Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 2008

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

Contents

Consensual Review[edit]

Pseudorasbora parva edit[edit]

Pseudorasbora parva.jpg

  • Nomination edit from scratch. Lycaon 13:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion as promised. Lycaon 13:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Okay (^^)/ -- Laitche 14:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted—other version promoted. --Thegreenj 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info No reason why both can't be promoted (unless this one is withdrawn) --Tony Wills 02:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand that QI has no limit for pictures of a particular subject, but this is just an edit—it's the same photo. The other one recieved more support, so I promoted it instead. Thegreenj 03:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Give it a chance, January is a slow month, others may yet wish to move their votes here :-). In cases like this I usually don't close all the different versions until all versions are ready to close so that people can move their votes if they want. --Tony Wills 11:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. But even for a slow month, it's been almost two weeks since the last vote on either of these... Thegreenj 22:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The noise that I did not like was not part of the photograph but part of the feeling when this image was nominated at FP. I support it now so that it will go away. I also, with this vote of support, make no claim that I have looked at the image at a 100% view. -- carol 04:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hibiscus rosa-sinensis[edit]

Hibiscus rosa-sinensis flower 2.JPG Hibiscus rosa-sinensis Réunion.JPG

  • Nomination Flower of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis --B.navez 20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)-- 
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another flower, but technically well done. --Dschwen 16:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The other one was in my opinion, better. I would rather not decline that one. -- carol 12:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • So? I like the other one too, but do we need to move this one to CR for just stating that? --Dschwen 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It is the only way that I know to keep the bot from sweeping it off the page and depositing it in the 'file me as a winner' area here and I think that regardless of recent examples, it is not within the rules to go from support to decline. What is the way to keep the bot from promoting this? Also, I understand that once an image is QI, it is always QI but once an image is declined, is it always declined? -- carol 07:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything to say that a declined image can not be re-nominated, but it would probably help to address the problems that failed it. Also immediately renominating an image without any changes will probably result in a swift decline and will just annoy everybody :-) --Tony Wills 04:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I put the other image that I declined here. The stamen and the farther petals had soft focus and I thought that by increasing the focus plane the whole flower could be in focus. The second version which is being discussed here has less focus in all of those places. -- carol 07:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure to do better with my camera. Many flowers QI have much less DOF and tips of the stigma are naturally fluffy. Also as focus plane has to be at least 8 cm for the whole flower and as the column (stamens + stigma) is very sensitive to very soft winds, it needs a very good light which I prefer natural. By now, weather is very rainy and I have to wait perhaps some days before being able to try again. I hope season will not be out then. Each flower last only one day. Personnally I prefer the second version for its composition (curve of the column which is also well located with regard to background) and for the evening light (which makes the difference between greens of older and younger leaves. Now make your judgement, you have it.--B.navez 11:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I renominated the first one. -- carol 12:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support high res --Beyond silence 22.5px 23:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 04:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Neuenstein Schloss[edit]

Neuenstein Schloss01 crop1 2007-09-22.jpg

  • Nomination Schloss Neuenstein --Klaus with K 15:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. -- MJJR 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info change of image
  • I thought that the photograph was too green and that the skies were too noisy. I uploaded another version; I am not sure if my changes make it QI. -- carol 05:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Retouched image are excess of blue side for me. --Fukutaro 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info image reverted
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Have reverted to the original image, the one that was positively assessed. -- Klaus with K 16:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too green. -- carol 16:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition and light, big resolution.--Beyond silence 22.5px 17:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Looks okay to me. Very nice photo! --bdesham 19:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality --Simonizer 21:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 23:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday i did a photoprint of it and it looks great --Richard Bartz 14:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
How about a photograph of you holding the photoprint? -- carol 14:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Pessimist? --Richard Bartz 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh, cool. Thank you for doing that! I printed one of my endeavors at an overnight photoprinting place where I could request that no color corrections be made and at a kiosk where if I could tell it not to color correct, I could not find that (self-serve). You have also changed -- you used to look like one of those eurotrash hippies, now you look like a floor with a cord running across it. Maybe all of the commons photographers should update the photographs of themselves..... -- carol 16:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The comment "...you used to look like one of those eurotrash hippies, now you look like a floor with a cord running across it..." is in this borderline class between highly amusing and clearly insulting comments which make me glad I have not published a photo of myself anywhere on the web. -- Slaunger 14:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It is simply a phrase from me. When I was in Norway, there were several times that I was approached because people thought I was native there. It would perhaps be more complimentary if I did not think that I looked like so much eurotrash myself. Forgive me and/or don't worry about the words that are used? I asked for a photograph of the photographer -- I was jokingly pointing out that there was no photograph of a person here. -- carol 14:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I managed to understand that, and I did find it hilarious. But then again I was not the subject of the amusement. My point is that such linguistic subtleties can very easily be misunderstood by the many non-native English speaking users here - myself included. For me it is a question of showing empathy.-- Slaunger 15:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It is interesting to me how in all these years since 2001 that I have been involved with an international group of people that the sensitivity levels become more and more and more high -- as in the more that is shared, the more easily feelings are hurt. In 1981, my feeling were very hurt by some Iranians who pinched my nose and called me Pedaresac. That translates into 'Your father is a dog.' Now in 2008, I joking called a photograph (which has a link to the page which is showing it on the main page here) of longish blonde hair and not much else -- 'eurotrash' which the definition is to me more of a compliment and the europeans get all hurt? People from the United States are just tougher, sweeter and with feelings that are less easily hurt; until I see evidence that is different... and good luck with the mid-easterns! -- carol 15:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You are right. It was just due to a misconception from my side. I understood the word "eurotrash" as very negative comment about a person, and I did not see it as a compliment. Thank you for enlightening me regarding the more positive interpretation of the word of which I was unaware. I consider it as a perfect example of the linguistic subtleties which are so easily misunderstood by, e.g., Europeans due to a lack of knowledge of the written English language. I agree that the people from the United States are much tougher, and has a way better humour. Like once I worked with a US postdoc, his wife was pregnant on which he commented: "I don't know what it's gonna be, I just pray to God it's humanoid." I thought that was really funny.-- Slaunger 20:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
eurotrash --Richard Bartz 00:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Results from stress testing QIC. I have decided to trust the bots to end the time allotted to change your mind. I think that I have learned that Slaunger is sensitive to cultural sterotypes, that Richard Bartz is more sensitive to opposition to his/her candidates and that Lycaon really doesn't like noise, halos nor it getting personal in CR and those clone tool problems have got to stop for any chance for me to find happiness anywhere. Anything else? (Oh, and list of photographers who do not like to have edited versions uploaded over theirs can be provided if necessary.) -- carol 13:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is doing so well in CR review, I suggest entering it into FPC! -- carol 12:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Carol, you can count me in on the list of photographers, who do not like to have edited versions uploaded over theirs during a nomination. -- Slaunger 21:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Since you wrote this, I have been thinking; there are two definitions of destructive edits. Visually destructive and then destructive in the way that an image loses information (but might look better). I have made one visually destructive edit -- the shadow on Digon3's rock; every other edit that I made I really really thought improved the image. I agree with you, I wouldn't like it if my images were changed either while nominated or not. I am also confused because this last summer, while I was watching FPC, I saw a lot of editing and uploading occurring to nominated images. It wasn't obvious that it was among friends -- and it might have been. It might even have been between sockpuppets. Perhaps the problem with me doing this is more complex, like that it is easy to complain to me and not to other people who were doing it before.
There is a medium ground where a wiki environment doesn't seem to let people be. I made one joke comparing clone tool to something that is male gender specific that I personally would have not understood until I was in my second decade and QIC gets how many entries that take that joke too far and perhaps wrongly? What is the connection between duck images and my ability to fall asleep? The only connection that actually makes sense is this, that the insistence of uniform language and of a false front of proper behavior does not also insure that technology will not be abused.
Rewriting the history on English wikipedia and perhaps here. That is sad, sad, sad. That the people who were trusted with permission to do things like that have either abused the trust or have found themselves in a world in which they must abuse it. The license ceases to matter. I wouldn't do that and wrong to do that is what should matter.
I will upload my edits into the same namespace only when I have permission to do so (especially those in contests) or when I am improving (honestly improving) an image that I find being used from a long ago upload for an article. I cannot just change my confusion about what I observed last summer. Stop abusing technology and privilege. Once I asked 'what if this happens to you' and the answer was 'that is boring, I don't care to answer that'. In approximately 15 years, when everyone gets stripped of their accomplishments -- I do not want to be in a position to make a 'call' on what is boring and not boring for whether I assist making things right again. Use your skills and privileges wisely. -- carol 09:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 05:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Schloss Chenonceau[edit]

Schloss Chenonceau.JPG

  • Nomination Schloss Chenonceau by Wladyslaw --Yarl TalkPL 23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Could be sharper, but very nice otherwise. --bdesham 04:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It should be sharper. -- carol 11:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice composition --Beyond silence 22.5px 16:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree that it could be a tad sharper, but I'd say it's still good. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 04:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I am going to suggest that this be nominated at FPC then. The reason that I suggest this (if I might make a metaphor) is that the best way to improve property value is not to destroy the house next door, but to make your house better and to fill it with happy, decent, educated residents. Making it look like a gang can rule it and keep the authority -- not the best thing for appearances or reality. Try this at FPC! If the focus is too soft there, it should be too soft here. -- carol 07:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 05:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ogrodzieniec Castle[edit]

Castle in Ogrodzieniec - 48.JPG

  • Nomination Ogrodzieniec Castle, Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support photo enough for QI - Pudelek 13:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose enough? I can see jpg artifacts. --Fukutaro 14:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ac Fukutaro --Lestat 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 05:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Crown of Thorns by Caravaggio (Kunsthistorisches museum Vienna)[edit]

