Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 2011

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

File:Beavertail Lighthouse from southeast.JPG[edit]

Beavertail Lighthouse from southeast.JPG

  • Nomination Beavertail Lighthouse in Rhode Island. Juliancolton 21:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good --George Chernilevsky 21:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp. The clouds at top are disturbing. Rule of thirds--Lmbuga 01:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Rule of thirds would lead to 75% of empty water. Central composition is more much appropriate here. Juliancolton 23:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Lmbuga, need to be crop --Chmee2 09:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

File:35 East Wacker.JPG[edit]

35 East Wacker.JPG

  • Nomination 35 East Wacker Chicago --Antoinetav 20:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To me, it's impossible the correction of the perspective distortion--Lmbuga 22:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, but in this case the distortion adds to the mood, in my opinion--Jebulon 11:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The distortion is too strong. We can not accept the one that we refuse to others. Dura lex ...--Archaeodontosaurus 14:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Perspective correction is easy here, and will make the photo better and highlight the main subject.--Ankara 17:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective distortion--Lmbuga 10:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Citrus_sinensis_close-up.jpg[edit]

Citrus sinensis close-up.jpg

  • Nomination Citrus sinensis --Ankara 15:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too much background noise and spot --Archaeodontosaurus 15:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Film grain is part of the image.--Ankara 16:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Requires a second positive vote to request the discussion. --Archaeodontosaurus 17:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. Uploader can request a discussion, and you can change without voting. --Ankara 17:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm sorry I misunderstood, and I made my excuses. --Archaeodontosaurus 18:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Archaeodontosaurus, plus the orange is unsharp in wide areas. -- H005 19:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I guess this film grain would be OK for Life Magazine 40 years ago, but today, with numeric technology or better film, QIs must be better than that. Less than 2 megapixels. Too small depth of field. Letartean 20:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    It is a matter of taste, if you prefer digital images with noise (or noise reduction that removes details) or film grain. It's not about quality. Lack of sharpness is a valid objection , and short DOF. IMO its not too small depth of field.--Ankara 21:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    I agree with you on matter of taste but if I ask myself what is the subject of this picture, my anwser would be: an orange. Then, it's not an orange from the seventies or an orange with noise, etc... QI pictures are pictures of things or places or people that are of good quality. In this case, it's front part is out of focus and back part is ok. This shows that it would need a larger depth of field to show a greater part of the fruit in focus. The picture also has to be larger than 2 megapixels which it is not. Overall, it is not of a good enough quality and if you compare to this or that you'll see that it could get better with another try. Hope it gets clearer and hope you'll try again and don't stop proposing pictures. Letartean 21:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for your kind explanation. Best regards--Ankara 21:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

File:F-16 cockpit.JPG[edit]

F-16 cockpit.JPG

  • Nomination The cockpit section of an F-16 fuselage. Photo takem by myself. --Airwolf 22:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not airwolf's usual quality, upper parts show no details --Mbdortmund 23:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not so bad IMO. Please let's discuss.--Jebulon 10:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed. Pitke 15:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Overexposed. Mattbuck 10:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Taj_Mahal,_Agra,_India_edit2.jpg[edit]

Taj Mahal, Agra, India edit2.jpg

  • Nomination Taj Mahal by Yann. --Jovianeye 06:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion *Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 13:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per here --Carschten 20:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Bin schwer von kapé, gönn uns doch mal einen Satz.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is surprising to see that edit 2 which is FP is not a QI whereas the original version is QI. IMO, the original version should delisted as QI and edit2 should be promoted! --JovianEye (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • imho both can be QI --Berthold Werner 15:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality IMO. --George Chernilevsky 11:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support By cropping you can do both IMO: spoil a QI picture, or correct composition and make a non-QI picture a QI worth. QI should not be given automaticly to derivatives, but it should not be forbidden to add QI seal to it. --sfu (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 18:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Karlsbodavägen_december_2010.jpg[edit]

Karlsbodavägen december 2010.jpg

  • Nomination Newly built residential building in Ulvsunda industrialområde. --Ankara 12:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Are the buildings leaning out from eachother in a slight v-shape in reality (seen from this position) or is it due to perspective correction? --V-wolf 08:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC) I added geocode, you can compare with the map. Perspective correction was very small here, there was basically nothing wrong with the original image.--Ankara 10:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I changed status to "discuss", to hear the others' opinions.--V-wolf 07:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Appears ok to me. --Cayambe 12:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 18:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Estpresident 1c300 8847.jpg[edit]

Estpresident 1c300 8847.jpg

  • Nomination Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia. Photo by Janwikifoto. --Wolfgangus Mozart 09:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Image is created not by a wikimedian as required for a QI, besides, the flashlight shadow is disturbing. Mbdortmund 12:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    There is a User:Janwikifoto, in fact. Airwolf 18:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)*the text signed by me comes from another user, perhaps he had JS turned of and an edit of mine transformed it into my nick. --Mbdortmund 00:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Important artifact in the middle of the bottom edge. --Archaeodontosaurus 09:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Népouite MHNT.MIN.2005.0.63.jpg[edit]

Népouite MHNT.MIN.2005.0.63.jpg

*Sorry, but the black background has a problem. There is lighter line. Also in left-down part of stone is strange border between minerals and black colour. Not QI now. --Chmee2 10:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportThank you for fixing, you have my support now --Chmee2 07:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Makele-90 03:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Makele-90 03:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Peterskirche Blansingen.jpg[edit]

Peterskirche Blansingen.jpg

  • Nomination Blansingen: Church St. Peter --Taxiarchos228 11:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. --Cayambe 12:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The vertical lines are not vertical.--Lmbuga 13:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose spective distortion --Archaeodontosaurus 13:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support imo a good one --Mbdortmund 23:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose distortion and perspective can be corrected. --Jovianeye 05:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Cayambe 08:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Estuaire de la Gironde - Arklow Ruler.jpg[edit]

