with this one. --Siipikarja 22:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - QI for me --Pudelek 21:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 11:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Spider Wasp 01.jpg[edit]

Spider Wasp 01.jpg

  • Nomination Small spider wasp up close, side view --Tony Wills 11:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a good Pic --Böhringer 07:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs a better id than just the family. The whole pic is about the wasp! Lycaon 23:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes surely it does, but where do I get one from? Unfortunately it turns out there are not dozens of experts on NZ beasties :-(. I suspect that the best way to get a name for a lot of NZ species is to name them myself (might have to study for a few years to get some credibility :-). I know there are lots of undescribed spiders, it now appears that many sites that attach species names to pictures of NZ flies may not be very precise (see File talk:Fly feeding on fly 01.jpg). So far I have only managed to get acknowledgement that these photos are indeed pompilidae but no one yet is willing to give a more specific diagnosis. Lastly QI criteria state "This should include the Taxa naming for organisms" - the image meets this requirement ;-) --Tony Wills 11:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment should IMHO be cropped --Mbdortmund 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info Nearest I can find is Priocnemis conformis --Tony Wills 01:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would only put a specific name if I was convinced. In this case family may not suffice but genus might. Insects can be very difficult, but surely there must be some specialists around. Look up the genus/family on Google Scholar and check out who is currently heading the field;then send them a mail. That's what I e.g. did for this file. You can't know them all. I don't feel pity for those that say: "I'm not a botanist" or "I don't know anything about 17th century architecture". I you don't kow, ask. Just my 2 €-cents. Lycaon 08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The foreground gray blurry area is disturbing. --Siipikarja 17:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is her life raft, the wasp was standing on a small floating (semi-submerged) block of sawn wood which it had managed to climb onto from the water. I lifted it out of the water so the wasp could dry out properly. --Tony Wills 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 10:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 12:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Details are good, but the distracting foreground ruins it for me. --Relic38 16:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    Already closed, sorry. --Eusebius 18:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Vitznau-Rigibahn-Elektrische Motorwagen.JPG[edit]

Vitznau-Rigibahn-Elektrische Motorwagen.JPG

  • Nomination Electric motor coach in Switzerland --High Contrast 16:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition, however, minor objections are cut tower and a dust spot at the right of it in the sky, more important is the overexposed snow. -- Klaus with K 20:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in my opinion is ok --Pudelek 23:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Significant overexposure (details lost in the snowy parts), very visible dust spot. --Eusebius 08:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same reasons that Klaus with K mentioned. --Siipikarja 17:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 13:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Tagebau Garzweiler Panorama 2005.jpg[edit]

Tagebau Garzweiler Panorama 2005.jpg

  • Nomination Panorama of open-pit mining Garzweiler, Germany (created by Raymond) --D-Kuru 00:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mediocre quality, washed out details, blown sky to the right. Lycaon 08:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The "washed out details" are due to thermical flicker which is caracteristic for an open pit mine of this size. Image meets the criteria in any aspect. Furthermore, the image gives an excellent impression of the dimensions of open pit coal mining. --High Contrast 09:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • That would make it an FP and possibly a VI but not necessarily a QI. Lycaon 07:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hard to vote against an FP, but I agree with Lycaon. The over exposed sky should not be there. --Siipikarja 17:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 13:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Vlkolínec - socha.JPG[edit]

Vlkolínec - socha.JPG

  • Nomination: Vlkolínec - historically a separate village, now part of Ružomberok. Since 1993 is part of the UNESCO World Heritage. --Pudelek 10:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please geocode. --Siipikarja 14:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info done --Pudelek 15:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks. --Siipikarja 15:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't really like the centred composition, but I guess it's the most adapted. I'd like to see some info on the image page about the sculpture (date and artist, if possible). --Eusebius 08:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> draw --Eusebius 13:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Trains[edit]