Michelangelo Caravaggio 072.jpg

  • Nomination Caravaggio's painting -- slightly corrected the redish ligths used by the museum to evidence the chiarobuscuro technique of Caravaggio --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 09:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral There is some bit noises. --Fukutaro 09:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for fixed some ploblem. but I can see some white points(dust?) still. and so vote neutral. sorry. --Fukutaro 09:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you be more specific? Tangential illumination in museums tends to accentuate surface imperfectations and introduce illumination "noise". I choose for a 200 iso, f-6.3 and 3 sec of exposure time (could hardly do better given the other visitors). I could wash out the picture like Michelangelo Caravaggio 072.jpg. Any suggestions for improving future pictures (without downsampling to 1600 px) will be appreciated. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 10:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • 'bit noises' is 'white point noise'. It could used software it is possible to remove these, but I think then lose originality of painting. --Fukutaro 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • see the 'bit noise' from here.--Fukutaro 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC) URL disappeared. --Fukutaro 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Not sure I understand 'bit noises' even with the explanation - the image doesn't look noisy to me. The highlights are slightly blown and there are some dots in the blown areas which look to me like surface imperfections or marks on the painting. Hence support, below Speagles 20:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the exposure and rendition is a good compromise, but if it's shot raw there might be some scope for recovering more subtlety in the highlights. Overall, this gives me a good impression of the way I recall other baroque works by Caravaggio (although I've not seen this particular one), so I support this as a quality image. Speagles 20:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks Fukutaro for your input. I removed most annoying most "white point noise" and uploaded a new version. Old version is available here for comparison. Please revote. Thanks Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 09:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid but though one more, I can see the slightly three vertical-lines on the right. What is there? stitching error? --Fukutaro 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No stitching. I am afraid it is coming from the canvas used by Caravaggio, which is not perfectly flat. You missed the horizontal "line" at bottom of the painting. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 18:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • There is some lines from canvas's texture, O.K. What's mean of that 'I missed the horizontal line"? If add canvas size/inch or cm to caption, might be more better. --Fukutaro 08:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • ✓ Done I added the size of the canvas in the description from KHM website. There are more canvas lines in the picture. For example, there is a a very thin line crossing the painting horizontally at the height of Christ's knees. Please reconsider your vote if I meet your requirements-- Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 09:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support detail --Beyond silence 22.5px 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudorasbora parva[edit]

Pseudorasbora parva(Hamamatsu,Shizuoka,Japan).jpg

  • Nomination Motsugo, Stone moroko. --Seotaro 02:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose moved opposition a bit down Lycaon 08:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Upscaling and denoising does not equal good quality. Lycaon 22:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is original resolution.--Seotaro 00:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Enough good. --Beyond silence 22.5px 10:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche 18:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Moved to the edited version.(Below) -- Laitche 15:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. Bokeh is a tad noisy, but not bad enough to oppose over. --Mark (Mschel) 13:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support excellent work, looks sharp. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please upload/reveal EXIF data to rule out upscaling suspicions. Lycaon 13:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Why? The resolution is one used by several Nikon cameras, and the detail (look at the spots on the upside of the fish) wouldn't be possible with much upscaling. I don't see any signs of upscaling, though I do see some noise excacerbated by oversharpening and jpeg compression. Thegreenj 17:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Cause the original upload had no noise/compression artefacts. The subsequent upload over the smaller version was four the times the pixels and six times the bytes in size with all of a sudden massive compression artefacts. Maybe I see ghosts, but it looks all very weird to me. An EXIF could shed some light on this. Lycaon 21:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
        • The original has a very good number of compression artifacts. The only reason that they are less apparent is that noise, which is directly related to the size of the image, is much less (as with resolution). Thegreenj 22:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Now uploaded image with EXIF data. Please make sure resolution. If that tells you anything, I took an image with NIKON D70s, also I processed RAW, cleaning up, adjusted tone and sharpened image with Adobe Photoshop. Seotaro 11:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that's quite convincing. Lycaon 14:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If you have seen the EXIF data then that should be reverted to the nominated version, otherwise if it would be promoted then different version appears, I think :) -- Laitche 15:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the nominated version at all (it is over and underprocessed), give me until tomorrow and I'll fix a new nomination. Lycaon 16:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • All right :) -- Laitche 17:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- carol 03:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise, superior edit available (albeit with slightly less detail). Thegreenj 21:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Thegreenj, CarolSpears, Lycaon et al :-) --Tony Wills 06:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose -> not promoted --carol 21:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Lepisosteus platyrhincus cranium[edit]

Lepisosteus platyrhincus cranium.jpg

  • Nomination Macro of Florida gar (Lepisosteus platyrhincus) skull & mandible --Ianare 06:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some lusters is there, poor background, lighting are not good. --Fukutaro 09:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support enough detail, not bad background, lighting --Beyond silence 22.5px 09:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "not bad background", Check calibrate your monitar and see well again. --Fukutaro 10:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support actually the best of the three and good enough for QI IMO. Lycaon 11:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support really well done--B.navez 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 11:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Castle in Ogrodzieniec[edit]

Castle in Ogrodzieniec - 18.JPG

  • Nomination Ogrodzieniec Castle, Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lighting could be better but good focus, composition.--Ianare 03:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tilted O.K?--Fukutaro 03:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad tilt (even the people are obviously leaning) and insufficient sharpness. Lycaon 11:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ac Lycaon --Lestat 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 11:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Aletschgletscher viewed from Eggishorn[edit]

3618 - Aletschgletscher viewed from Eggishorn.JPG

  • Nomination Aletschgletscher viewed from Eggishorn, Fiescheralp, CH --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 05:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A lot of points are overxprsure for me.--Fukutaro 18:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree. Lycaon 07:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support detail --Beyond silence 22.5px 23:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Please elaborate. Lycaon 10:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposenot easily readable and overexposed--B.navez 05:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 11:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

SelectivelyeditedTricycle[edit]

SelectivelyeditedTricycle.jpg

  • Nomination Heavy editing is fun once in a while. Thegreenj 02:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportLooks great to me. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportThe wheels seem too blue in this image which is otherwise very nice. -- carol 07:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The wheels are that shade of blue in reality, but if you'd like, I can easily desaturate them. Thegreenj 21:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Nah, I am relying on memory and I don't remember memorizing the colors of this fine vehicle. I changed my vote. -- carol 08:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I'm sure about it is photogenic, but why is this background B&W? --Fukutaro 04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Because I was bored! :) Thegreenj 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support All Right, I even understand why your mind. :):) Though I think also what I doubt whether such B&W as here is necessary for WP. --Fukutaro 08:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support enough detail --Beyond silence 22.5px 09:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  promoted to QI -- Lycaon 11:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Crown Daisy[edit]

Daisy January 2008-1.jpg

  • Nomination After some rain the sunny days came back and spring flowers with it. A wild Crown Daisy (Chrysantemum coronarium) -- Alvesgaspar 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is quite a bit of overexposure on the flower, that precludes it from QI IMO. --Dori - Talk 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Nonsense -- Alvesgaspar 19:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Nonsense?? I've checked with software. How do you determine that it's not overexposed? --Dori - Talk 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • this way -- Alvesgaspar 21:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I tried with another application and the result was different. Maybe my Corel Photo Paint is faulty, I'm sorry - Alvesgaspar 22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Out of curiosity, I run it through Adobe Lightroom. At least that software says it is not overexposed, there is still some room on the lights before highlights would begin to clip. And on the other hand, if it works, it works - no matter what software says. --Thermos 02:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportDoes now my human eye feel uneasy, whatever softwares say ? Not at all.--B.navez 02:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportenough detail --Beyond silence 22.5px 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Works for me. --Thermos 02:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Erodium[edit]

Erodium January 2008-4.jpg

  • Nomination A Stork's Bill (Erodium malacoides), a very small and beautiful pink flower -- Alvesgaspar 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This one also has overexposure, and the DOF is too shallow for much of the flower. --Dori - Talk 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Nonsense, not overexposed and this is a macro shot
    • Again, I've checked this with software that shows overexposed areas (Bibble if you care). What proof do you have that what you're saying is not nonsense. --Dori - Talk 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • this proof (and please don't tell me it is not the same picture !!) -- Alvesgaspar 21:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Care to show us a color histogram? I believe it's your reds and blues that are cut off. That's it for me though, I'll let a third party to enlighten us. --Dori - Talk 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It does look different somehow, Joaquim, as seen here. Lycaon 21:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, it does! I measured the file copied directly to the clipboard with Corel PhotoPaint. Maybe the application is faulty? - Alvesgaspar 21:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • What about this one? -- Alvesgaspar 23:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Does now my human eye feel uneasy, whatever softwares say ? Yes, surface of petals looks oddly very glossy --B.navez 02:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose since it seems to be disintegrating with each new edit. I am, even while in opposition, curious about what the size difference is between this flower and this flower. -- carol 11:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Impatiens walleriana[edit]

Impatiens walleriana thegreenj.jpg

  • Nomination Impatiens walleriana. Thegreenj 17:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very beautiful, and look like a model of good photograph. But it would be crop mainly flower are more better than now for WP? --Fukutaro 09:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't agree. The composition and photographic quality are a bit poor for QI -- Alvesgaspar 13:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Long spur of this flower is half cut off, hexagonal patches in the background (a fence ?) make it very artificial--B.navez 19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I object to your opposition on the "artificial" background. Hexagonal patches are not a fence, nor are they artificial. The photograph is largely backlit from light streaming in through cracks in the bushy area behind the flower. When light is unfocussed (as here), it will form the shape of the lens's aperture on the picture (think about it—the "circle" of confusion for any image is really a polygon), as it does here. Diaphram blades cannot form a circle at all apertures, so the effect is unavoidable. Thegreenj 22:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
OK diaphragm effect, but the result is the same on background.--B.navez 03:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This image was hard editing? I seem natural. I agree on about composition for WP though. --Fukutaro 08:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • This image is not much edited. It has been through a few brightness and contrast adjustments, but everything else in here is as it was taken. Thegreenj 12:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, I'm sure that I have been knew it. So I wonder why did become problem. --Fukutaro 04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Dawn over Oostende[edit]

Dawn over Oostende.jpg

  • Nomination Dawn over Ostend, Belgium. -- Lycaon 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Excellent colours. Would you care to straighten the horizon before promoting? Also, I would crop a little at left -- Alvesgaspar 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment While Lyfe imitates art, I followed the suggestions here and also tried to get rid of those clonetool 'fingerprints' on this image. -- carol 02:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC) I forgot to mention that it would take someone with thicker skin than me to crop it more on the left. -- carol 04:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Uploaded cloped version:Dawn over Oostende cloud.jpg (though small, yet beautiful cloud)--Fukutaro 13:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    'cause I know it is good enough now. -- carol 08:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentThe file has been changed since Carol promoted it. Thegreenj 05:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for noticing that. Alvesgaspar said there would be a promotion if the horizon was straightened and the left side cropped. Following those instructions, I made this edited version which also removed some random clone spots. What happens now? -- carol 12:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - The horizon still looks curved to me. Were is the original image so we can compare? - Alvesgaspar 12:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Original is here. There were no 'clonetool fingerprints' to be removed because no clonetool was used. Just stitched, cropped and resampled for sharpness. Lycaon 12:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Those unsightly large spots in the skies -- I have never seen skies like this. Can you also see them? Is there some meteorological definition for the phenomena? I think that I could clone in some more so you can see the reason that I thought they were clone tool markings (not that I want or wanted to offend). -- carol 13:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah now I see. They are dust spots on the sensor. They are repeated because the picture is composed of several images. I'll remove them. Lycaon 13:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done Lycaon 14:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is better when you do this than me? Personally, I was glad to know that it was not just blue problems that I can see. Do you think that I can see these because my monitor has not been professionally calibrated? -- carol 15:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clouds above the wimpy contrail are crudely manipulated (crude as in not smooth). Image was better with the -.12degree rotation. -- carol 15:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
??? Clouds have never been manipulated!! Lycaon 21:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have the time, patience and toleration, please see Image:Dawn over Oostende-retouched.jpg for everything that I remember and have recently done or thought about this very beautiful image. -- carol 13:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the skyline by day:
Pano - Oostende left.jpg

