Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 2009

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

File:Chrysomya eating.jpg[edit]

Chrysomya albiceps eating.jpg

  • Nomination Feeding Chrysomya albiceps --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 20:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Probably wrongly identified (too downy thorax). Lycaon 20:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    Keep on CR until id has been cleared. Lycaon 13:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    Correctly identified and updated description and image page
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon 11:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great. --Kosiarz-PL 18:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 19:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Bihoreau Gris 2.jpg[edit]

Bihoreau Gris 2.jpg Bihoreau Gris 2 edit.jpg

  • Nomination Black-crowned Night Heron 2 --Acarpentier 23:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice catch! --Specious 04:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not the best composition. Lycaon 13:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the other one is better IMO, and it is a tad too small ... Ianare 15:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 19:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Iran saffron threads.jpg[edit]

Iran saffron threads.jpg

  • Nomination Saffron threads, by Rainer Zenz --Bdesham 18:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent DOF, excellent educational value and the background does an excelent job of brining out the color. --J.smith 20:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not exactly excited by the shadow which doesn't properly fits the threads. Lycaon 19:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The shadow is just a slight distraction, although it could be better (maybe no shadow at all?). Also, the photo should be cropped tighter, just to the edge of the saffron threads, I think. If this is done, then I would support, because the sharpnes and DOF is excellent. --Florian Prischl 17:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok --Beyond silence 01:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --Acarpentier 20:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 19:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Melbourne Yarra River from Alexandra Avenue - Nov 2008.jpg[edit]

Melbourne Yarra River from Alexandra Avenue - Nov 2008.jpg

  • Nomination Yarra River, Melbourne --Leyo 16:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good! --Eusebius 13:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not at all. What about dirts on the sky? --Kosiarz-PL 20:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I had not seen the spots so I remove my support until they're gone, but "not good at all" would be quite a severe review here I think! --Eusebius 09:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The buildings are very... blue. The dirt should be easy to fix. --J.smith 09:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I uploaded a new version of the file with the dust spots removed and a bit a "warming" to the color. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. J.smith 09:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
      • You didn't remove all dirts. There is one left on the right. --Kosiarz-PL 16:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support edit. J.smith 09:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose big stain in the sky --Simonizer 00:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp --Beyond silence 01:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Simonizer. Lycaon 01:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 21:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nantes - rempart sud du château.jpg[edit]

Nantes - rempart sud du château.jpg

  • Nomination Southern wall of Nantes castle. --Eusebius 12:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is not captured whole of the building, though, I think one of the good composition as QI. _Fukutaro 15:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, composition is not good. It makes it unclear what the subject here is - the wall is not really visible, the corner tower is obscured, and the moat is completely out of an interesting viewpoint. --Florian Prischl 18:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Beyond silence 01:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is a little bit of pink edges (CA) towards the left, but quality is in generally good enough. -- Estrilda 21:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 21:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Larus delawarensis flight[edit]

Larus delawarensis flight.JPG

  • Nomination: Larus delawarensis in flight --Ianaré 23:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportCorrect exposure, no fuzzy, it's awesome. --ComputerHotline 10:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNot sharp enough for the smallish (downsampled?) size. Lycaon 19:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Cropped but not downsampled. They only fly close and steady enough when it's windy and cloudy, very annoying. --Ianare 21:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I know. They are rumoured to be an easy catch ;-). Lycaon 06:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good find. Seems a hard shot to take Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon. I know this was probably not an easy shot, but it is just a little too unsharp. --Florian Prischl 17:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for a Quality Image (I don't think it would succeed a Featured Picture nomination). — Diti Diti 15:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)~
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Florian Prischl. -- Estrilda (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> draw -- Lycaon 21:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Skiathos 2 wisnia6522.JPG[edit]

Skiathos 2 wisnia6522.JPG

  • Nomination Skiathos, Greece. --Wisnia6522 16:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's OK --Pudelek 10:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose JPG artifacts, C/A. _Fukutaro 15:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Beyond silence 01:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too strong chromatic aberration. Lycaon 01:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Compression artifacts are to prominent. --PieCam 20:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Pieride1-1 (by).jpg[edit]

Thomas Bresson - Pieride1-1 (by).jpg

  • Nomination Pontia daplidice --ComputerHotline 13:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion out of scope for QI, self made images only. Gnangarra 12:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC) ---- I have created this image.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thomas Bresson from flicker is user:ComputerHotline.J.smith 21:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral due to the bad file-name. Otherwise, this is an awesome image. J.smith 21:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support File name consists in the name of the author, the vernacular name of the species in French and a mention of the license: it is ok for me... --Eusebius 14:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Tony Wills 21:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Bihoreau Gris.jpg[edit]