Estuaire de la Gironde - Arklow Ruler.jpg

  • Nomination Green boat. --Coyau 03:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough --Chmee2 09:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor compositions & the ship coincides with the background --Tlusťa 17:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry. To me, it's not QI, perhaps good, but not QI: too much noise and color noise (sky). I don`t like the color of the sky (to me, not natural, but it is a personal idea). Too tight crop at right and at left, not sharp enough. As Tlusťa--Lmbuga 22:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Sorry I nominated this is ugly photo. --Coyau 06:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:LindauInsel.jpg[edit]

LindauInsel.jpg

  • Nomination Insel Lindau --Böhringer 20:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Good --George Chernilevsky 08:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)}
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose totaly blurred --Taxiarchos228 11:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful, but as Taxiarchos228--Lmbuga 22:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 08:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-02-02-salb-otan-1.jpg[edit]

2011-02-02-salb-otan-1.jpg

  • Nomination Operations room in an old NATO base. --ComputerHotline 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --Taxiarchos228 11:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not QI to me. Bad quality. Noised. Focus? But perhaps I am not right--Lmbuga 21:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose much too dark and poor cloning with errors and different focussed single farmes (for both see image notes) --Carschten 21:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not properly lit. --Eusebius 22:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 22:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Bushman's Paradise at Spitzkoppe 28.06.2008 11-06-56.jpg[edit]

Bushman's Paradise at Spitzkoppe 28.06.2008 11-06-56.jpg

  • Nomination Landscape in Namibia by Hansueli Krapf. --Bartiebert 18:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion * Symbol support vote.svg SupportSehr schön, heißer Kandidat für exzellente Bilder / features Pictures --Taxiarchos228 19:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's really nice image, however obviously it's panorama and they are several problems fitting each images together. I will mark these problematic zones like "double borders" of stones etc. Please, try to fix it, but not QI now. --Chmee2 20:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's fixed now. Thanks, QI --Chmee2 06:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. I don't really like the crop on the right side though. --Eusebius 22:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 22:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Kuhmar sdd 9400.jpg[edit]

Kuhmar sdd 9400.jpg

  • Nomination Sanatorium orphanage at Kukhmar, near Pereslavl, Russia. --PereslavlFoto 16:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the composition, see the car there in the back. Moreover the lightning is not pleasant, drastic changes between light and shadow allover, perhaps it was not the best time of the day to take the picture. --Gaendalf 18:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
IMHO the lightning shows that the scene is quiet, that's the main idea.--PereslavlFoto 21:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I do respect your opinion, but I don't share it. I don't perceive that through the lightning. I know the composition is not easy in this particular case because of the location. I do like the color of the building itself. It's a difficult shot, though! --Gaendalf 00:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown highlights on the main subject. --Eusebius 21:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 21:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz_F_700_3_amk.jpg[edit]

Mercedes-Benz F 700 3 amk.jpg

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz F 700 --AngMoKio 14:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNot enough space on the left, and I generally don't like the composition. Mattbuck 10:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg SupportImo QI --Mbdortmund 23:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight... Not enough space on the left, as Mattbuck--Lmbuga 21:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To me, in addition, too tight crop at right--Lmbuga 21:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Significant noise (and denoising?), composition really not interesting. --Eusebius 21:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 23:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Schloss Chambord nachts 2.JPG[edit]

Schloss Chambord nachts 2.JPG

  • Nomination France: Château de Chambord --Taxiarchos228 11:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 13:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lateral vertical lines are not vertical. Too much noise (sky). Not natural colors (yelows of the windows, blue of the sky). To me it's not QI--Lmbuga 19:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice mood, but the chateau is too dark IMHO, and Lmbuga isn't wrong either. -- H005 19:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good quality and useful Antoinetav 22:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Really good but perspective on the left side should be corrected, and no, the chateau is not too dark for a night photograph.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pretty picture. --King of Hearts 19:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The lateral vertical lines are not vertical, as in usual life: any vertical line of such building will seem not vertical. Noise has to be removed, but this can be done later (sky, water).--PereslavlFoto 02:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy --Carschten 13:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lmbuga --Chmee2 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, DOF too shallow. --Eusebius 21:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 23:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Close-up_of_Chhatrapati_Shivaji_Terminus.jpg[edit]

Close-up of Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus.jpg

  • Nomination Close-up of Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus --Jovianeye 18:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good quality, except in the top, the statue, but it is normal and it is difficult to do it better--Lmbuga 20:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, leaning to oppose Good, but the fact that the picture is not taken in the axis is a bit disturbing. --Eusebius 22:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment looks overexposed to me, I think there's missing some contrast. Shuold be fixed before it becomes QI. --Carschten 10:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I've reduced the brightness level. (make sure to purge the cache of your browser)--JovianEye (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 18:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Image:Dana Reserve 02.jpg[edit]

Dana Reserve 02.jpg

  • Nomination Landscape in Dana Biosphere Reserve, Jordan --Bgag 18:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol support vote.svg SupportQI for me --Gaendalf 00:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Details are really not good. Too strong denoising, I would say. --Eusebius 22:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have only denoised the sky. --Bgag 15:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm afraid the processor of your camera did the rest... --Eusebius 18:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon 23:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 18:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Florian Schroeder.jpg[edit]