Lycaon 15:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This is quite the panorama! Am I convinced? -- carol 17:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course you are, even the EXIF is real ;-). Lycaon 18:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
But they didn't line up and, I really thought they would. -- carol 18:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
That's probably because the early morning picture was taken further offshore and more to the west. Lycaon 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. --Beyond silence 22.5px 11:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That's worth even more. Though I am a bit disappointed for when going on Google Map I can't see your boat and it is full day !--B.navez 19:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 02:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Xerocomus badius[edit]

Xerocomus badius 01.jpg Xerocomus badius 01 edit.jpg

  • Nomination Xerocomus badius --Yarl TalkPL 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Slight overexposure in general and a heavy amount in the background. 2 much color noise --Richard Bartz 19:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support My amateur eyes and uncalibrated monitor cannot find too much that do not allow this image to be QI. -- carol 05:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I've tried an edit but I can't get rid of most of the jpg artefacts and the overexposure. Lycaon 12:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you know what that little bug is in the image? -- carol 12:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a male lycosid spider. Not a bug. Lycaon 12:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried only crop. check it out. --Fukutaro 09:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Result:  1 Symbol support vote.svg support (excl. nominator) – 2 Symbol oppose vote.svg oppose → not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Scoria[edit]

Scoria Macro Digon3.jpg

  • Nomination Scoria Macro --Digon3 01:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportWow, this has come a long way from you early mineral shots, great quality, great lighting. You might want to find a smoother paper to use as a bg though to make the shadow less structured. --Dschwen 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentOk, it is a very good image. Technichally, bravissimo. But what is it for ? There is no mineralogic indication (obviously a basaltic scoria but I can make a mistake). And where does it come from ? What volcanic place ? FP are not judged on their encyclopedic value anymore and now QI ! Don't forget Commons is first for sharing pictures for all languages WP projects and we need QI for illustrations. BTW what are these blue marks ? Rubbed on painted surface ? --B.navez 18:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Does it matter where it came from? Commons FP were never judged on their encyclopedic value only (only wikipedia FP does that) and certainly not QI. All I know is that I bought it a long time ago and I believe the blue marks are part of the rock and not rubbed off paint. --Digon3 19:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok it's true that english speaking people go on making their own encyclopedic FP on Wikipedia but the world is not only english speaking and other WP trust Commons to give and to get good pictures. Shall we be obliged to organize another review for World quality encyclopedic illustrations ? Funds have been raised for all the wikimedia encyclopedic project not just for a photographic blog.
I think you misunderstand what QI is. I am currently working on a proposal for a complementary concept called Valuable Images. This may be of interest to you. -- Slaunger 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Good. It should be the first concept, not a complementary one. Just let everyone read again the main page of Commons : a place to share media and then people are invited to discover the best shared media like FP and QI. So I think the misunderstanding here has come along slowly but not from my part.--B.navez 11:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I just quote Commons:Quality Images first sentence :"Quality Images are diagrams or photographs which meet certain quality standards (which are mostly technical in nature) and which are valuable for Wikimedia projects."--B.navez 07:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, precisely, wikimedia projects, go check out www.wikimedia.org, not all are encyclopaedic projects :-) --Tony Wills 11:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unidentified stone. --B.navez 19:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is Scoria. --Digon3 20:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure it is ? Is it really scoria or pumice ? What is the density of the sample ? Round shape is unusual for raw scoria. So it could be not scoria but a pebble of scoria, shaped by water rolling and wearing ? If a pebble, it could be either really coming from a scoria (an aerial ejecta from volcano), either being a fragment of bubbled lava rock (e.g. a'a lava flows). The blue marks on the left are very odd ! If natural, it's an unknown rarity, what does it mean ? If stains, that spoils the picture. You say Commons is not wikipedia but the picture is used on WP and the better a picture is (and it is), the most seen and the most used it is, so it has first to be accurate and reliable. Otherwise this page is just a kind of joke.--B.navez 11:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Inevitably blurry around the edges but otherwise the technical quality is excellent. --bdesham 04:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For its technical quality. (Descriptions have been added, BTW) Rocket000 07:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The lighting is not sure whether rounded or flat surface.--Fukutaro 09:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose My instinct was to fix the shadow but I wasn't sure where to start. It does seem like it is a very nice rock though, for a long term investment. -- carol 13:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Carol, something feels wrong. Are you Digon3 too ? Image of the same stone has been uploaded by you Pet Rock-2003.jpg--B.navez 06:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
That image is not a quality image, imho, and this image was intended for the more comPETitive, sophisticated and perhaps respectable collection that you possibly found it in. I thought for a long while about how to repair that bubbly shadow, and that was the result. What feels wrong to you exactly? Does the word elite come to mind when you see this image? -- (not Digon3) carol 07:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I know now where this stone comes from. From Alice's wonderland. By the way, are you a cousin of Lewis, having lost 2 letters by crossing the ocean ? --B.navez 09:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

22.5px 12:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have hopefully fixed the shadow so tell me what you think. --Digon3 17:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I grabbed the shadow from the tablecloth and applied it. It seems more fun now. -- carol 09:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Very funny ;-) --Tony Wills 11:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Digon I think you should revert to the original version, the textured shadow is odd, but not really a problem, and you already had a majority of support votes before the blurring. --Tony Wills 11:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- carol 10:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC) -- my support was for an edit that I would have made certain was uploaded over my not so good edit. I am in opposition of this because I would like for it to be withdrawn and this (or a version with a better shadow) be uploaded into the same namespace as this green version which is already there. -- carol 15:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, I have reverted back to the original. --Digon3 15:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Information Result: 4 Symbol support vote.svg support (excl. nominator) – 3 Symbol oppose vote.svg oppose  → promoted to QI  Updated by Lycaon 11:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Saint Constable Church[edit]

SantoCondestável 2008-2.jpg

  • Nomination Sculpture over the main door of the Santo Condestável (Saint Constable) Church, Lisbon, representing D. Nuno Álvares Pereira (1360-1431). Below it is written "Having a firm hope in God, few of us will prevail over many" -- Alvesgaspar 17:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Composition, depth of field, perspective and proportion. -- carol 04:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, if the prophet doesn't go to the mountain, let the mountain come to the prophet - Alvesgaspar 13:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 1 support, 0 oppose >> promoted to QI -- Alvesgaspar 13:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Photograph is only so-so, promotion was emotional. -- carol 04:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Change of mind technically too late --Tony Wills 06:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If we apply sctrictly the agreed rules, this picture is already a QI: more than 48 hours elapsed after the support vote. Other opinions? -- Alvesgaspar 19:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I actually have been trying to stay ahead of QICBot according to the date not the hour and minute. Should QICBot crawl the list by the hour instead of daily? -- carol 13:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I suppose so, if it can be done smoothly (stupid bot!). At least, the correction should be automatic whenever someone complains ... and is right, by the rules. Do you now the words from Verdi's Rigoletto? - La donna e mobile qual piuma al vento, muda d'accento e di pensier... -- Alvesgaspar 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
What language is that? Itapanituguesish? -- carol 03:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course Alvesgaspar is right, we should stick to the agreed rules. I'm sure this has come up before, and I think we over-rode the contributors complaint and processed the image through CR (but I can't remember exactly, and don't really want to search thousands of archived discussions ;-). Of course our problem is that we don't have a de-listing process, so once it gets through it can't be revoked.
It is also unusual for a reviewer to completely reverse their review, one review perhaps cancels out the other, perhaps the net effect is no-decision :-) - perhaps a compromise solution is for the reviewer to withdraw both reviews and let someone else review it :-).
No one else opposed the review, so the image is probably not too bad ;-), insisting that the rules be followed might induce reviewers to be more careful with their decisions :-).
I think I would leave the decision up to Alvesgaspar, he can consent to let it go through the rigours of CR or ask that the letter of the rules be followed and it be promoted as per original review. --Tony Wills 04:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In this case, yes, I would like the rules to be followed. I really don't care about this picture being promoted or not, but fuzzy procedures and confirmation of faulty decisions are not good for the credibility of QIC -- Alvesgaspar 09:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • And certainly, I am the only person here who has voted emotionally. I have a question -- how come we do not wait for Dshwen to explain what I meant as was the deciding factor before? -- carol 11:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I was going to make another version with the man-statues' shoulders covered with hoverflies (and maybe some of the angels(?) below). Getting the background out of the transparent wings of the hoverfly images was quite a task though.... -- carol 13:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This should remain in discussion until Dshwen determines what I really meant to do. -- carol 13:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The joke about Dshwen is because of a change of a Promotion to a Decline on some other image here. It was a joke. Having the nominator change an Oppose to a Promotion is not good. It is even worse than the person who made the Promotion changing their mind and since this happened, many time stamps are changing for Promotions. I made an attempt to open a discussion of possible software solutions to problems like this here. 41 minutes and no proof that either timestamp wasn't modified. -- carol 12:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

    • I can't believe you are suggesting that I might have modified the timestamp in order to have my picture promoted! If that is the case, you have no idea of what's going on here and what kind of people you are dealing with. Really sad. -- Alvesgaspar 20:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Blame the mosquito for my belief problems. Blame whoever changed the range map I made. Or blame me for researching some of your images, but please do not accuse me of simple disbelief though. -- carol 03:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

@Carol: The only timestamps that are significant here are those of your promotion and your change of mind. From the wiki page history you promoted it here and over 48 hours later you reversed that decision here. So technically the image was promoted as per the rules, and anyone (including the nominator) can tag the image QI from that point on. --Tony Wills 20:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I left this discussion here for 8 days to see if anyone else objected to the original promotion, or had any point to make about the process. There was no additional input, so it seems reasonable to stick to the rules as listed and accept that it was technically promoted 48hours after review. Any dispute about the meaning of the rules or alteration of the rules should now be taken to the talk page. --Tony Wills 21:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Chaoboridae[edit]