Bihoreau Gris.jpg properly cropped

  • Nomination Black-crowned Night Heron --Acarpentier 16:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion  
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks good --Mbdortmund 20:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small subject for the file size. Lycaon 21:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
    I'll just post a larger version soon --Acarpentier 23:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question This is more of a question of the use of English words by French-Canadians than it is of this image: What definition of the word "soon" are you using here? -- 02:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as is. Shot looks nice, and while I would like to see a higher-res version of the file, this is currently within our requirements. Also, I don't see any obvious compression artifacts that would point to over-compression, so I think the MB size is appropriate. J.smith 08:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Even though this is a very good shot (no noise, great focus), a higher version would have been way better —mainly because of when a crop [will be/is] needed. Diti 14:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ianare 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With such a layout, with the two edits, it is really not clear who supports/opposes which version. --Eusebius 10:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Second version is not a nomination but an illustration of the IMO proper crop. It is then too small for QI, which is my point for the original version anyway. Lycaon 11:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)-
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (promote) Acarpentier 14:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was going to suggest that this nomination be withdrawn until the larger version can be uploaded. -- carol (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry Carol if I don't take you very seriously it's just that I never really understand the deepness or pertinence of your questions/comments. ;) Maybe it's because I'm French-Canadian he? Just joking... by the way you forgot to sign your previous question (02:33, 25 December 2008). --Acarpentier 00:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • My comment was as pertinent as it was not deep? The lack of depth of my question is easily known if I admit that I have not looked at the image at a size more than the thumbnails here and my questions were based solely on the photographers text that is here. Yes, at least that shallow. Pertinence is great. It is very frustrating to manage these "crack" candidates or those entries which get altered while the voting occurs -- or other little ways to step over the lines that the rules tried to draw and most frustrating are the entries from the photographers who know where these cracks in the rules and conduct of this review system are.... -- (sorry about the signature) carol (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Again I don't get the point of what you are trying to contribute here... Can you tell me what are you doing here on Commons Carol? --Acarpentier 23:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Is the Quality Images Candidate Consensual Review considered to be "the Commons"? I answered your question with a question (a type of answer I loathe) because I am interested to know that you know what question you are asking. What am I doing here? I suspect that Ty Coon of Yoyodyne, Inc. just didn't understand the license. -- carol (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok it's going nowhere and wasting wiki resources. I'll just ignore you from now, since you don't bring up any constructive/intelligent comments/changes. --Acarpentier 02:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Rewording your question to be more specific and easily understood would have been a way to not "waste wiki resources". I spent many of the minutes since you asked whatever question you asked thinking about how wikipedia would be different if the bias was for the users of the software whose license inspired the free-ness. Unless Internet Explorer can now have its user-agent modified, it would have easy enough to accomplish. Taking the time and acquiring the resources to hack exif information is less easy than simply using the software. Competition would return to natural competitors and perhaps monopolies would start to cease. Don't blame me for wasting wiki-resources; on occasion, I have had to answer problems with "the world is not fair" but that is a lose/lose situation that I really try to prevent from occuring. It takes more than one person to prevent it though. It also takes more than one person to waste time and resources in an exchange like this.... -- carol (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I see the image was 'promoted' on the 29th December. I don't want to be awkward here but that was not done properly as that was not 48 hours after the last 'entry' here as per the CR rules. But a bigger problem is that a new version has been uploaded (over top of the nomination) since then, and strictly the new version should be re-submitted to QIC review as it hasn't actually had any votes. I think the best solution is to simply extend this review process and see whether people think the new version is an improvement. --Tony Wills 19:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing this Tony, I didn't really realize but still I prefer fixing my image by updating them while the nomination to avoid adding too much page for noting on here... I consider it a waste of space. For the 48 hours, it was valid. The edit(Eusebius 10:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)) waz done after the 48hrs, so it should not count? Or I'm wrong? But seriously, all of this is not very important. I'm more into learning photography than understanding every of these process. I just process pics here to encourage myself continuing to submit these while giving them to the community. Anyway, thanks for supporting them and notify me if I do something wrong ;). --Acarpentier 04:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
CR is a discussion process, rather than a voting process. Nominations are closed when discussion has tapered off (indicated by no discussion after 2 days), if a nomination isn't closed then discussion can continue for up to 8 days - the 48hours is not the time when it must be closed, just the minimum amount of time with no new discussion before it can be closed :-). Best to leave QICbot to do the promotion, otherwise you must go and check all the right processes are followed manually --Tony Wills 21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC) (NB this comment was added after nomination was closed!)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Previous votes are now redundant I guess. Lycaon 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support New version looks good to me --Tony Wills 20:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Should've been like this from the start. Nice. Lycaon 20:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Confirm my Symbol support vote.svg Support of this crop. I think the crop is an improvement. J.smith 21:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support your local crack candidate. -- carol (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC) This vote does not count -- reviewer never looked at the image. -- carol 23:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Tony Wills 21:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Shakedown_2008_Figure_2.jpg[edit]