Florian Schroeder.jpg

  • Nomination Kabarett artists Florian Schroeder --Taxiarchos228 08:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Below the line good; slightly image noise. --BlackIceNRW 10:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it's more than slightly IMO. --Sfu 15:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Sfu, the IMO is very visible --Gaendalf 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC) see comment below
  • (strong) Symbol support vote.svg Support OMG, noise by an indoor portrait with a visible bad stage lighting. I wanna see an image with similar conditions which doesn't have noise (NR excepted). Please change nothing at the image because now it has a reality photo atmosphere and not a photoshopping impact. --Carschten 18:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    So it's perfect for having FP because of WOW factor, I'm not convinced about QI. How did disappear my stupid comment? --Sfu 18:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support typical gesture of the comedian --Mbdortmund 22:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is some software to denoise, then some software to mix layers.--PereslavlFoto 02:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    Pereslav is totally right, perhaps correcting it with NeatImage or even Photoshop --Gaendalf 20:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like it, but noise. It is possible to work the noise, I can do it, if Taxiarchos228 want, but I cannot promise nothing--Lmbuga 22:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New other image. I only can do this, It's not better--Lmbuga 00:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have a new image, in which I think the problem has been solved to acceptable levels, actually the noise was erased quite good. check it here I would support this one. --Gaendalf 00:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Okay, it's more than slightly noisy, but it has enough good points (composition, pose) to make up for that. --Avenue 07:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Alofok 17:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Alofok 17:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Carcasssonne_vieux_pont.jpg[edit]

Carcasssonne vieux pont.jpg

  • Nomination Fortified city of Carcassonne and the Pont Vieux crossing the Aude river by Jean-Pierre Lavoie --Berthold Werner 16:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. Some parts a bit noisy (inavoidable I guess), but good overall quality. --Eusebius 20:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unrealistic distortion of the perspective of the bridge. Could be acceptable if alone, but not with the city. Some overexposed areas (the walls)--Jebulon 23:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jebulon--Lmbuga 23:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 00:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Mostar - Stari Most by Pudelek.JPG[edit]

Mostar - Stari Most by Pudelek.JPG

  • Nomination Mostar - Stari Most --Pudelek 10:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, nice shot --Taxiarchos228 10:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why crop the bridge?? This one deserves to be shown in full... --Eusebius 22:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I wonder why you croped your bridge-picture File:Rio bridge - wave 1.jpg that is already a QI. --Taxiarchos228 14:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't pretend my choices to be perfect (or even good in average), but this is just plain blatant bad faith now (in addition to an ad hominem attack). Please look at all my rejected pictures (they're many, you should be pleased) and adapt your reviewing accordingly. This should increase the general level. --Eusebius 18:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposePoor composition. Too tight crop--Lmbuga 23:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 00:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Traube des blauen Spätburgunders.jpg[edit]

Traube des blauen Spätburgunders.jpg

  • Nomination Pinot noir grapes --Taxiarchos228 09:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. Please add locality and geotag to the file description. --Cayambe 11:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Watch your shadow... --Eusebius 22:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad composition. As Eusebius--Lmbuga 23:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 00:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Parkinsonia_wuerttembergica_01.JPG[edit]

Parkinsonia compressa 01.JPG

  • Nomination Parkinsonia wuerttembergica, a Middle Jurassic Ammonite --Llez 17:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol support vote.svg Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 17:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp. --Eusebius 22:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Replaced by a completely new version --Llez 08:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I take the liberty to strike both votes then. --Eusebius 08:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. This version is better.--Archaeodontosaurus 11:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't like it (noise, perhaps detail). I think that for me it's not QI, but I'm not sure--Lmbuga 23:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 00:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:13-34-01-site-plutons.jpg[edit]

13-34-01-site-plutons.jpg

  • Nomination Inside the main building in an old Plutons missiles site, near Bourogne, France. --ComputerHotline 13:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support Also good. The blown opening in the backround appears tolaerable to me.--Chmee2 21:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Sorry, but this is not my review and vote. See history (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AQuality_images_candidates%2Fcandidate_list&action=historysubmit&diff=49018882&oldid=49018475), it only filled my signature, but somebody else make review. --Chmee2 13:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Horizontal composition not adapted in my opinion. Also, no clear subject to me. --Eusebius 22:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Eusebius (portrait compo would be better)--Jebulon 23:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As other above. And overexposed in door (for me it's not a tecnical effect)--Lmbuga 23:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 00:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Gasse Victoria Gozo 2009.JPG[edit]

Gasse Victoria Gozo 2009.JPG

  • Nomination Narrow Street, Victoria, Gozo, Malta. -- Felix Koenig 15:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good. --Cayambe 17:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Incredible. Distortion, strong distortion: You must see the vertical left lines. I can't understand. What can be QI?, all?--Lmbuga 00:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Sorry, but the walls are so in real !!--Jebulon 00:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry, I do not agree --Lmbuga 00:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    But Jebulon's definitely right. That's what's interesting about these buildings. The walls are tilted in real. Felix Koenig 17:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Taxiarchos228 10:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support a joke, lmbuga? Alofok 17:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support There is simply no distortion. Those walls are how they are --High Contrast 19:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg SupportIt would be better without so many shadows and the girls in the back, but definetely a good one!!--Gaendalf 21:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Ok, I'm mistaken --Lmbuga 20:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 09:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Krakau - Ulica Kanonicza.jpg[edit]

Krakau - Ulica Kanonicza.jpg

  • Nomination Kanonicza Street, Cracow --Taxiarchos228 15:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 00:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QI it's not "Pretty Good Images". At right side there is a strong perspective distortion --- ¿? --- --Lmbuga 01:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I am sorry, but you are wrong: there is no distortion but the facades of the buildings are not yet straight. Kanonicza Street and the buildings there belong to the oldes part of Cracow. --Taxiarchos228 07:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Ok Taxiarchos228, sorry, but the inclination, perhaps, must be indicated--Lmbuga 20:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon 15:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Alofok 17:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 21:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Smyčka Podbaba, Tatra T3SUCS na vnější koleji.jpg[edit]