Chaoboridae Richard Bartz.jpg

  • Nomination Antennas of Chaoboridae, Phantom midges. The head including the antennas is aprox 1mm in size --Richard Bartz 12:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Richard Bartz has photographs are usuallry very fantastic, but why are pictures almost a little dark?--Fukutaro 02:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unsharp detail, shallow DOF. very sorry. --Fukutaro 02:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please keep in mind that this is a 5x magnification, where the tubus is aprox 1 cm in front of the object and covers it moreless. This isn't a regular macro shot. The whole animal measures aprox 5mm ;) ... --Richard Bartz 20:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 1cm!? wowow... You meant it is similar to type Microphotograph and/or Science-photograph? And if it, a scale/mm ruler should be added to image? And then it is easy to understand and unsharp will be not problem for QI, I think this way. (and one more thing, I feel a few dark, especially when thumb image...) --Fukutaro 08:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No, not 1cm it's half size of 1cm. Here is a picture where you cann see that this midge is black. The slight blur is caused by diffraktion at f16 on 5x magnification, which means that we are bending reality here ;-). You can be shure that i took the same effort on this picture as i usually do. --Richard Bartz 10:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • All of understand. I could not aware what blurred from diffraction. I know that your much effort and technic, and I look up to your works. I meant think so, but I expect more better photo. Thank you. --Fukutaro 12:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am quite certain that you glued little feathers onto this poor little midges head (while 'bending' reality). -- carol 11:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your demotivating oppose carol. --Richard Bartz 11:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome; and thank you for your very quick response. I would like to see an image of the really small tweezers if you have the time. -- carol 11:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If you buy me a scanning electron microscope SEM i will do it --Richard Bartz 13:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bearutiful Butterfry[edit]

Eryphanis sp.jpg

  • Nomination Caligo eurilochus --Richard Bartz 11:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very bearutiful, though a few dark, so not cleary for me. The background more lighted will might be better. --Fukutaro 15:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Included in CR 04:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC) -- carol
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It looks good to me. The feeling of darkness might be mainly due to the fact that it's not a very colourful subject. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Beyond silence 22.5px 12:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I support that 1.6 sec :) -- Laitche 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love the color and sharpness. --Mark (Mschel) 13:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fantastic detail. Samsara 00:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This one looks best of all printed pictures this month --Richard Bartz 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. Good to see some butterflys with muted colours for a change. Also, nice reflective appearance on lighter parts. --Thermos 02:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Music organs in a Polish church[edit]

Church of Blessed Winent Kadłubek in Jędrzejów - inside 06.JPG

  • Nomination Church of Blessed Winent Kadłubek in Jędrzejów, music organs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good color, nice mood. but unsharp, noisy. --Fukutaro 10:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I thought it was sharp enough. Could you elaborate on what is unsharp and noisy, and how to avoid such problems in the future - or how to fix the existing photo? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I find the whole picture suffers from a little motion blur and a bit of noise, not really surprising because of the 1/3 second exposure and ISO 200. The noise can be treated to some degree in some software, but it usually is at the cost of detail. The motion blur cannot be fixed; if you must shoot in this poor lighting, you can try setting the the camera on its lowest ISO and using a tripod or setting the camera stable, but other than that, I don't know that there is much that you can do. Thegreenj 23:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • .....And, lowest F-number(deep DOF) for sharp detail of whole. Like this shooting, usually cable release. (Thanks for explain, Thegreenj.) --Fukutaro 09:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think DOF is a problem in this picture. f/3 gives fairly deep DOF on a compact, and the longer exposure time from a smaller aperture could contribute to noise. Thegreenj 00:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do like the shot but it is very grainy and motion blur does ruins the detail and, like Thegreenj said, fixing the noise would lose even more detail. Rocket000 07:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the crop on the bottom of the picture. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Testudinata[edit]

Testudinata Richard Bartz.jpg
  • Nomination A few water-turtles or maybe lemmings :-) --Richard Bartz 16:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentVery dark but maybe typical for images made in the Botanical Garden --Hsuepfle 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportThat is surely dark. But appropriate contrast, beautiful. Color is a few red side? --Fukutaro 10:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)--Fukutaro 15:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one was tough. I love the image but it is dark and, at smaller sizes, it's hard to make out the subject. At full size, this is not an issue. Technically it's good, but I hope I'm not letting the "wow" factor influence me too much for a QIC. Rocket000 07:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Information Result: 2 Symbol support vote.svg support (excl. nominator) – 0 Symbol oppose vote.svg oppose → promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Antidorcas marsupialis[edit]

Antidorcas marsupialis 1.jpg

  • Nomination Sprinkbok (Antidorcas marsupialis) in Etosha, Namibia. Lycaon 17:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fantastic, clear image. Meets all the criteria. --Reflection of Perfection 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is one of the worst images (from Lycaon) I have ever seen nominated here. -- carol 02:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    And more, it seems to have only found a use as a comedy routine for FPC. -- carol 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Quoting an opposition from FP:
  1. Body position: the animal seems to be walking away.
  2. Camera angle: shooting from an up to down position makes the contour of the body (top) blend in with background. A larger aperture would have separated the body from the background.
  3. Light direction: it feels as if the light is pushing the animal away and it creates disturbing shadows.
  4. As in people, vision is drawn to the face, and in this case, it is difficult to see the face.
  5. My memory reference for this type of animal is that they are agile and alert and dynamic, a sensation that I do not get here. -- (not my words) carol 12:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is it a private war or vendetta for something, carol? You're ridiculous.I'll leave this nice company for some time, by-by--Szilas 10:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, ok, I'll have to set my mediocre manners aside for a second, this is complete bullshit. I'll change this back to promote since no one opposed it. If anyone does not agree move it to CR yourself! --Dschwen 18:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I didn't review the history of this QIC, but let's not let procedural disagreements affect this image's QI fate. I'm undecided myself, as it's a little grainy and the lighting could have been better (shadow across face), but it's definitly not one of the worst images I have ever seen nominated here. Rocket000 07:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info As the closure was a little premature, I have changed it back to discuss --Tony Wills 02:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have taken the liberty of moving the procedural disagreement discussion to my talk page :-) --Tony Wills 13:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Information Result: 2 Symbol support vote.svg support (excl. nominator) – 1 Symbol oppose vote.svg oppose → promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Pula harbour[edit]

Sunset above Pula harbour.JPG

  • Nomination Sunset in Pula, Croatia --Orlovic (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I'm sorry to that lens flare in the middle, blurred boat, gray areas of noise.... can these fixes? --Fukutaro 17:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentNoise removed --Orlovic (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think what loks like a lens flare are lights in a building (see day scene). Have you remarked how Venus is clearly round? --B.navez 19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Venus? As far as I look this, I don't think it is building. noise cleary, okey. beautiful sunset, struct in the shadow were tasteful mood. but blurred, sorry. I know that like this shooting is difficult, and I thought that like this image have to need to sharp outline.--Fukutaro 20:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Here are the places : 800px-Sunset above Pula harbour notes.JPG, replace perspectives to locate the building and watch the original to see Venus.--B.navez 02:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support though the lights of the building could be removed but that doesnt prevent QI only maybe FP. Gnangarra 02:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
actually, there's no building there, I don't know how did the light get there.. --Orlovic (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sunset above Pula harbour[edit]

Sunset above Pula harbour (02).jpg

  • Nomination Sunset in Pula, Croatia --Orlovic (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I prefer this of the two images. The skies are noisy though and it would be more interesting with a geocoding. I actually would like the other one to be dropped into the unassessed images so that it can be re-entered here at a later date. -- carol 03:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Noise reducted. --Orlovic (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Where is the original? I wanted to see if the glow around the equipment at the left was in the original as well. -- carol 02:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice image.--Fukutaro 17:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio 22:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gnangarra 02:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise reduction introduced a line around the equipment. -- carol 06:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per carol: haloes and colour fringing. Lycaon 07:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that means not promoted as one negative vote cancels out two positive. -- carol 07:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Only on FP :-). --Tony Wills 10:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You're right I will withdraw this and do a crop see --Orlovic (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Consider using the "Upload a new version of this file" option. I would have liked to compare the first version with your edit. Only lately have I been uploading edited versions over nominated versions -- some seem not to mind, some seem to mind and know how to revert it -- others just seem to want to be confusing and difficult to deal with. The versions can be reverted just like changes to wikitext can be -- so at the very least, no damage is done and there is a record of how slow things were in January here -- carol 15:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice image. --Beyond silence 22.5px 23:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Susie Stoddart[edit]

Susie Stoddart

  • Nomination Susie Stoddart (DTM driver) --AngMoKio 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Something shadow on the lower right. --Fukutaro 15:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Is that enough to keep this from being QI? -- carol 11:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC) I don't have a problem with the lower right corner. The noise in the hair on the right, noise in the shadows and the small size I do have a problem with. Sorry that I questioned the decline.... -- carol 13:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, woman's face are good. but sorry for lower right...--Fukutaro 18:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It looks like something has been removed roughly from this lower right place--B.navez 12:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Phoebis philea Caterpillar[edit]

Phoebis philea Caterpillar Richard Bartz.jpg
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image. -- carol 10:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportThat is a caterpillar --B.navez 01:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Distorted? I'm not sure what that's referring to. There's a slight motion blur around the head and the DOF's a tad narrow, but still a great image. Rocket000 07:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Villa in Katowice[edit]

Katowice - Ul. 1-go Maja - Willa 02.jpg

  • Nomination 1-go maja street in Katowice. --Lestat 00:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • This image seemed to be busy, or something -- so I made this version (which can be made better, if this is a good direction to take with this image). -- carol 04:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wires spoil the picture, as Lestath himself pointed to me some time ago.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I added second version without wires (upgrade version of Carol version.) --Lestat 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I kinda prefer the warts and all version with wires. Gnangarra 02:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Abstain on the second version, as I lack technical skills to check if removal of the wires did not leave some strange artifacts.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Second version is good for QI --Pudelek 11:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs more work. -- carol 04:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

York Castle Clifford's Tower 2007[edit]