Nuernberg Trains 20080215 SK 003.jpg

  • Nomination Trains --Simonizer 17:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good composition, but the sky is overexposed. --Siipikarja 10:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry but the sky is not overexposed. Its wasnt a day with a blue sky when I took the picture. It was a very hazy day. There are some minor highlights in the snow but not in the sky. Other opinions please --Simonizer 16:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sky may not be pure white (#FFFFFF), but it is very close to it. It is distractingly bright. Since it is not overexposed, it should be possible to make the sky darker by simply adjusting the brightness / contrast. --Siipikarja 17:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It looks better if you increase the contrast. --Jolly Janner 17:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Sol de Manana Stevage.jpg[edit]

Sol de Manana Stevage.jpg

  • Nomination Geyser in Sol de Mañana --High Contrast 09:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Noisy sky, rocks a bit unsharp. --Eusebius 09:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    Is it pro or a con? --High Contrast 07:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    Con for me, but not an oppose. --Eusebius (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, then the Running total is 2 pro, 1 oppose, then, isn't it? --High Contrast 09:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes. --Eusebius 09:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Only very small noise and sharpness of the rocks is ok in my opinion. I would promote it for QI --Simonizer 09:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very cool image and the noise is not distracting at reasonable review sizes. J.smith 18:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed, possibly in-camera. Lycaon 20:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Oppose oversaturated Colors seem unnatural. --Siipikarja (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    Closed already. --Eusebius 11:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ilay_lake.jpg[edit]

Ilay lake.jpg

  • Nomination Ilay Lake, in the Jura Mountains, France --Stephanemartin 19:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it (composition and colours), even though (because?) most of it is black or very dark. --Eusebius 08:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At 1.47Mp, this image does not meet the minimum size requirements of 2Mp --Relic38 16:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose True, sorry about that. --Eusebius 13:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Liquid-filled-lensatic-compass-hdr-0a.jpg[edit]

Liquid-filled-lensatic-compass-hdr-0a.jpg

  • Nomination Liquid filled lensatic compass. --Adamantios 10:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support All ok. --Berthold Werner 14:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think I can see dust spots on the inside of the cap. --Jolly Janner 20:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    I Think it's on the compass itself !? --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think there is lots of dust on the compass itself, but there are two dust spots on the camera lens, which have resulted in two discoloured circles on the inside of the cap. Jolly Janner 12:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • For the moment. You can probably remove the dust spots using a tool. I might try it myself, if I'm allowed to. I'd much rather see an image improved rather than opposing it. I will support it if they are removed. Jolly Janner 15:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund 23:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dust spots should be removed. --Siipikarja 11:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Siipikarja 11:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I'll take another shot and nominate again. Danke für die Unterstützung! adamantios (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Pavillon Aubette.jpg[edit]

Pavillon Aubette.jpg

  • Nomination Schuppen slate roof in Strasbourg. --Coyau 20:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportLooks alright. Darkoneko 23:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed sky and window at the bottom. --Siipikarja 00:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sky was very grey and homogenous. --Coyau 12:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In my view it's OK: high sharpness level outbalanced (for me) --High Contrast 13:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 08:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File:ACA Boeing B763 C-FTCA.JPG[edit]

ACA Boeing B763 C-FTCA.JPG

  • Nomination Air Canada Boeing 767-300ER. --Phil13 20:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --Coyau 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Notyourbroom and Siipikarja are rignt. Can't be a QI without noise removal. --Coyau 15:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I see a lot of noise that could be smoothed out digitally... Especially if this is accepted, Phil13 should look into cleaning it up a bit. --Notyourbroom 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, removing the noise from the sky would make the picture better. --Siipikarja 10:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Noise removed. Lycaon 18:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - yeah, sure, why not. Mattbuck 18:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No problem now. --Coyau 18:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's all good. --Siipikarja 21:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 11:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Bergrettungsheim Brüggelekopf 1.JPG[edit]

Bergrettungsheim Brüggelekopf 1.JPG

  • Nomination Mountain rescue home --Böhringer 19:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is such a beautiful image pure and white! Thank you for uploading it.--Mbz1 22:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful, but lens flare should not be there. --Siipikarja 21:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    Unsigned comment, does not count (please sign). --Eusebius (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Sorry about that. --Siipikarja 21:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a really nice picture, but the lens flare is just too strong.--PieCam 03:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 21:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)