Shakedown 2008 Figure 2.jpg

  • Nomination Snowboard figure at the Shakedown 2008 --Acarpentier 18:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Excessive downsampling. Lycaon 22:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    Okay, wait I'll update it with better version. --Acarpentier 00:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    Tick green modern 2.svg Done. ;) --Acarpentier 04:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. Quality is good, photographs are out of focus but it seems unavoidable to me. Qualifies for the "movement control" gallery. --Eusebius 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd probably try to correct vignetting, but it's personal taste. --Eusebius 14:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Sint_Salvatortoren_R01.jpg[edit]

Sint Salvatortoren R01.jpg

  • Nomination Bruges (Belgium): rooftops and cathedral tower. -- MJJR 21:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 11:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting branches (with CA) on the right side (could be removed by cloning, I guess). --Eusebius 19:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done: I removed the distracting (?) branches and corrected the CA on the others. -- MJJR 16:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
      • OK. Vignetting could be an issue as well, I don't know. --Eusebius 17:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
        • There is a slight vignetting indeed (which could easily be removed with Photoshop), but I don't think it's really disturbing. -- MJJR 21:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
          • And why don't you remove the vignetting? Nice composition. Without vignetting it would be a good picture. --BáthoryPéter 10:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
            • ✓ Done ...as you like. -- MJJR 15:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much better --BáthoryPéter 16:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Small orange ball slime mold 01.jpg[edit]

Small orange ball slime mold 01.jpg

  • Nomination I think this is the best illustration of Lycogala epidendrum on wikimedia --Tony Wills 10:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Meets QI requirements IMHO. --Leyo 14:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why so small? Lycaon 20:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The image is small because the subject is very small so the image is cropped to 70% of 4MP image to emphasise subject --Tony Wills 11:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well enough. Lycaon 12:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 21:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Slime mold sporangia 01.jpg[edit]

Slime mold sporangia 01.jpg

  • Nomination Following the great acclaim my previous 2 slime molds have been greeted with :P, I present another :-). These are only a couple of mm long. --Tony Wills 00:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it! JalalV 09:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why so small (minimum minimorum)? Lycaon 20:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Either as a result of intelligent design or evolution I expect. --Tony Wills 00:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Or looking at it another way: The image is small because the subject is very small so the image is cropped to 70% of 4MP image to emphasise subject --Tony Wills 11:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well enough. Lycaon 12:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 21:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Prague - panorama from Hradčany.jpg[edit]

Prague - panorama from Hradčany.jpg

  • Nomination: Prague (Praha, Prag) - panorama from Hradčany --Pudelek 15:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Review Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment well stitched, good light balance only concern is the composition in that there is no focal point other than that I'd support. Gnangarra 12:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> draw Lycaon 21:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Cathedrale bourges interieur.JPG[edit]

Cathedrale bourges interieur.JPG

  • Nomination Inside of Saint-Étienne Cathedral, Bourges, France. --KoS 21:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 17:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too soft, DOF is just not enough. What about using a tripode and a smaller aperture? -- Alvesgaspar 02:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The camera is not in the nave axis, and bias is too small to be perceived as a deliberate effect. Vertical lines are really vertical only somewhere in the left side of the choir, which is disturbing. I like the light, the colours and the oppressive effect of by the uncorrected perspective. --Eusebius 21:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Sedlec Ossuary - the Schwarzenberg coat-of-arms.jpg[edit]