York Castle Clifford's Tower 2007.jpg

  • Nomination York Castle. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 02:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Maybe needs crop for lighting (shadow at bottom)?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 02:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good, but some cropping could perhaps improve the image indeed -- MJJR 21:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question How exactly, I'm not sure what would be best, anybody wants to help?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentComposition, color, brightness, very nice. But not required building on the right, and horizontal line is right?--Fukutaro 21:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Here is a direct crop to remove the shadow. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 21:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I made one also and after the doing, I am most impressed with the three file size differences. -- carol 04:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Candidates for confusing edits should be in review. -- carol 01:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

View from Eigerwand[edit]

5102-5104a - Eigerwand - View from Jungfraubahn.JPG

  • Nomination View from Eigerwand near Grindelwald, CH --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 05:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeYour panoramas are all beautifully stitched and interesting to look at. The images also all have blown out colors and I have yet to see a panorama of yours that has enough sky included. That being said, I did not look at this one full size -- it is obvious that there is not enough sky, again.... -- carol 01:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree that some of my other photos may be lacking in sky, but with this one the sky was solely included to provide a visual reference point among the various mountains -- the sky is not intended to be an overwhelming feature, as the geography of the Lütschine valley is the primary subject. Besides, more sky would have been boring: blue blue and more blue :) --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 03:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked at it at the full resolution. I am not a great fan of rules, but the 'suggestion' of thirds is generally a good one when composing images. When I divided your image into horizontal thirds, ~800px for the sky, ~800px for the mountains and ~800px for the foreground, and dropped the image in the frame so that it would fit that if there was enough sky and it was easier for me to look at. I am getting a 'resolution out of bounds' warning when viewing your images -- I just mention that because there is the chance that it is the software I am using that makes the colors in your images overall seem soft and not too contrasty while still the darks are too dark and often the whites are too white. And I am not a huge fan of that HDR type crisp and abnormal color type image that shows up here and around every so often either. Somewhere in between those two extremes, things are good.
What little I know about stitching, your panoramas are really awesome. And this image, the name made me laugh. The other things though -- they keep me from promoting the image. -- carol 12:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Information Running total: 0 Symbol support vote.svg support (excl. nominator) – 1 Symbol oppose vote.svg oppose  → not promoted  Updated by carol 04:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Brussels Zonienwoud[edit]

Brussels Zonienwoud.jpg

  • Nomination Forest at the outskirts of Brussels --Donarreiskoffer 10:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a beautiful photo, but why the small size? I'm curious about the reason for downsampling -- Alvesgaspar 21:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I uploaded a higher resolution version of the photograph. --Donarreiskoffer 19:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I uploaded a yet another version of the photograph, from which noise has been reduced. --Donarreiskoffer 14:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Forest pictures are very difficult and this one gives back truly the atmosphere of this kind of beech stands. Thanks to the people who give the scale and to the cut clearing on the left that gives the light--B.navez 18:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Image was changed after promotion, so promotion was for a different image. Lycaon 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this image. Now I understand the reason for downsampling. A pity, really... -- Alvesgaspar 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question what reason did you understand for downsampling? -- carol 14:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info - To minimize the noise -- Alvesgaspar 16:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it is there on the tree. I really did miss the tree because of the forest this time. -- carol 02:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question Would the noise of the updated photo be more acceptable? --Donarreiskoffer 14:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The paint like reduction of the noise 'works' with the rest of the lighting in this woods. Seeing the image already in use on English Wikipedia, while not a requirement still made this supporter feel more supportful. -- carol 10:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Still a lot of noise and altogether low quality I am afraid. Estrilda 21:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low quality. Rocket000 07:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Flowers in a blue vase 1887[edit]

Van Gogh - Flowers in a blue vase - June 1887.jpg

  • Nomination Painting of Van Gogh--Szilas 13:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Difficult to judge colour correctness, but looks fine to me. Lycaon 15:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Given the ISO 1600 setting, I am inclined to believe that the mottled strokes are a result of choma noise rather than the artistic brushwork of Van Gogh. For accuracy, compare to this museum scan; this rendition is too blue and has an ugly shadow at the top. Thegreenj 02:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - it is not nice to start from the ISO 1600 setting, saying that it can't be good even if you see it as all right. I'm sure that the "official" museum scan has not the right colours - maybe it is on purpose, to discourage the copying (I've actually seen the painting, several times, it helps.) With the shadow you are absolutely right, it was impossible for me to avoid, and I don't have yet the know-how to improve it.--Szilas 08:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • My apologies. But still, I think the ISO setting would confirm that a fair bit of what looks like detail is actually noise. Thegreenj 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't mind the change in color, but my major issue is definitely with the shadow/vignetting. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 03:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The edge is dark. And electric Gaussian noise, unsharp. --Fukutaro 10:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reminds me it's photo—not good for faithful reproductions. Rocket000 07:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Rhinopias frondosa[edit]

Rhinopias frondosa.JPG
  • Nomination Image of a weedy scorpionfish, Rhinopias frondosa --Jnpet 11:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good colour and sharpness for underwater photo. --Lestat 12:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry Jnpet, again I appreciate your beautiful species illustrations, but the quality is yet not sufficient for QI. The noisy background and the blue chromatic fringes are really below the technical requirements for QI. A very nice 'catch' nevertheless. Lycaon 19:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

**No worries. Since it's so bad I've withdrawn the licensing. Who wants this shit on wikipedia? Won't contribute ever again. Good luck getting underwater shots! --Jnpet 20:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Seems you didn't understand what I wrote. Moreover, I've said it before and will repeat it again: it is not because the picture is not QI (or FP for that matter), that it is not valuable (look at all my worm pictures for instance, two out of thirty got a valuation, but the rest is still fine for wikipedia (same story with my shells and my crabs). I know underwater shots are tough (I did a few myself, and I've got several friends from amateurs to pros that make underwater pics), so I feel confident I can judge photographic quality. If the only thing concerned was scientific quality (rarity, species account, etc), you'd pass with flying colours, but that is not what QI (nor FP) is about. Sorry. Lycaon 01:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

****I understood completely. This is QI, you are not happy about the nudibranch FP which looks like it will be "kept". You can't accept this and it seems you need to attack anything I put up here. It's personal, I understand. Don't worry, I've removed the license on this image. Should disappear soon enough. Sorry it offends you so badly. --Jnpet 02:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  • So since one person said this isn't a QI you're going to remove in from Wikipedia altogether? I don't follow your logic. Calibas 02:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not very fair. You want me to change my mind because of those threats? What else can I tell you? I like your image but IMO it is NOT QI. Lycaon 03:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it's not fair. I'm not asking you to change your mind. It seems to me you are questioning Lestat's opinion. I just can't help but feel it's personal, but it certainly appears that way when you consider the Nudibranch image you tried to delist from FP. I certainly don't put up every picture I've uploaded for QI or FP. The ones I do I consider to be good. In this case, so did Lestat. If it's not personal, it means you are questioning Lestat's opinion. Like I said, this lavender fish will be gone soon. Cheers! --Jnpet 03:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, I have had some time to cool my jets. I was somewhat taken aback with how angry I got. I rarely do get angry. Perhaps the hang over I was sporting on January 1st didn't help. Anyway, I over reacted, and my apologies for that. I was truly pleased with this picture and where I'd normally accept constructive crisicism, in this case, I had a different impression. I have withdrawn the delete request for this image as it is being used already, but I remain discouraged and I think it may be a while before I contribute another image. I guess I'd like recognition for the value an image brings to wikipedia in general. Perhaps there should be a "Valuable Image" category for images promoted on the basis of an image's usage through out the wiki projects in all languages. As for this image, if it's not QI, so be it. Thanks for your patience, Cheers & Happy New Year! --Jnpet 03:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon. Thegreenj 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Rhinogobius sp. CO[edit]

Rhinogobius sp. CO

  • Nomination Ruriyoshinobori which is Japanese freshwater fish. --Seotaro 16:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Upscaling artefacts. Lycaon 22:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Upscaling? This is original resolution.--Seotaro 15:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Then please upload/reveal EXIF data. Lycaon 13:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Now uploaded image with EXIF data. Please make sure resolution. Seotaro 11:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice colours pity caudal part. --Laitche 18:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a QI detail. --Beyond silence 22.5px 23:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not as detailed as the other one, oversharped and filled with jpeg artifacts. Thegreenj 22:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Country view[edit]

Porto Covo January 2008-6.jpg

  • Nomination A country view with lambs, near Porto Covo, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 14:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice pastoral view. But lightness over, unsharp. sorry. --Fukutaro 10:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why CR? I see only one assessment here. Rocket000 07:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - Because the author (me) would like another opinion -- Alvesgaspar 13:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background haze seems artificial. There is posterization in places and the selection around the trees seems too smooth. -- carol 14:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)My mind added problems between desktops. -- carol 14:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Street in old town[edit]

Street in old town in Bratislava.JPG

  • Nomination Street in old town in Bratislava (former Jewish quarter) -- Pudelek 22:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's OK, nice colorus and very low noise. QI for me. --Lestat 17:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is OK but lighting is not: the street is in the shadow. Maybe another time of the day? -- Alvesgaspar 21:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think on it's own, it's good; but I do agree that you could get an even better photo perhaps at high noon in the late spring or early summer (to minimise shadow). --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 03:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 Symbol support vote.svg support (excl. nominator) – 1 Symbol oppose vote.svg oppose → promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Pula Harbour[edit]

Pula harbour (7).jpg

  • Nomination Pula harbour harbour. Noise reducted --Orlovic (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A tasteful image, but detail is noisy.. sorry.--Fukutaro 14:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry, I was looking at expanded image.. --Fukutaro 10:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You should be evaluating the images expanded to their full sizes. Thegreenj 05:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find it fine enough for a so sad weather.--B.navez 15:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support not every photo should or needs to be with blue skies, Gnangarra 02:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 Symbol support vote.svg support (excl. nominator) – 0 Symbol oppose vote.svg oppose → promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bratislava[edit]

Bratislava view from Crown Tower.jpg

  • Nomination Bratislava (Pressburg, Pozsony) - view from Crown Tower (Bratislava Castle) --Pudelek 21:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course, it is not Paris but I think this is a pretty good picture to present the capital of Slowakia. --B.navez 15:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but the picture is too noisy and especially the right side is too washed out --Simonizer 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Good return of air pollution ? --B.navez 19:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No, that is not caused by air pollution. That is just a matter of quality --Simonizer 20:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is definitely a good photo to show the city, but I have to agree with Simonizer. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 20:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was going to oppose this due to the haze, I could forgive the little bit of noise in the water. I am wondering though, what is that building that looks like the drawers of a desk organizer stacked haphazardly and has the river facing side that is sloped and made of glass? Also, if you could more easily see the smoke stacks in the distance, the haze might make more sense. Heh. -- carol 02:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It is the Slowak national museum (source)--B.navez 02:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Slovak National Gallery. -- carol 03:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Simonizer and Bossi. It could be that washed-out and haze to retouch possible, but would not possible noise. --Fukutaro 16:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 Symbol support vote.svg support (excl. nominator) – 3 Symbol oppose vote.svg oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bicentennial Capitol Mall State Park[edit]