Smyčka Podbaba, Tatra T3SUCS na vnější koleji.jpg

  • Nomination Tatra T3SUCS, Prague — Jagro 23:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 00:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Nice picture, good colors. But the composition ruins it. The vehicle should clearly stand in one of the "interesting points" expressed in the Rule of Thirds. --Gaendalf 04:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The composition seems all right. The rear of the tram and the headlights coincide with the 1/3 grid lines. --JovianEye (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, and therefore your eyes are guided to the rear of the tram instead of the front. IMO, the tram should be located more to the right, so that the front of it coincides with this intersection of lines. --Gaendalf 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice. Alofok 17:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rule of thirds is no dogma. Good colours, good composition. --Alupus 18:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)~
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 17:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Landmannalaugar in summer 2009 (13).jpg[edit]

Landmannalaugar in summer 2009 (13).jpg

  • Nomination Landmannalaugar area, Iceland --Chmee2 21:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Really beautiful!!--Gaendalf 04:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful, but very soft focus, background almost looks painted. --Eusebius 22:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus 19:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Eusebius. Not beautiful to me. Poor quality--Lmbuga 23:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Felix Koenig 18:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support "not beautiful to me" isn't a reason for an oppose. Alofok 19:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 21:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-02-02-salb-otan-2.jpg[edit]

2011-02-02-salb-otan-2.jpg

  • Nomination In an old NATO base. --ComputerHotline 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportQI --Taxiarchos228 21:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No clear subject and no composition to me. --Eusebius 22:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality and great atmosphere --Tlusťa (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice. Alofok 19:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 20:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Paris - Invalidendom - Spitze.jpg[edit]

Paris - Invalidendom - Spitze.jpg

  • Nomination Paris: Spire of Dôme des Invalides --Taxiarchos228 09:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 12:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown reflections. --Eusebius 12:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    Gold reflectes strong when the sun is shining. That is live. But I have uploaded a new version, maybe better. --Taxiarchos228 15:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The colour looks better at least (I think). Regarding blown reflections, I don't say there shouldn't be any, I just think that they are too present here. --Eusebius 15:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC
But I don't belive you can handle it better. Only to demonstrate: I have reduced the exposure value -2. The result is: the image is very dark but the reflections are clear as well Paris - Invalidendom - Spitze - Demo.jpg. --Taxiarchos228 16:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC))
On the basis of the picture you have taken, it is not possible to reduce much the surface of blown reflections. It has to be taken care of at shooting time (for a still subject like this, multiple exposure may help if sunlight/contrast is too strong). --Eusebius 17:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
As you can see (otherwise I could not reduse the EV), I have done it. This picture is a HDR. --Taxiarchos228 12:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Then the most underexposed take is probably not underexposed enough. --Eusebius 13:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Your private opinion --Taxiarchos228 14:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon 16:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed and a bit underexposed (too much contrast?)--Lmbuga 23:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good. Alofok 19:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 20:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Pichola_See.JPG[edit]

Pichola See.JPG

  • Nomination Sunset at Lake Pichola in Udaipur, Rajasthan by Aiwok. --Jovianeye 20:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support OKey, I watch this image for couple days and I have to say, that I really like it! :) So maybe I am not 100% objective now, but I did not find any important mistake, so why not promote to QI? :) Congrats to this nice image --Chmee2 20:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but very noisy. --Eusebius 22:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and strong CA --Jebulon 23:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeAs Eusebius and Jebulon--Lmbuga 23:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposeper Eusebius and Jebulon --Gaendalf 04:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can't review for QI cause I don't feel qualified enough seeing your comments but I'd put that on the top of my magazine if I had one. From that, I'd say it's a quality picture but... Letartean 16:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 18:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Cymbium_tritonis_07.JPG[edit]

Cymbium tritonis 07.JPG

  • Nomination The volute Cymbium tritonis --Llez 13:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI (traditionally  :) --Tlusťa 13:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not so sharp (because of f/32 diffraction, probably), noisy in many places. --Eusebius 09:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Eusebius. --Alchemist-hp 20:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Problems with f32, but enough quality to QI --Archaeodontosaurus 11:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think that is possible to improve the image: chromatic aberrations, sharp... But it's 9,440 × 7,040 pixels--Lmbuga 23:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Completely overworked, as suggested. --Llez 16:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that you withdraw this nomination and make a new one at the top since this has been reshot. --Jovianeye 05:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination as suggested a renominate the new version --Llez 08:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 02:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Salzburg - Salzburger Dom8.jpg[edit]

Salzburg - Salzburger Dom8.jpg

  • Nomination Salzburg Cathedral: Fresco --Taxiarchos228 09:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. --Cayambe 16:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The window portion is blown and has chromatic abberations. --Jovianeye 18:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jovianeye, and tilted--Lmbuga 22:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 00:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Kirche Bözberg 028.jpg[edit]

Kirche Bözberg 028.jpg

  • Nomination Light of church-windows (Bözberg CH) on the wall --Badener 14:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice idea, but the wooden pew is unsharp...--Jebulon 23:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Oh, sorry, for my eyes it's sharp, otherwise I wouldn't promote it :( --Badener 10:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support meets QI imo. Maybe not the best sharpness, but ok for the full resolution and the darkness. Very nice composition. --Carschten 11:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me it's good and sharp enough--Størtebeker 12:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp enough for me --Ralf Roletschek 16:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 00:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Roman Theatre Plovdiv 2.jpg[edit]