Sedlec Ossuary - the Schwarzenberg coat-of-arms.jpg

  • Nomination Sedlec Ossuary - the Schwarzenberg coat-of-arms --Pudelek 20:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's OK. --Lestath 22:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Top of the portal is cropped, I would have shot a little bit higher. --Eusebius 10:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Eusebuis, the top is missing Gnangarra 08:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 14:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Swampy But Pretty Bog In Fiordland NZ.jpg[edit]

Swampy But Pretty Bog In Fiordland NZ.jpg

  • Nomination A wetlands boardwalk on the en:Milford Track. --Ingolfson 11:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Under min size requirements (1.83Mpx - should be 2Mpx min) - Peripitus 23:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Although some would have you believe otherwise, there is no strict size limit, just a guideline. Anyway 1600x1200 (1.92Mpx) is just a 4:3 ratio version of the suggested 1600x1250 "minimum" and is for practical purposes "sufficient". So what about reviewing the merits of the picture? :-) --Tony Wills 11:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've always taken the guideline of 2 megapixels is normally the lower limit, but for 'easy to take' images, reviewers may demand more as indicating that, unless there is a compelling reason as to otherwise, images should not pass at under 2mpx. Even at this current resolution the image is soft - Peripitus (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Agree, the limit is low by today's camera standards. Let's not dilute it even further. --Dschwen 02:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the composition but not enough to over come the technical aspect of size. Gnangarra 08:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 14:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

File:De_Haan_duinen_R03.jpg[edit]

De Haan duinen R03.jpg

  • Nomination Dunes at De Haan, Belgium -- MJJR 22:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Meets QI requirements IMHO. --Leyo 13:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose But not enough contrasty and poor DOF --BáthoryPéter 17:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support At the given resolution the DOF is fine. --Dschwen 02:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good composition, dof fine for me Gnangarra 08:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

File:360°Gipfelpanorama Gapfohl.jpg[edit]

360°Gipfelpanorama Gapfohl.jpg

  • Nomination Skiing in Vorarlberg --Böhringer 22:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice work --Acarpentier 00:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice pano, but the horizon is a bit wavy. Also there is no blending across the 360 deg boundary. This should be fixed brfore it gets promoted. --Dschwen 05:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the colour match between the ends of the image is remarkably good and your personal high standard of panos is making you look for perfection, this is quality images not perfect images :-). But I would mention the noise and artifacts in the low valley cloud, near each end of the image, about one third the way up from the bottom ;-) --Tony Wills 10:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    Given that cross-boundary blending is performed automatically by hugin I'm not asking for much. The wavy horizon is the bigger issue. --Dschwen 13:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The wavy horizon is the result of very difficult to photograph the sun and by the 360 ° degrees. The sun here [[1]] is much higher. You see no sun and the horizon is also wavy --Böhringer 14:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • No, the wavy horizon is the result of insufficient guide points in the panorama stitching process. It has nothing to do with the sun. 360 deg panos are difficult to correctly assemble if you are not using horizontal guides on the horizon line. I'd be happy to try it myself if you make the original images available to me. --Dschwen 16:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • oh, thank you. I look to see if I still have the original pictures. Should I use the images to the wiki invite? --Böhringer 16:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Aeh, was? Ich schick Dir einfach mal meine E-Mail-Adresse. --Dschwen 22:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Erleichterung, Erleichterung endlich in de; meine direktmail: fredy.boehringer@samas.com l.g. --Böhringer 09:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Tony Wills 11:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Ice12 (by).jpg[edit]

Thomas Bresson - Ice12 (by).jpg

  • Nomination: Ice in forest. --ComputerHotline 12:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Review out of scope QI is for self made images Gnangarra 12:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    AFAIK, ComputerHotline = Thomas Bresson ;-). Lycaon 12:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment image licensing says its was sourced from Flickr and awaiting review Gnangarra 13:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC) -- @Gnangarra : I upload my on Flickr AND on WikiCommons. --ComputerHotline 12:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    then the sourcing shouldnt be from flickr nor should it need to be reviewed Gnangarra 08:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral ComputerHotline's weird flicker-stuff aside, the filename is problematic enough for me that I can't support this image. However, it's a good picture so I won't oppose. J.smith (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support, 0 oppose -> (no decision after 8 days - move to unreviewed) Tony Wills (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Pompei und Vesuv.JPG[edit]