Bicentenial Capitol Mall Park.jpg

  • Nomination Bicentennial Capitol Mall State Park in Nashville, Tennessee, USA. Thegreenj 02:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • I admit that I declined this because the thumbnail never inspired me to look at more of it. -- carol 07:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, it's certainly not the most exciting image ever, but still stands well technically. Thegreenj 12:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose After seeing the trestle looking much more interesting in that other photograph, I am even less inclined to look beyond this thumbnail. This thumbnail, it looks blurry. You are certain it is in focus? -- carol 14:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC) -- carol 01:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain it's in focus... and it almost certainly outresolves the 180 px thumbnail. But still, if composition is your concern, that's perfectly valid. Thegreenj 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 22.5px 17:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support solid composition, with the trees having dropped their leaves it shows more of the surrounds, including the roadways. Looking at in the thumb its does look out of focus but thats due to the detail of trees without leaves on branches. Gnangarra 11:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nashornleguan Cyclura cornuta[edit]

Nashornleguan Cyclura cornuta Richard Bartz.jpg

  • Nomination Cyclura cornuta --Richard Bartz 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality --Simonizer 00:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cat toy. Leg lost in excessive shadow. Clone crap in upper left corner; Selective blur fewmets; etc. -- carol 05:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSymbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not so worried about the shadowed front leg (what about the completely hidden rear leg ;-), but the cloning repetitions in the left top corner and blurred 'smudges' along the top and bottom left are a problem :-) --Tony Wills 06:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Boring colors. Cat toy? -- carol 18:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC) one vote should be enough --Richard Bartz 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Compared with this featured picture + Picture of the day + Quality picture this picture should be ok for QI. Clone crap ? erased as good as possible --Richard Bartz 01:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Clone voodoo or clone hoodoo? -- carol 02:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment with all due respect, I have been searching for the QI delistlist. -- carol 02:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The beast itself is fine, I still find the misty nature of the image along the top, distracting (doesn't look like just out-of-focus blur). The composition is a little awkward (almost walking out of the frame), but long tailed beasts are annoying like that :-) --Tony Wills 08:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality --Beyond silence 22.5px 16:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cynara_cardunculus[edit]

Cynara cardunculus (Kalmthout).jpg

  • Nomination Cardoon (Cynara cardunculus) at the Kalmthout arboretum, Belgium. -- Lycaon 07:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion :
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too little of the flower is in focus - DOF too short --the preceding unsigned comment was added by Peripitus (talk • contribs)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better to discuss and to determine the species bug that is also in focus in this pretty little cardoom. -- carol 05:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not sure what needs discussion unless you are suggesting to promote ? --Tony Wills 06:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Can that bug within be identified first? -- carol 06:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Why do you not take the time to identify it for yourself if you find it so interesting ? --Richard Bartz 02:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I am still trying to determine the reason that all of the European trees seamed to drop their branches and if it is a regular occurrence or a unique incident. -- carol 03:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • On Carol's request: The species in the flower is a honey bee (Apis mellifera).Lycaon 13:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On that way its easy :-) :-) :-) --Richard Bartz 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Easy, EASY?? I had to go back in time for one and a half years!! An then I had to tilt that bloody flower in my computer!!! ;-))). Lycaon 18:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Everything, because carol wants it so. For becoming a QI Label you have to stoop a lot ;-) Strange business ! :-) --Richard Bartz 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Stoop? -- carol 00:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, to tilt the cardoon. ;-D Lycaon 00:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High resolution. --Beyond silence 22.5px 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was going to protest that we have no proof that it is the same insect in all photos (even if they were all taken within a 60 second interval) ;-) but I will instead complain that you have fiddled the EXIF data as I do not think you can achieve that depth of field from a camera located that far from the subject without a much longer lens :-( --Tony Wills 09:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh, Category:Flora of Namibia? -- carol 11:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • ARGHHH!! You got me there! Nicely scrutinized ;-). I fixed the location. Thanks for discovering the error. Lycaon 11:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 :-) --Tony Wills 12:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dama Dama[edit]

Damhirsch Dama dama Richard Bartz.jpg

  • Nomination Damhirsch Dama dama --Richard Bartz 03:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • The patches of light are the only thing that detract from this classic fantastic image: very sharp, no noise or blur, good composition. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Is the positive review a promotion? -- carol 01:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Patches of light belong to the "in the woods" atmosphere and the photo is so fine technically as well as from a naturalist point of view. --B.navez 15:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clone work is imperfect and in some places disturbing. Thegreenj 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, could you show the places ? I don't see what you mean on this pic by imperfect clone work --B.navez 04:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I find the worst offender to be underneath the thing's belly. The patch of rocks has become repeating lines. Another bad spot is a little below the rear hoof, where I see some repeating stones. Look at the difference between the two versions on the image page—some of the overexposure recovery is excelent, but more than a few spots show obvious manipulation. Thegreenj 17:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I need to look again then. I just didn't see that. -- carol 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I looked, I saw, I changed my vote. -- carol 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Then, I realized the potential depth and breadth of my confusion and refused to vote. -- carol 03:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I cloned out anything that looked wrong. It took about 5 to 10 minutes and I think that all I removed were some leaves that seemed flat in this lighting. What I would like to change is the description I read of the species and the community that this fawn was born into. I think that my edit should be deleted once the CR is over and I would still like to know what the pace-maker person intended with the review. -- carol 14:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I am confused. Why did you upload your edit if you want it deleted? And who is the pace-maker person (I assume me since I moved this into review)? Thegreenj 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
About my edit It is a way to show how very few edits I made and how I did not find the reported clone errors. The two images are almost exactly alike, so much so that I think it is not beneficial to anyone to keep the image I uploaded around.
About the pacemaker person Steven Fruitsmaak sent an image of a pacemaker through both QI and FP at about the same time that the support of this image was given. Sockpuppet or what? -- carol 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Huh? How does Steven Fruitsmaak's comment (not review) indicate that he is a sockpuppet? It was B.navez who promoted it, BTW. Looks perfectly valid to me! And the cloning errors, look at the original and the current version. Some of the overexposure recovery is flawless, and some shows significant cloning errors (two of which I listed above). And I'm afraid that I still do not see how your edit ties into this. Thegreenj 02:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
First question, it doesn't -- your comment made me think that you were the sockpuppet. First real point -- I changed my vote while you were whatever here. My point -- while looking at all of the QI candidates and trying to work within the time frame given in the rules and while awaiting each photographers fan base to do their thing; I thought that the image had changed and still have yet to look at the original entry. Thanks for asking. -- carol 03:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
My latest point. I am just messed up about this image. I thought it was of a fawn laying on a woodland floor. I don't belong here making decisions about its Quality. -- carol 03:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I withdraw my voting. Honestly I prefer the original version with real patches of light.--B.navez 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The images did change, didn't they? -- carol 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I would support the original if reverted. Thegreenj 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 22.5px 01:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a great pic, i dont know why there is a great discussion onto this. Show must go on! --Richard Bartz 18:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question As the photographer and perhaps also as a possible by-product of a 20tht century genetic engineering scheme, how do you think this image compares with the other current candidate image of a ruminate? -- carol 18:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
These are both good quality pictures, maybe not professional, but thats why they are for free, where Wikimedia can be very happy to have such good pictures --Richard Bartz 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
So any image which is large enough and sharp enough and uploaded to commons should be considered good enough for QI? -- carol 02:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
If size and sharpness is everything you see on this picture then i'am very sorry for you. Bartz, over --Richard Bartz 10:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, as the nominator, you are not allowed to vote. Thegreenj 22:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Will renominate it soon with hopefully more competent reviewersRichard Bartz 23:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of competency issues everywhere; I completely understand this display of shyness.... -- carol 02:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Weiße Baumnymphe Idea leuconoe[edit]

Weiße Baumnymphe Idea leuconoe 2 Richard Bartz.jpg

  • Nomination Idea leuconoe --Richard Bartz 22:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeDOF is lacking. Lycaon 23:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Richard Bartz 17:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Lviv - Jesuit Church[edit]

Lviv - Jesuit Church and Statue of Taras Shevchenko 01a.JPG

  • Nomination Jesuit Church and Statue of Taras Shevchenko in Lviv. --Lestat 15:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If the other comment (below) was suppose to be a promotion, please move to CR. I decline because of sharpness and JPEG artifacts. Rocket000 07:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I doubted the composition but you can't cut down the trees, nice work. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Second version with removed tree on left and little sharper. --Lestat 21:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The top is nice, but the bottom is way to noisy. An OK image, but nothing spectacular enough for a QI.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info To piotrus --> For spectacular photos is FP, not QI. Wow factor isn't required for QI. --Lestat 10:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> Not promoted --Thegreenj 22:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Porcellio scaber[edit]

Porcellio scaber on bark.jpg

  • Nomination Porcellio scaber on bark in De Haan, Belgium. -- Lycaon 14:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subject unclear, and the only one that is sharp shows remarkably little detail and suffers from lighting issues. Confusing background. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Compared to the other Isopod in QI, this one has quite a bit of detail, so I disagree with the assessor. Lycaon 08:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely muted tones. -- carol 06:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't you see DOF and CA on your photo? --Beyond silence 22.5px 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment DOF is such that at least one specimen is completely in focus. So called CA is IMO as structural reflection issue which is only visible on the animals and hence probably due to the nature of their teguments. Lycaon 08:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree with Lycaon, this is no CA ... more like a anisotropic reflection like e.g. hairs or Compact Disks have. A result of microstructures. --Richard Bartz 15:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Are these insects really considered to be crustaceans? -- carol 14:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose -> Not promoted --Thegreenj 22:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Swallow chicks444[edit]

Swallow chicks444.jpg

  • Nomination Swallow chicks Benjamint 02:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Seems a bit over-edited. Calibas 00:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great colours and depth, very professional but I agree, looks over-edited. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much saturation. Estrilda 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You mean the reds on the side of their faces? I'll see about burning some more detail in from another channel to fix it. Benjamint 05:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Calibas and Estrida. Too saturation, red side is overall. --Fukutaro 15:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> Not promoted --Thegreenj 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rhinogobius sp. CB[edit]