Roman Theatre Plovdiv 2.jpg

  • Nomination The ancient Roman theatre in Plovdiv --MrPanyGoff 21:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To me, vertical distortion and perhaps tilted (see the right side). I don't like the detail--Lmbuga 22:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    I did some lens correction that can be seen in the preview size. There is some uploading error because when you open the full size of the new version the old one is shown.--MrPanyGoff 07:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree with Lmbugas evaluation, the picture has good quality and looks good, QI is not featured picture --Taxiarchos228 08:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A significant and interesting part of the subject is in a strong shadow. --Eusebius 09:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would like to remind you that this is not FP candidate. I think that a valid ground of opposition here is only if the parts in shadow are underexposed in other words - almost black. This is not the case here. All parts in shadow are clearly visible.--MrPanyGoff 13:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
And I would like to remind everyone that reviews for the Quality Image status must be made according to the Image guidelines. "Underexposure", as well as the "loss of details" you're referring to, is listed is the "common problems" and can definitely be a reason for opposing, since it has a huge impact on the overall quality. It is not the first time images are refused the QI status because of too strong shadows on the main subject. --Eusebius (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
ack MrPanyGoff, this picture is cleary visible and a shadow has nothing to do with a underexposed picture. To underexpose a picture means to choose the wrong exposure time. --Taxiarchos228 14:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position: the stairs are perfectly exposed, but because of the very strong contrast the scene and screen, which are the most interesting part of the subject in my opinion, are necessarily underexposed ("in a strong shadow", in my original phrasing...). I did not imply that another exposure choice should have been made, only that the light at the moment made it impossible to take a properly exposed picture. --Eusebius 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Eusebius about the rules of QIC, he is perfectly right in my opinion, we (me first) tend sometimes to forget the reviewing guidelines. But to me, in this specific case, this "underexposure" does not have a so huge impact to the general quality of this picture. Matter of taste ? --Jebulon 16:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See above and per Eusebius--Lmbuga 21:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Shadow on the main object --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Campeon in Neubiberg.jpg[edit]

Campeon in Neubiberg.jpg

  • Nomination Campeon in Neubiberg. --High Contrast 17:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol support vote.svg Support I would rotate the picture clockwise about 1-2°, but good as well --Taxiarchos228 17:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC) To me
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeInappropriate vignetting at top (for me perhaps not QI with this vigneting), in adition, a bit of perspective distortion --Lmbuga 00:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support - good guality, nice view. Felix Koenig 17:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support like Felix Koenig --Størtebeker 15:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 00:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Krakau - Andreaskirche.jpg[edit]

Krakau - Andreaskirche.jpg

  • Nomination St. Andrew's Church, Cracow --Taxiarchos228 15:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown highlights. --Eusebius 20:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm agree with Eusebius--Lmbuga 00:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A bit, only a bit (solutionable), perspective distortion. Poor detail (you can see the people of the image)--Lmbuga 00:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Great sharpness, but I don't like that you see the people and you could read the licenseplates --Størtebeker 12:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 00:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Bischoy_Kloster_BW_7.jpg[edit]

Bischoy Kloster BW 7.jpg

  • Nomination Building at the Monastery of Saint Bishoy, Wadi Natrun, Egypt --Berthold Werner 15:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn

*Symbol support vote.svg Support A little bit too shady, but anyway a good picture -- Taxiarchos228 15:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Very good, but the shade is disturbing. Bad hour (the hour and the moment it's important)--Lmbuga 01:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much sky: bad crop--Lmbuga 01:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lighting --Carschten 20:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ok ok. New version uploaded. --Berthold Werner 14:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that you renominate this at the top. I have struck out all comments because they are irrelevant now. --Jovianeye 21:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Done. --Berthold Werner 16:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Image:Montreal Castle 03.jpg[edit]

Montreal Castle 03.jpg

  • Nomination Outer wall of the Montreal Castle, Jordan --Bgag 00:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Clear and good picture. --Cayambe 17:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurry for me. Not QI for me--Lmbuga 01:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Blurry??? --Bgag 13:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Blurry ??? --Jebulon 15:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Alofok 17:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not blurry --High Contrast 07:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 00:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Image:Montreal Castle 04.jpg[edit]

Montreal Castle 04.jpg

  • Nomination Ruins inside the Montreal Castle, Jordan --Bgag 00:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 15:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurry for me. Not QI for me--Lmbuga 01:45, 7 February 2011
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Blurry??? --Bgag 13:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)(UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Blurry ??? --Jebulon 15:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good. Felix Koenig 17:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not blurry --High Contrast 07:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose artifacts (with noise?!?), blurry at the left side --Carschten 12:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 17:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Halifax - NS - Schlepper im Hafen.jpg[edit]

Halifax - NS - Schlepper im Hafen.jpg

  • Nomination Tugboats in the harbour of Halifax, Canada --Taxiarchos228 09:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Nice one!! --Gaendalf 00:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. --Eusebius 22:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clear parts overexposed, dark parts underexposed IMO. Too tight crop above. I think it needs a discussion.--Jebulon 01:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clear parts overexposed, dark parts underexposed IMO.--Lmbuga 20:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 00:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Rheinfelden - Nollinger Berg Tunnel.jpg[edit]

Rheinfelden - Nollinger Berg Tunnel.jpg

  • Nomination Rheinfelden, Germany: Nollinger Berg Tunnel --Taxiarchos228 07:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support okay --Carschten 16:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wires ruin the composition (quality is not so great, but probably acceptable). --Eusebius 09:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Eusebius --Gaendalf 22:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No technical problem QI --Archaeodontosaurus 20:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok to me. --Cayambe 22:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Eusebius--Lmbuga 23:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon 00:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Alofok 17:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 16:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 00:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Počitelj - Hajji Alija Mosque.jpg[edit]