Pompei und Vesuv.JPGPompei und Vesuv edit.JPG

  • Nomination Vesuvius and Pompei. --High Contrast 12:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. --ComputerHotline 11:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not so sharp, a tourist's head in the foreground, edges of the Vesuvius do not look good. --Eusebius 19:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is some sort of halo effect along the edges of the mountain at this scale and on the image page, but it is not present when looking at the full image, so is presumably an artifact of the automatic scaling software --Tony Wills 09:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was talking of the full-size picture. It's just a little bit out of focus, I guess. --Eusebius 21:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The tourist's head does it for me, gives it a 'snapshot' feeling. Lycaon 21:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I chased away the tourists and straightened out the tilt, see new version.
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think the fuzzyness of the background image of the mountain is a problem it just puts the ruins in context --Tony Wills 07:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think two images for one nomination is too many... It's still unclear for me whether my vote will be attributed to the original picture or to the edit. About your remark on the fuzziness of the background: I would agree if the ruins were very sharp, but it's not the case (even after the downsampling of your edit, in which the Vesuvius looks better). I guess I'd just like more DOF. What were your settings? EXIF info is absent from both pictures. --Eusebius 21:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    Vote counting is simple, votes before the addition of a new image apply to the original, voters after the addition had better specify what they're voting for ;-). It is often nice to see modifications side by side to compare. Also I would not upload a modified image over top of someone elses image that was currently being evaluated! If the author of the original likes my modifications, they should re-upload it over top of theirs and mark mine for deletion as a duplicate. :-)
    PS having the backdrop out of focus to emphasise the subject has a long photographic pedigree ;-) --Tony Wills 10:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    I may be simple-minded but no, I don't think vote count is so simple, and QICbot has been puzzled in the past when two images appear in a single nomination. If people vote for both images depending on the date of their vote, how many images can be promoted/declined in a single nomination? --Eusebius (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    QICbot no doubt just promotes the first image, and QICbot no doubt just promotes/declines one image per nomination. But QICbot is just an assistant, QICbot is not the master, QICbot is fallable ;-) Humans can correct for QICbots short-comings. (Or to put it another way QICbot doesn't define the process :-). I expect that if the author and reviewers like the modified version we can work something out, if not, the default will be to decline both :-) --Tony Wills 11:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Tony Wills 11:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Male Mallard quack.JPG[edit]

Male Mallard quack.JPG

  • Nomination Male Mallard. Diti the penguin 21:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure details and DoF. --ComputerHotline 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough (viz. tail), unfortunate light (shadowed head) and unexciting (central) composition. Lycaon 01:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose jpeg artifacts. --Lestath 11:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great shot. Technical issues are very minor and unnoticeable at reasonable review sizes. J.smith 00:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Lycaon --PieCam 14:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Tony Wills (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Bohinj Bitnje Cerkev Marijinega vnebovztja 08062008 15.jpg[edit]

Bohinj Bitnje Cerkev Marijinega vnebovztja 08062008 15.jpg

  • Nomination Church "Assumption Day" at Bitnje near Bohinjska Bistrica in the municipality Bohinj, Julian Alps, Gorenjska, Slovenia. Duchamp 21:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice atmosphere, maybe it need a little perspective correction but still ok for me. --Acarpentier 01:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think there are JPEG artefacts around the border of the roof and in the clouds. --Eusebius 11:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree, the file is far too compressed. I would expect a file size of 1.5 to 2MB for a picture of this resolution. Too much quality lost. --Tony Wills 21:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Black soldier fly.jpg[edit]

Black soldier fly.jpg

  • Nomination: Black Soldier fly --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct details. --ComputerHotline 11:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please remove dust spots. Lycaon 23:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw Eusebius 13:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Kokawadera-N0176.JPG[edit]

Kokawadera-N0176.JPG

  • Nomination Wooden buddhist temple --Uu7 10:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting. -- JalalV 13:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs perspective correction. Lycaon 23:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    I quite like the slanted uprights, gives it real character :-). Unfortunely, due to the close crop, correcting the perspective means you would need to loose the near post or do some creative cloning to fill in missing pixels. There are also deep shadows that hide deatils of the building. Nice picture though :-) --Tony Wills 11:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the chosen point of view forbids perspective correction, geometry should be left as is. --Eusebius 21:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support high res, shapr --Beyond silence 11:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 13:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Dijon - Hôtel Aubriot - figurine de soutènement 2.jpg[edit]