Rhinogobius sp. CB(Hamamatsu,Shizuoka,Japan).jpg

  • Nomination Shimayoshinobori which is Japanese freshwater fish. --Seotaro 16:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Upscaling artefacts. Lycaon 22:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is original resolution.--Seotaro 00:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please upload/reveal EXIF data to rule out upscaling suspicions. Lycaon 13:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Uploaded image with EXIF data. Please make sure resolution. Seotaro 12:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, it's noisy. --Beyond silence 22.5px 23:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> Not promoted --Thegreenj 22:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Caridina multidentata[edit]

Caridina multidentata(Hamamatsu,Shizuoka,Japan,2007).jpg

  • Nomination Yamatonumaebi which is Japanese marsh shrimp. --Seotaro 16:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Upscaling artefacts. Lycaon 22:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is original resolution.--Seotaro 00:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the artifacts being referred to are the smudges on the side of the aquarium (assuming I'm correct in that this wasn't an underwater photo). There are a couple smudges on this, but I feel like the subject itself is pretty crisp -- except for some focus issues on the tail. That's OK to me, but may draw some ire from other voters. The stone is rather overexposed, though -- looks good if I tilt my monitor a bit: perhaps something that could be addressed in Photoshop? --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 06:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the bottom sand of fish tank is not flat. Then the image appear to tilt. Seotaro 12:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Gives impression of dirt on monitor, smudges. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please upload/reveal EXIF data to rule out upscaling suspicions. Lycaon 13:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Uploaded image with EXIF data. Please make sure resolution. Seotaro 12:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> Not promoted --Thegreenj 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Butterflies by R. Bartz and Laitche[edit]

Caligo eurilochus 2 Richard Bartz.jpgPhilaethria hecale Richard Bartz.jpgCaligo eurilochus Richard Bartz.jpgA argynnis butterfly in front of my house.jpg

  • Nomination Butterflies by R. Bartz and Laitche -- 14:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was considering images for my desktop once and looked at the Gingko gallery here, picked a pretty one -- luckily it was big enough and sharp enough, it was a photograph by Derek Ramsey. I had to make the image darker because that is how I like my desktop images to be. The darkened gingko leaves are now only good for a desktop image. I would like these photographers to take photographs and use whatever software and make the image dark for the desktop and regular lighting for documentation purposes. I don't want to work with a consensus of people who vote and then take off and leave the work to the few people who actually care about quality either. I would rather also that photographers question the cause of the condition and not the condition. -- carol 14:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Nomination Caligo eurilochus --Richard Bartz 16:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportWhile not the best candidate to discuss this with, I have been wondering if it is within the rules of QI to request that certain photographers submit two instead of one image -- a dark one cropped for desktops and another not so dark version cropped for documentation purposes. And perhaps a new sub-gallery in the QI coffers for awesome desktop images. -- carol 03:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentYou should move this comment to the QI main discussion page, because it has nothing to do with this picture, as you suspected with "While not the best candidate to discuss this with". Do you feel lonely ?. --Richard Bartz 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not feel lonely until I looked at the record of who has been taking care of the Quality Images (doing what the bot cannot do) here since March 27, 2007. Lonely are the people who care and respect? -- carol 14:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel dislocated; how would a butterfly image affect ones feeling of dislocation? Several of the butterfly images are dark enough and cropped to dimensions that make it perfect for wallpapers (others were darker).
I will move this when it has sat here long enough. -- carol 20:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination But think this is a awesome picture, no clue why there was no decission. --Richard Bartz 16:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment At this time of year, QI often seems to be a bit slow :-) --Tony Wills 02:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Nomination Philaethria hecale --Richard Bartz 16:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Rather dark - can you fix the white balance - makes him stand out much better - Peripitus 13:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    Too dark and no contrast to the background --Hsuepfle 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Richard Bartz 16:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Nomination Caligo eurilochus --Richard Bartz 16:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentThe forewing is out of focus, the colors are quite good for this dark butterfly --Hsuepfle 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Will renominate this later --Richard Bartz 16:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Nomination argynnis butterfly --Laitche 14:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentAlready QI -- carol 14:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sunset in California[edit]

Firesunset2edit.jpg

  • Nomination Aftermath of the California wildfires of October 2007: lingering smoke makes the air hard to breathe and adds color to the sunset. - Durova 03:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good overall quality and interesting phenomena. QI for me. --LucaG 20:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC
  • Luca, what about this denoised edit? Lycaon 20:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, much better. Good work Hans. --LucaG 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the help. Durova 22:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Maybe the improved version can make it but this one is too noisy for QI - Alvesgaspar 10:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Replaced with denoised version. Durova 19:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good overall quality --Beyond silence 22.5px 23:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Reichskarte fur Urlauber[edit]

Reichskarte fur Urlauber 1.jpg
  • Nomination Reichskarte fur Urlauber. --Lestat 15:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral There's something chilling about this one. But I can't promote it. It should have a clear background, not a black one, and probably a tighter crop. And it isn't quite square? Is that an accurate representation? Or a distortion introduced somewhere? Regards, Ben Aveling 21:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What about the edit? Lycaon 10:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice! Thanks! --Lestat 17:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Was the original square, and the distortion something that was introduced? If not, it shouldn't have been 'corrected'. Otherwise, Symbol support vote.svg Support - looks good. Ben Aveling 07:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> edit promoted to QI -- Lycaon 12:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sakya Monastery[edit]

IMG 1972 Sakya.jpg

  • Nomination Sakya Monastery, Tibet. --LucaG 21:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposePavement in overexposed. Sfu 22:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my decline, maybe it`s not a problem. Although as for me a shorer exposure time should be used (higher ISO?).Sfu 14:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Fixed. --LucaG 22:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentHand, legs and some parts of monks` robes are blured. Sfu 20:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they were moving. --LucaG 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (assuming Lycaon redeclined this --Calibas) Pity, too much movement unsharpeness (double image?) on the monks. Composition is prime as usual. Lycaon 20:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Easily a QI, could be a FP. Calibas 01:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 02:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 22.5px 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose , great image but there is definitely movement blur. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Millipide venom[edit]

Millipede toes toxin diplopoda.png

  • Nomination The effect of millipede toxins on human skin. Arria Belli | parlami 14:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a close call. The use of DOF to draw attention to the toes is good. For an encyclopedic article, it would be more useful to have a photo of just the foot, or even just the toes and the balls of the foot, with a neutral background - as is, it is a bit distracting. But for a less formal article, the sort of chatty article that combines a bit of education with some human interest, it is good, so I think I can promote. Ben Aveling 06:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not the best way to illustrate the subject, looks like a snapshot to me -- Alvesgaspar 10:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I transferred this photo from en:wp months ago. Before, I didn't even know millipedes had a toxin. The effects of it look very nasty indeed. What I'm trying to say is that, whatever one may think of the composition, it has an obvious encyclopedic use, being as it is on a subject few may know about. This said, I do understand that QI requirements are quite high, so I'll understand if it doesn't pass. (Personally I like the girl in the background, which gives it a "human interest" angle.) Arria Belli | parlami 12:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose subject, the skin changes, are unclear. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For an encyclopedic illustration, where the "human interest" is a negative, this is not the best way to take the shot. And for that reason, I initially declined this image. But this image could be used in wikinews, or wikibooks, where the "human interest" becomes a positive, which is why I went back and endorsed the image. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Several images that did not meet the standards of 'Quality Image' approval are used in articles on various wiki's. The other situation exists as well, where several accepted QI images are not being used on any of the wiki that use images from the whole commons collection. There has been a great effort in this image assessment project to not assess on usability of the image as much as the image being an example of a technically great photograph or graphic (in the case of SVG artwork, animations, etc). The featured pictures assessment is the project which can assess by encyclopedic usability as well as rarity -- and overlook photographic flaws. (Or, perhaps I need to reread the suggestions and/or rules. Also, I make no claim to have followed them all either.) -- carol 22:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Well said; I think that's spot on. The only minor minor minor comment is that I don't think that COM:FP is concerned with usability either. EN:FP is, and I assume the other encyclopedias are too. But we judge a photo in the spirit it is presented. If it is intended for a legitimate purpose, that is what we judge it against. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 12:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Panorpa communis[edit]

Panorpa vulgaris 1.jpg

  • NominationPanorpa communis at Bourgoyen-Ossemeersen, Ghent, Belgium. -- Lycaon 14:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Excellent catch of a beautiful insect, I never saw a scorpion fly in my life! But the subject is not sharp enough - Alvesgaspar 19:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I thought it was rather sharp. Other opinions? Lycaon 20:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Left leg and antenna is sharp but body seems blurred. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Plume moth[edit]

White plume moth 01.jpg
  • Nomination White plume moth --Tony Wills 10:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A pity that the characteristic wings are not in focus. Lycaon 20:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Like the antenna, there is motion blur from the characteristic vibration of the wings. --Tony Wills 21:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfocused and annoying small leaf at bottom. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I wonder if the moth is annoyed at having a small leaf at it's rear end? ;-) --Tony Wills 03:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A very interesting animal, same here it's a pity --Richard Bartz 04:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ah, I fall in love with these creatures (never seen this beast before), love is blind (and so is the photographer you say ;-) --Tony Wills 08:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
But it is beautiful (wild animals always are), it's just a technical thing ;-). Lycaon 20:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Damn gear ! Last summer i saw so many interesting insects which flown away during set up my gear or when iam got to close to them. I really wish to download pictures from my brain in 100Mp  :-) :-) Hans, can you not develop a eye-to-sensor adapter for me ? --Richard Bartz 11:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Monument of Pope John Paul II[edit]

Rybnik - Pomnik Jana Pawła II.JPG

  • Nomination Monument of Pope John Paul II in Rybnik. --Lestat 15:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not clear, too much brown/oranges.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Where isn't it clear? This photo was made in late afternoon when sun give that kind of light, but it gives to this photo nice and warm ambience. --Lestat 21:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a blurr, you have to concentrate to make out the statue among the trees. It's not a bad photo - the similarity of colors in autumn is nice - but it's not clear, neither.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm torn between support and oppose. Personally I think the lighting is good and the subject is pretty crisp, but the area around the sky appears somewhat blurred and overexposed. So while I think the subject itself is QI-worthy, that top-left corner is holding me back. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 06:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Blown sky and strong chromatic aberration, in the form of purple fringing in the tree branches - Alvesgaspar 10:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Taras Shevchenko[edit]