Počitelj - Hajji Alija Mosque.jpg

  • Nomination Počitelj, Hercegovina. Hajji Alija Mosque --Pudelek 10:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good --George Chernilevsky 14:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Centred composition is really not the best choice here in my opinion. --Eusebius 22:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Compensational support because Eusebius' confound QI with FP --Carschten 10:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Composition is one of the criteria in the image guidelines, which apply to both QI and FP. See what they say about centring the subject. Here I have the clear opinion that the position of the building with respect to the tower disqualifies centred compositions. You have the right to disagree, but I would greatly appreciate it if you could respect my reviewing work a little bit. --Eusebius 18:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me --Archaeodontosaurus 19:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective distortion (see note). As Eusebius--Lmbuga 23:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Eusebius in this case. Too much useless part left, but I miss something right (the end of the dome below, for instance).--Jebulon 00:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Alofok 17:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because the composition. --Bgag 21:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support C is for cookie, and this is good enough for me. Letartean 21:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 05:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Fumarole im Feld Námafjall Hverir 6044.JPG[edit]

Fumarole im Feld Námafjall Hverir 6044.JPG

  • Nomination Furmarole near Námafjall mountain --Snaevar 15:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg SupportVery good. Please add geotag. --Cayambe 15:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Geotag added--Snaevar 17:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad quality, omnipresent chromatic noise, details masked (by denoising or some other in-camera processing I guess). --Eusebius 22:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Compensational support Normally, I wouldn´t vote on my own nomination, but I have to agree with Carsten on your reviews currently, since they are of an FP standard, but not QI.--Snaevar 16:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Technical standard is the same for FP and QI. The difference between the two projects is not about technical threshold. And nominator's vote does not count in this project. --Eusebius 18:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With lightroom (program) I see the image too much underexposed and a bit overexposed. --Lmbuga 20:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lmbuga 20:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Auditorio de Tenerife Seitlich.jpg[edit]

Auditorio de Tenerife Seitlich.jpg

  • Nomination Tenerife: Auditorio de Tenerife --Taxiarchos228 11:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment needs a distortion correction imo, see annotations --Carschten 13:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Bilder sollen nicht nur eine Vorstellung des Objektes vermitteln sondern auch des Raumes und der Umgebung des Objektes, dafür nutzt man WW-Objektive. Natürlich verzerrt ein WW gerade Linien. Wer allerdings von jeder Linie verlangt, sie möge mathematisch im Lot stehen hat das Prinzip nicht ganz verstanden; insbesondere wie hier wenn wenn der Stutz der Fahnenmasten im Hintergrund auch noch vergleichsweise gering ausfällt. Deswegen werde ich hier selbstredend nichts korrigieren. Wenn ein bereits exzellentes Bild nicht QI sein soll dann liegt das nicht am Bild. --Taxiarchos228 14:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose beautiful composition, but white parts are overexposed with no details & CA around this overexposed areas. --Tlusťa 15:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment strong expression --Mbdortmund 22:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. --Alchemist-hp 20:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition, but main subject overexposed. --Eusebius 21:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support White is white... I don't miss details and don't see disturbing enough CA.--Jebulon 23:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportNo visible Overexposure --Archaeodontosaurus 19:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Alofok 17:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective distortion (left side), overexposed with lightroom, also underexposed; chromatic aberrations.--Lmbuga 22:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Alofok 17:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Brockville - ON - Rathaus.jpg[edit]

Brockville - ON - Rathaus.jpg

  • Nomination Brockville, Canada: Town Hall --Taxiarchos228 07:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion please add geocode, I couldn't find it starting with geocode of the German article --Mbdortmund 16:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    done. --Taxiarchos228 19:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Mbdortmund 00:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To me blurried, not sharp enough. Strong horizontal distorion to me, but only to me --Lmbuga 01:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I need other opinions: Discuss--Lmbuga 01:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

not sharp enough? maybe you try wearing this: Half rim glasses.JPG? --Taxiarchos228 14:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Harassment: I must right to think freely--Lmbuga 16:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
That's really outrageous and disrespectful here, as an adult and civilized man you should be able to take criticism and to have an appropriate tone of voice, independent it's the criticism right or not. --Carschten 16:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Carschten. My words in Commons talk:Quality images candidates will be translated. If nobody thinks, I will leave QI--Lmbuga 17:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Shame of the car and the tent (a bit overexposed tivoli), but good. Some of my own QIs are far more bad !...--Jebulon 15:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Alofok 17:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Picture is in my opinion sharp enough and already perspectively acceptabel corrected. --Alupus 18:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I have criticized the image, but I am not against. (poor english) I'm not agree by the suffering that has produced me the treatment of others: I do not feel free and respected--Lmbuga 20:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 03:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Image:Donkey in Dana Reserve.jpg[edit]

Donkey in Dana Reserve.jpg

  • Nomination A donkey in Dana Reserve, Jordan --Bgag 00:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. --Cayambe 15:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise (or other digital artefacts) too visible on the main subject. --Eusebius 22:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me --Archaeodontosaurus 19:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality. For me, too much white zones blown. The object is too little (and it's a mammal, not a insect). As Eusebius--Lmbuga 23:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Eusebius --Carschten 17:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 03:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Ganoderma_applanatum_2010_G2.jpg[edit]

Ganoderma applanatum 2010 G2.jpg

  • Nomination Artist's Conk --George Chernilevsky 21:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice colours and fine structures --Mbdortmund 18:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much noise for me on the subject, and part of it seems to be out of focus. --Eusebius 22:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good --Archaeodontosaurus 19:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality: color noise, right zone underexposed (also bottom zone), poor DOF--Lmbuga 23:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe 20:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jebulon 10:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too dark (imo), some noise. But that should be fixable --Carschten 16:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 03:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Dogs at beach gaendalf 01.jpg[edit]