Dijon - Hôtel Aubriot - figurine de soutènement 2.jpg

  • Nomination Detail of a hôtel particulier in Dijon. --Eusebius 22:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Très bien. --Acarpentier 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What is new from this - "File:Dijon - Hôtel Aubriot - figurine de soutènement.jpg"? Lets make all 3M commons images QI!--Kozuch 21:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    I don't understand your comment. Could you please elaborate? --Eusebius 21:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    What is the sence of having 2 very simlilar quality images? BTW, I dont think the image is somehow special - neither scope, nor technically. If the window would be cropped out, I would consider it sufficient maybe.--Kozuch 23:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks. I don't think there is a notion of scope for QIs, but I guess you're right about the window. Do you think this version is better? --Eusebius 06:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Photograph is Ok. Dont confuse QI with VI --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Please have a look at the crop I've pointed. I think it might be actually better and I consider withdrawing this one. --Eusebius 07:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    I think the nominated one gives a beter idea of the size. --Berthold Werner 16:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info QI is not a competition, there can be many almost identical photographs of the same thing. One purpose of QI is to encourage people to submit high quality photos that are their own work. There is no need to remove old QIs when a better photo is found, nor to remove them when technology improves and they are no longer up to the current 'standard'. --Tony Wills 20:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    But if after all a crop is better than the whole picture, why not nominate/promote the crop instead? This has been done several times already. --Eusebius 21:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, that is basically a point of composition and therefore quality. If the composition is poor then the original is probably not QI. But in the general case there is no reason that a wider view showing the context, and a closeup of the same object can not both be QIs. My note was more directed at the comments by Kozuch :-) --Tony Wills 21:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC).
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Eichenberg 01.JPG[edit]

Eichenberg 01.JPG

  • Nomination Eichenberg, Bodensee --Böhringer 00:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure, colors and details. --ComputerHotline 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy sky. --Eusebius 10:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy sky or perhaps artefacts trough sharpening(?). --Berthold Werner 12:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 12:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Buteo regalis 02.jpg[edit]

Buteo regalis 02.jpg

  • Nomination Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis), Falconry at Obernberg (Austria) --Aconcagua 19:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure. --ComputerHotline 09:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp, diffraction (or CA?) on edges. --Eusebius 10:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp indeed. Lycaon 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

File:ComputerHotline - Souci (by) (1).jpg[edit]

Colias croceus on buddleja davidii.jpg

  • Nomination Colias crocea on buddleja davidii flowers. --ComputerHotline 17:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think quality is ok --Böhringer 21:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Below size limit. --Eusebius 10:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
So if it was 5 pixels higher you would find it ok? :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If it complied with the guidelines, I would review it. --Eusebius 06:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Small and oversaturated. Lycaon 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose other then the size problems, the name is inappropriate and destructive to our search and organizational tools. J.smith 07:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Juppentracht 08a.JPG[edit]

Juppentracht 08a.JPG

  • Nomination OTRS verified; Traditonal costume of Bregenzerwald --Böhringer 21:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion *Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I really like the motive of the picture. But there are parts of extreme overexposure which does not make it a QI for me.--JuliusR 17:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't know who made this comment, but he should adjust his screen. The histogramm definitifly shows there is no overexposure! --Berthold Werner 15:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for not signing. I have no idea what kind of histogramm you are looking at. I see the following: click me --JuliusR 17:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
So look here: File:Temp_BW.JPG. Blue goes near to left side, but there is still a small space. I also inspected some of the marked points, my program gives nowhere 255,255,255 as color. And if there are some, it's still acceptable IMHO. --Berthold Werner 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Okay, if that is the case, I retreat my critique. Can you tell me what tool you used to generate the histogram? Mine seems to be not datailed enough for such checkings. Thanks for the discussion. I am always willing to learn something new. --JuliusR (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I use FixFoto --Berthold Werner 15:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would agree, that from the shape of that histogram some were indeed over-exposed, even if subsequently processed to bring them back below 255-255-255. But minor overexposure of a few pixels is usually not a problem for QI. NB en:GIMP can give you seperate RGB histograms (and lots more) and it is "free" as in GNU :-) --Tony Wills 19:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 07:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Katowice - Katedra - Prawy ołtarz boczny 01.jpg[edit]

Katowice - Katedra - Prawy ołtarz boczny 01.jpg

  • Nomination: Cathedral in Katowice. --Lestath 16:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Isn't it a picture of a modern work of art? I'm unsure about possible copyright issues. --Eusebius 10:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's OK. It's in public place - sth like freedom of panorama and we have on the wikipedia tons of pictures with situation like that. --Lestath 23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment according to Commons:Freedom of panorama#Poland it says in public places specifying roads, squares and gardens this is inside a church does FoP apply? Gnangarra 15:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In Poland it concern public places. It is public place and there are no restrictions. --Lestath 16:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> draw. Eusebius 07:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Katowice - Katedra - Chrzcielnica 01.jpg[edit]