Lviv - Statue of Taras Shevchenko.JPG

  • Nomination Statue of Taras Shevchenko in Lviv. --Lestat 15:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed sky - Pudelek 19:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • White sky is in convention of this photo and make it more contrast and expressive. --Lestat 21:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp, BW not appropriate IMO, overexposed sky also disturbs. Lycaon 21:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't necessarily think the sharpness is a glaring issue, but I do agree with the sky's overexposure. I also agree that black and white doesn't seem necessary. Though I'm sure it has its place once in awhile, BW is more artsy whereas QI is more for technical merits (or so I understand). --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 06:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What's wrong with overexposed sky? The contrast here is good, so is the composition.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The main problem here is the lack of detail in the statue, caused by underexposure, noise and compression artifacts - Alvesgaspar 10:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ogrodzieniec Castle[edit]

Castle in Ogrodzieniec - 08.JPG

Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Mirów Castle[edit]

Mirów Castle - 18.JPG

  • Nomination Mirów Castle, Poland (nom expired without a review in November). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not crisp enough. Lycaon 09:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Lycaon --Lestat 20:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If it weren't for the sharpness issues, I think it's otherwise a good photo. I like the birds hovering about. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 06:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    Looks pretty sharp to me, I don't see any fuzzines even on close ups...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Kupe's Sail[edit]

Kupe's Sail-20070331.jpg

  • Nomination Rock formation in New Zealand -- Überraschungsbilder 13:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice presentation of an uplift formation. Gnangarra 15:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp, chromatic fringes, but great topic and composition. Lycaon 09:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lycaon: a neat subject, but it has some unfortunate technical issues. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 06:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Winter scene in Ostend[edit]

Winter4.JPG

  • Nomination Winter scene in Ostend, Belgium --Pixar 10:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Clear, light and pure picture. --AKA MBG 14:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, 't bosje of niet', this image has to many focus problems, particularly at the left hand side. Lycaon 09:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I love this photo! It is absolutely beautiful. But... the blur in the top-left is a killer. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 06:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Bow_Draw[edit]

Bow Draw.svg

  • Nomination Bow draw method. --Fukutaro 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now OK! Clear, nice svg. Masur 10:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC). It's super, but make it more "international" - numbers on image, and explanation under it (different languages if possible). With japaneese/english words it doesnt look so nice ;) /sorry :) / Masur 09:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment delet text from image (or only english leave), and add international explanation to page, all right?--Fukutaro 11:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment yep, this's what I meant. Masur 23:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thx for comment. changed this image. and uploaded lunguage ver, English - Japanese. --Fukutaro 11:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Images are fine but they would be much better as three separate pictures. Combining them is no added value. Lycaon 16:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's fantastic. Lycaon has a good point, though: this image could be handy for a general article on archery, but the image should be split into three for individual articles on draw methods. Now a thought: if this were split: would all of them qualify as QI? I'd personally prefer just the one. Also: I agree with removing most of the text from the image, but you may wish to add the Japanese text into the description section on the image's article via {{ja|blah}} (and English via {{en|blah}} --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 01:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment QI is not FP, Look at the resin bubble up, if ten similar images have an equal top quality, then they all get promoted. (This won't happen though if you promote this combination image, you should be consequent.). Lycaon 09:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well...This image is more emphasis on usability for wikipedia. But a separate image are also useful. This image is in order to clarify the each difference, how to change the background each color, O.K?--Fukutaro 10:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
      • emphasis on usability for wikipedia Yes, that's also my point actually. I only find that there will be even more uses when separated. They can still be used together of course. Lycaon 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Enough good. --Beyond silence 22.5px 10:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A language-neutral version without "Fig" might be better. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Trümmelbachfälle[edit]

4793 - Trümmelbachfälle.JPG

  • Nomination Trümmelbachfälle, Lauterbrunnental, CH --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 05:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful composition. I like this image very much. Swatjester 00:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient focus, noisy and CA fringing. Lycaon 19:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support high resolution. --Beyond silence 22.5px 19:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You must be kidding, did you look at it at 100%? We have guidelines you know?. Lycaon 09:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The still water shows a lot of chromatic noise --Tony Wills 11:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Tony Wills -- Laitche 16:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 12:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Greenwich clock[edit]

Greenwich clock 1.jpg

  • Nomination Clock in the Royal Observatory of Greenwich, UK. This is to certify that this picture was taken on the 17th December at 14:04:48.7 UTC (+- 0.1s) - Alvesgaspar 16:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely shot. RedCoat 21:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sure the dial was that blueish? Lycaon 19:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see my comments below --Tony Wills 10:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 23:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Greenwich clock 2.jpg

  • Nomination Clock in the Royal Observatory of Greenwich, UK. This is to certify that this picture was taken on the 17th December at 14:04:48.7 UTC (+- 0.1s) - Alvesgaspar 16:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the retouched version, although there seems to be a little bit of chromatic aberration or fuzz, possibly from the color editing. Very nice otherwise! --bdesham 21:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't like the first version, but the second is an excellent improvement! --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 04:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support colour corrected version, though the photo was taken at 14:05:48.7 GMT. Gnangarra 06:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Maybe you are right, I can't say! But the difference between both is never larger than 0.9s - Alvesgaspar 10:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry the colour corrected version is far too red, look at the colour of the mortar. Also look at the colouration in Greenwich clock.jpg, there is a blue cast on the dial, maybe from the casing around the dial - you can balance the colours on that version from the white writing on the sign above. From that version it appears that the white on the top outer edge of the case would be a good point to do the colour correction from on your close-up version (it should be pure white). --Tony Wills 10:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Do you guys really want to promote this while the colour balance is still obviously wrong? --Tony Wills 11:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'll give it another tick tomorrow ;-). Lycaon 20:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 23:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment edited version here. -- carol 03:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose pink. -- carol 07:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Olympiaturm[edit]

2529 - München - Olympiaturm from Olympiastadion - Genesis.JPG

  • Nomination Olympiaturm from Olympiastadion, München, Germany --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 04:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too blurry, comp. could have been better, but nice capture. Rocket000 03:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Personally I didn't think it to be too blurry, but of course it's tough not to be biased when considering your own photos :) Just want to get some more opinions... --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 05:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Enough good for QI. --Beyond silence 22.5px 17:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The tower isn't blurry, but the people are. You might have a better chance with 2529a - München - Olympiaturm from Olympiastadion - Genesis.JPG, although some people might prefer a few more pixels. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If the crowd is the primary issue, I might be able to crop the bottom a bit. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 13:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The composition is good: I like the tower in the center and the rainbow sightly to the left. It's nice to see the secondary rainbow too. After a little denoising and resharpening I think it's good enough for QI. --Ikiwaner 19:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice picture but the quality is not good --Richard Bartz 04:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Olympiaturm edit[edit]

2529a - München - Olympiaturm from Olympiastadion - Genesis.JPG

  • Nomination Just giving this crop of the image above a shot at the limelight, though personally I prefer having the double-rainbow in the image. Cheers! --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 13:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this cropped image is better in composition than the source photo. --AKA MBG 14:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose wrong procedure. Please move to first time nominations. Lycaon 09:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Lycaon 07:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • not a valid reason to oppose! I think he just wants to keep the whole conversation together. That's not strictly necessary, but I don't think it hurts either. Ben Aveling 09:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's quality. Ben Aveling 09:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Then just move it where it belongs and promote it so QICBot can do it's job. It is very confusing, not to say unfair, to hide an new nomination amongst the CR's. Lycaon 20:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - suggest discarding oppose above since its a bureaucratic technicality (meta:CREEP, etc.).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can see this tower from my window every day :) A subject like this should be razorsharp for QI --Richard Bartz 04:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Suggest discarding supports above and doing this thing properly. Lycaon 23:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
In the future, any noms like this should be moved, but I think we should let this one slide. It's been down here for a while and it is an edited version of a CR. I think we can do it this way just this one time. I think what's happening with the clock above is even worse. Personally, I'm not opposing this image as long as Lycaon's vote is being counted (which it should) - my weak oppose and his weak reason = one oppose vote. Edit: Just to clarify I don't like what's happening with the clock only because it's in CR, I love the collaboration though! Rocket000 06:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, let this one here, but be correct at least in the future. I may be nitpicking (I know I am), but sometimes one has to to avoid escalating situations. Just see it as avoiding a precedent. ...and of course you have a point with the clock thing Lycaon 07:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Understandable. And thanks for moving the clock. Rocket000 07:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question should I comment on the clock image here? or where? -- carol 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much noise in the sky, lack of crispness. Lycaon 07:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so make that one and a half oppose votes for me and Lycaon. Are half votes breaking the rules, too? ;) Rocket000 07:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info We have done CRs like this for a long time, edits, crops etc, improving the image and composition. I see no reason to demand that such nominations be done in the main nomination area. Quite the contrary, it makes a lot of sense to keep the discussion of different versions together. If the nominator chooses to nominate the changes as a separate nomination that's fine too.
    • Mostly agree, only in this case the crop was IMO such that a whole new image was produced. Lycaon 10:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info People are not required to place oppose or support votes, it just makes it easier (and quicker) to assess peoples support and the balance of opinion. So people can indicate 1/2 support or weak oppose etc if they want (although no-one's vote counts as more than a single vote!), it might make it more difficult to accurately assess the consensus view though :-). Feel free to make corrections were errors are made ;-) --Tony Wills 23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2½ oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Historic houses in Japan[edit]

Shirakawa-go houses 2.jpg

  • Nomination Historic houses in Japan. --Leyo 02:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice --Pudelek 15:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSymbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I guess those houses are artificial historic houses, and those words are advertising. -- Laitche 20:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC) --Laitche 07:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This house is a souvenir shop.(The front one) --Laitche 20:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. OK, not a "historical", "recostructed". Any way, QI (no noise, focus OK, colors ok, comosion ok, light ok, sky ok). #!George Shuklin 21:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I even thought of this as a FP candidate. Technically good and a very nice mood. --Ikiwaner 21:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The meaning of the phrases is very disturbing the mood. --Laitche 11:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yeah, I think technically this photo deserves QI, but if Leyo could have read Japanese then Leyo would never have taken this photo, I think :) -- Laitche 06:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, I changed my vote to neutral but I don't recommend this photo for QI :) -- Laitche 06:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please understand that I just wanted to maintain the Leyos honor then I opposed this photo. --Laitche 08:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This souvenir shop is a real historic house(reconstructed) which is included in World Heritage Site. -- Laitche 06:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Those phrases are shops name and catchphrases and advertising then it looks a little funny to the person who can read Japanese :) -- Laitche 06:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 22.5px 00:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 13:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)