Dogs at beach gaendalf 01.jpg

  • Nomination Dogs at the beach in Costa Rica --Gaendalf 22:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI dont agree with the composition. Secondly since the front dog has moved to the corner of the lens it has lost sharpness or it could be due to the shallow DOF. --Jovianeye 23:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    As you can see the beach has 2/3 of the picture and the sky 1/3 that agrees with the Rule of Thirds. The position of the dogs makes the viewer think they are the guardians of the beach. The big aperture of the picture (f 3.5) would make the front dog sharper, and the dog wasn't actually in the corner of the picture, it was cropped from the original. Finally, IMHO the sharpness has an adequate level. --Gaendalf 02:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The beach and sky may obey the rule of thirds, but the dogs dont. Regarding the "Guardian" opinion, the centre dog does give this feeling to me, but the dog in the corner is busy scratching himself. Given such good lighting conditions you should have tried aperture priority. --Jovianeye 02:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Again, the sharpness is appropriate. Actually with this aperture the nearest objects to the camera should stand in the DOF and the background not so clear. The subjects with this arrangement are clearly the dogs, and that's the crucial aspect in composition. The background obeys the rule. The Rule of Thirds, even though important, cannot be used in the judgement of every composition. Moreover, how can two subjects so separated be located in an "interesting point" of the Rule of Thirds. As I said, sometimes it's unattainable--Gaendalf 04:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support perfect compostion. Alofok 17:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice composition, but both dogs oof (blurry) --Carschten 10:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 10:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Gips_01.jpg[edit]

Gips 01.jpg

  • Nomination: Gypsum, Calcium sulfate, Ca[SO4] • 2 H2O by H. Zell --Berthold Werner 12:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Review Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good quality. --Mbdortmund 18:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise ruins the picture (when looking for the details of course). --Eusebius 22:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support I have to search with a magnifier to see noise here. --Carschten 10:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No need for a magnifier. Look at the picture at full resolution, as required by the reviewing guidelines, and you'll see that noise blurs the edges of the crystals in most of the picture. --Eusebius 18:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise, VI. Now I think that the image can't be FP--Lmbuga 23:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Mbdortmund 22:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:2010-05-21-breda-by-RalfR-06.jpg[edit]

2010-05-21-breda-by-RalfR-06.jpg

  • Nomination Haven van Breda, Brabant (Niederlande); --Ralf Roletschek 14:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportNice lighting and scenery. --IdLoveOne 00:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice scene, but strong chromatic aberrations on the left and on the right. --Myrabella 09:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Will you annotate them? IdLoveOne 00:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. --Myrabella 07:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support CA imo not a big problem, good composition --Mbdortmund 15:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:2010-05-22-breda-by-RalfR-24.jpg[edit]

2010-05-22-breda-by-RalfR-24.jpg

  • Nomination Uitzicht vanuit Park Valkenberg in Breda, Niederlande --Ralf Roletschek 14:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice lighting and scenery. --IdLoveOne 00:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice scene, but strong chromatic aberrations on the left and on the right --Myrabella 09:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Will you annotate them? IdLoveOne 00:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. --Myrabella 07:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Der Leuchtturm (?) sieht irgendwie verzerrt aus, oder täusche ich mich?. --Mbdortmund 15:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support stimmt, sorry --Mbdortmund 03:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Sven regener 2011 salzburg.jpg[edit]

Sven regener 2011 salzburg.jpg

  • Nomination Sven Regener, Author & Singer --Arne mueseler 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good and useful, inspite of some noise A.Savin 11:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Focus plane in front of the eyes, therefore unsharp. --Eusebius 10:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy and vignetting. --Jovianeye 03:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Useful but technically not QI: strong CA, noise, vignetting --Mbdortmund 11:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support per A.Savin, considering it's an indoor portrait and the resolution, the noise is acceptable imo. --Carschten 12:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Carschten 12:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-02-06 Toras. Vilarromarís.jpg[edit]

2011-02-06 Toras. Vilarromarís.jpg

  • Nomination Tree trunks of pine wood. Vilarromarís, Oroso, Galicia--Lmbuga 22:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Needs maybe a little crop below, but otherwise good.--Jebulon 01:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I can do a crop (with RAW fle), but I can' understand: Why or how?--Lmbuga 01:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technically OK but I dont agree with the composition. Other opinions? --High Contrast 07:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I thought that the context in that the tree had been cut could be interesting, but it's only a opinion--Lmbuga 20:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have committed an error. It is not eucalyptus, it's pine. I have corrected it--Lmbuga 20:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support neat work, good composition with the foreground, I see no weaknesses --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For me, too poor composition, sorry Antoinetav 13:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For quality. --IdLoveOne 00:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Gorges du Verdon panorama.jpg[edit]

Gorges du Verdon panorama.jpg

  • Nomination Gorges du Verdon panorama. --Ianare 00:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. --Cayambe 17:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed (only a bit, but underexposed and solutionable)--Lmbuga 00:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'll be the first to admit the lighting was pretty hrash that day, but any lighter and the white rocks facing the sun get overexposed. --Ianare 01:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • On peut éclairer devant sans surexposer derrière, et même réduire l'exposition si on veut (GIMP)--Jebulon 09:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The mountain in the distance, which is the subject is not underexposed. And the shadow's not too bad, it arguably emphasizes the location of the photographer way up there. --IdLoveOne 00:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Sitta canadensis CT3.jpg[edit]

Sitta canadensis CT3.jpg

  • Nomination Red-breasted Nuthatch --Cephas 00:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion We have a quality image of this species, that is better (pose and background), in my judgment. --Wsiegmund 05:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC) May be multiple QI of the same object. I think this is a QI. --Tlusťa 09:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support of course we can have more then one QI of an object/species --Ralf Roletschek 13:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good one --Mbdortmund 13:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree that both pics are similar (taken at the same spot), but this one is a male, the other is a female). If I ever come up with a third one, then you can really discard it! --Cephas 15:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Two reasons to keep on contributing pictures of the Red-breasted Nuthatch: 1. There is no rule that QI should only present the one best picture of an object 2. The Cephas Fanclub wants to see more of them. --Mbdortmund 20:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 11:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Weil am Rhein - Evangelische Kirche Märkt4.jpg[edit]