Katowice - Katedra - Chrzcielnica 01.jpg

  • Nomination: Baptismal font in cathedral in Katowice. --Lestath 16:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Isn't it a picture of a modern work of art? I'm unsure about possible copyright issues. --Eusebius 10:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's OK. It's in public place - sth like freedom of panorama and we have on the wikipedia tons of pictures with situation like that. --Lestath 23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment according to Commons:Freedom of panorama#Poland it says in public places specifying roads, squares and gardens this is inside a church does FoP apply? Gnangarra 15:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In Poland it concern public places. It is public place and there are no restrictions. --Lestath 16:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> draw. Eusebius 07:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Kernavė - Hill forts 01.jpg[edit]

Kernavė - Hill forts 01.jpg Kernavė - Hill forts 01-bluer skies.jpg

  • Nomination Old hillfort mounds in Kernavė. --Lestath 20:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed sky. --Eusebius 08:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Over-exposed skies can be repaired without affecting the important parts of the image, which seemed (seamed?) to be very nice. (Moving this to CR.) -- carol 01:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you know a nice way to do that I'm interested (although I wonder how sky features can be invented from a solid white zone if you're not an artist). If this image gets corrected I'll retract my opposition, but for now it's not. --Eusebius 07:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    I don't know if I reduced the clouds enough to rid this image of the over-exposure problem. More reduction would require an artist making the image something that it was naturally not. My image is of four layers from the top down:1) sky completely masked; 2) mask made from the saturation part of a decomposition into HSL or HSV and color inverted and value levels lightened (gamma increased); 3) same saturation mask not color inverted and value levels darkened (gamma decreased) and 4)sky color (this time, a gradient was not needed or used). Often there is a lot more detail in the clouds than the eye can see and a saturation map can find those details. (There is a tutorial for this at my web site, or there was one there before I was able to determine that we were not working together). -- carol (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    Well, thanks for the lesson. I'd love to see the tutorial, actually. However, I think that even though the image looks better, it still looks overexposed. Plus, there are some strange problems (like blending/stitching errors) in the branches (in the original picture). I maintain my opposition. --Eusebius 15:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    http://carol.gimp.org/gimp2/photography/sky/compose/ It is interesting how much more we did when we were working together and not trying to remake photoshop (I really did not like the app when I tried it.) I also am embarrassed now by the results shown in the image. Did you know that an artist who makes metal cast sculptures like this has to sell five of them to make a profit? That image was taken purposefully, as I was trying to see all of the works by artists who had public art in this location where, since I was wrongly relocated to and we do not work together any longer. -- carol (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Sorry, I did this image same time ago and I forget about errors. Now I agree and withdraw my nomination. --Lestath 17:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Tent_rocks_MG_3255.jpg[edit]

Tent rocks MG 3255.jpg

  • Nomination Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, New Mexico --JuliusR 15:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks a bit out of focus in the foreground. --Coyau 15:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The blurry foreground seems to be an area of uninteresting detail anyways and the interesting details are quite sharp. -- carol 01:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    1/3 of the picture (1/2 of the suject) is out of focus. If it is uninteresting, then crop. --Coyau 13:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is actually abiding by the rule of thirds though, especially the way that you have described it. It should become interesting to see more votes for or against this image. -- carol (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I certainly don't think that all of a picture must be in focus in general, but in this case I think it would have been better (and possible) to have a deeper DOF: out-of-focus parts do not contribute to the composition. Plus, the sky is a little bit noisy (or shows some other kind of grain). --Eusebius 15:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks a lot for your discussion, no matter if the image is promoted or not. Helps me a lot in getting an idea, what I can do better the next times. --JuliusR 08:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 22:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Hornviper 01.jpg[edit]

Hornviper 01.jpg

  • Nomination Hornviper --Böhringer 21:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this image very much!--Mbz1 16:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose But it is unsharp, and a little bit noisy (and centred). --Eusebius 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would question whether the white balance was correct, there isn't much to go by, but one reference point is the eye-ball slit, which I would expect to be pure black (and isn't). In GIMP you could use that eye to set the grey-point and get a more likely colour scheme. Another thing that some people will worry about is the very over exposed red channel - fortunately, as far as I can see, this is mainly from the background, which is out of focus anyway so doesn't matter as much. --Tony Wills 11:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose small DOF, out of focus --Ianare 07:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? carol 15:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Cathédrale Saint-Caprais Agen Interieur3.JPG[edit]