Weil am Rhein - Evangelische Kirche Märkt4.jpg

  • Nomination Weil am Rhein: Tower of Protestant Church Märkt --Taxiarchos228 10:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Maybe could you consider cropping out the dial, and some sky left and above ? Only an opinion, but seems to me to make a better composition. The rest (subject, sharpness, light) is very good--Jebulon 18:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support for me QI --Mbdortmund 23:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me also QI --Ralf Roletschek 17:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Lörrach - Röttler Kirche - Glockenstuhl.jpg[edit]

Lörrach - Röttler Kirche - Glockenstuhl.jpg

  • Nomination bells --Taxiarchos228 12:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 21:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Underexposed--Lmbuga 00:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Underexposed? you are not able to see the bells? --Taxiarchos228 07:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can you use a program like lightroom and see the parameters, Taxiarchos228, please? I did it--Lmbuga 20:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • you did not answer my question, I will not answer yours --Taxiarchos228 20:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. You are very amiable, but your commentary is ridiculous to me--Lmbuga 20:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See above--Lmbuga 20:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support underexposed... alofok* 17:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • ??? pro underexposed? --Berthold Werner 16:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Das dürfte Ironie für die zweifelhaften Kommentare von Lmbuga sein. --Taxiarchos228 10:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Perhaps it's underexposed because the background haven't detail (too dark)--null 21:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Perhaps the image is improvable, easily improvable--null 22:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unpleasant shadows due to direct flash. --Coyau 17:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Mbdortmund and I find the angle interesting makes the bells seem HUGE, though Coyau is right about the flash. --IdLoveOne 00:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 21:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 22:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Fassade der Basilica di San Lorenzo, Mailand.jpg[edit]

Fassade der Basilica di San Lorenzo, Mailand.jpg

  • Nomination Facade of the Basilica of San Lorenzo in Milan. --High Contrast 21:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • The twins disturb. shouldn't you tell in the description when you make a composite image? --Qiqritiq 10:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not a composite image : the twins are in the basilic. --M0tty 10:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Please do not change my assessment. To me this looks like a composite. --Qiqritiq 14:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose distortion imo too strong --Mbdortmund 19:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • See other pictures Category:San Lorenzo (Milan) - Facade, i think that it's not a composite image. --M0tty 16:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some issues around the head of statue, and over the pots-à-feu (Feuertopf) on the roof. And the funny walking twins...Please see annotations--Jebulon 18:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment nomination by accident - didn't want to put this file in here. --High Contrast (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 20:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Paris porte de Versailles - Exposition le temps des dinosaures - giganotosaure - 020.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Une maquette articulée de giganotosaure. --Thesupermat 09:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the depth and size, but I want to get more opinions for this one. IdLoveOne 17:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    copyright issues? --Mbdortmund 10:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    We are here only for judging the quality of photography. It is unfortunately good because it allows you to see: a fanciful reconstruction. I remain neutral. --Archaeodontosaurus 17:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    I'm still on the fence. It gives an anthropomorphic (smiling of all things) feeling. So i doubt a bit the realism of the reconstruction.--Qiqritiq 19:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Discussion about the accuracy or relevance of the reconstitution are not the main QI matters. Besides, educational material isn't just about "scientific truth", it is also about how at a certain time things are represented. Good photo (technical, composition, light, historical value). --Coyau 21:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral OK, I won't stand in the way of promotion. --Qiqritiq 22:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 10:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Wp12 77 Rekonstruktion.jpg[edit]

Wp12 77 Rekonstruktion.jpg

  • Nomination Reconstructed wooden watchtower at the Limes Germanicus near Rainau-Buch. --Haselburg-müller 18:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol support vote.svg SupportSomething peculiar about seeing a side in shadow, but it's not overwhelming. IdLoveOne 01:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)IMO, the lightning conductor and his wire are killing this picture of an ancient-roman reconstruction... The angle chosen was really the worst of the four possible. Please let put this (otherwise good) image in "Consensual review".--Jebulon 17:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC) The best view you can get. On the other two sides you have a visitor's entrance (original entrances were on the 1st floor) and the small rather prickly wood visible in the left part of the picture. --Haselburg-müller 17:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for information. This is a very good pic, indeed...--Jebulon 18:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bauwerke tragen heute Blitzableiter, das ist kein Manko des Fotos, das könnte man wenn überhaupt nur dem bauwerk zuschreiben. Jede Kirche hat Blitzableiter, auch die, die 1000 Jahre alt sind. Die schattige Seite gefällt mir gut, das bringt Plastizität. Rundum saubere Arbeit. Google-Translation: Buildings now wear lightning rod that is not a shortcoming of the photo that could be attributed, if at all only the building. Each church has lightning rod, even those that are 1000 years old. The shady side I like it, which brings plasticity. Completely clean work. --Ralf Roletschek 12:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe 09:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - don't see any problem, excellent picture. Felix Koenig 17:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Ok, ok, I support ! but shame of the wire nevertheless...Clin--Jebulon 18:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support} Good picture. Auch wenn ich den Blick genau aus der Diagonalen nicht besonders prickelnd finde, ist es das Bild aus enzyklopädischer Sicht sehr gut zur Darstellung geeignet, da der Bau schön plastisch und detailreich wiedergegeben ist. --Alupus 22:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Old crucifix in Kotor cathedral.jpg[edit]

Old crucifix in Kotor cathedral.jpg

  • Nomination Old crucyfix in Kotor cathedral, Montenegro --Pudelek 14:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Face in shadow, flash. --Mbdortmund 22:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is lamp, not flash --Pudelek 10:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)