Cathédrale Saint-Caprais Agen Interieur3.JPG

  • Nomination: Inside of Saint-Caprais Cathedral, Agen, France --KoS 01:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good, even if the windows edges are overexposed (I guess it's difficult to do it better). --Coyau 14:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that it is a difficult shot, but I'm concerned about the level of noise. Sensibility does not show in the EXIF info, but at 1/8 s it must be quite high. Composition is also unsure, we'd expect centring but it's not the case (could be corrected). --Eusebius 15:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw Eusebius 10:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Chufut_Kale3.jpg[edit]

Chufut Kale3.jpg

  • Nomination Çufut Qale, Bakhchisaray, Crimea --Dmitry A. Mottl 12:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Beautiful shot! But most of it is unsharp, sky is a bit noisy and there might be JPEG artefacts in the stone (not sure about it). --Eusebius 11:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • скучаю за крымoм. спасибо за фото.--Mbz1 22:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness is lacking. Lycaon 22:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

File:My dear mother 2.JPG[edit]

My dear mother 2.JPGMy dear mother 2 edit1.jpgMy dear mother 2 edit 3.jpg

  • Nomination Clock face of the church at Buckland in the Moor which has "My Dear mother" in place of numbers around the clock face.
    The creator of the image is User:Herbythyme --Mbz1 15:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilted --Ianare 01:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I thought about this too before I nominated the image, but then I did some investigation, and now I do not think the image is tilted. It rather was taken under an angle. May I please ask you to take a look at this image of the same church Buckland church.JPG.
    As you could see taking picture under an angle was the only option for a photographer, who wanted to show what is written on the clock, and IMO he/she did the job quite well. I would also like to add that I found only very few images of this unusual clock and they all look kind of tilted. Here's, for example one more image from Commons File:The church at Buckland in the Moor.jpg taken with a much better camera. Thank you.--Mbz1 06:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • But if you look at the cropped version, the window sill is at an angle which could be fixed very easily ... It's a little hard to tell on the images if the tower is at an angle - narrowing at the top, but I think the window and rock layers should be level regardless. Would like to see what other people think. --Ianare 02:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment. I rotated the image. I tried few different angles of the rotation. I still believe that because the only option to take this image was to position the camera under an angle to the tower (due to the church design) the window will always looked as it is tilted, when in reality it is not IMO. --Mbz1 04:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Mts.Akaishi from Mt.Utsugidake 01 en.jpg[edit]

Mts.Akaishi from Mt.Utsugidake 01 en.jpg

  • Nomination Akaishi Mountains, Honshu, Japan. --Σ64 15:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is a smudge (could be a bird) above the first "a" in Tekaridake and there is a dust spot and another smudge which I saw in the other version. It is so close to perfect and crazy amounts of beautiful.... -- carol 01:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 16:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Bristol MMB «43 River Avon.jpg[edit]

Bristol MMB «43 River Avon.jpg

  • Nomination The River Avon in Bristol from the banks at Sea Mills. Mattbuck 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice clouds--Mbz1 04:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very noisy sky and CCW tilt. Lycaon 10:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If there is a tilt, it's by less than 1 degree and I don't know which way - I don't think there are any clear uprights/horizontals to measure against. The signal is tilted yes, but I don't think that's solely because of the camera. Mattbuck 16:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy. --Eusebius 12:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   [[[User:Eusebius|Eusebius]] 16:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Lilium asiatic hybrid - unopened flower - city park launceston tasmania.jpg[edit]

Lilium asiatic hybrid - unopened flower - city park launceston tasmania.jpg

  • Nomination: Lilium asiatic hybrid - unopened flower - Peripitus 12:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure, DoF and colors. --ComputerHotline 17:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wait until it opens and then identify it. Lycaon 14:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would that I could - I'm about 1,500 km away from this one now, and neither the signage, brochure nor curator could identify any of the particular hybrids they are growing - Peripitus 06:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would say it is identified well enough, if you can't tell from a photo what exact species it is, then it doesn't matter. The photo can be used to illustrate all those look alike species! But! in this case the red channel is severely over-exposed, loosing detail from the bud and giving it a plastic look, so not QI. --Tony Wills 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw Eusebius 16:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)