Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 2011

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

File:Tjeldsundbrua, 2009 09.jpg[edit]

Tjeldsundbrua, 2009 09.jpg

  • Nomination Tjeldsund Bridge over Tjeldsundet in Nordland, Norway. -- Ximonic 10:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support that looks ok to me --Carschten 13:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very strong sharpening halos at the horizon, those should be fixed. -- H005 13:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done Atleast some of those fringes have been removed now. --Ximonic (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK now, although the posterization of the clouds still is an issue. I think less light and colour tweaking would have been better here. -- H005 21:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Backhaus Helfenberg-2.JPG[edit]

Backhaus Helfenberg-2.JPG

  • Nomination The bakehouse of Helfenberg (Ilsfeld), Baden-Württemberg. -- Felix Koenig 09:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor lightning --Carschten 13:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    Bad joke? I thought the lightning was very good when I took the photo. -- Felix Koenig 14:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
There couldn't be a very good lightning when you see so many underexposed and thereby disturbing (especially at thumb) areas. So no joke, just facts. --Carschten 16:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any underexposure. It's inpossible to take a photo without the shadow, and I don't think the shadow is disturbing. -- Felix Koenig 17:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
It's disturbing imo and it's of course not impossible, take a photo at cloudy weather. --Carschten 18:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I forgot. A photo at cloudy weather would be very nice... how could I forgot that the best photos were taken at cloudy weather?? And of course the lighting is nearly perfect - at cloudy weather! I don't understand how I could forgot that. Felix Koenig 14:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, to me the shadow is disturbing--Lmbuga 21:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 02:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Murgjo Sharr Mountain Dog Nedi Limani.jpg[edit]

Murgjo Sharr Mountain Dog Nedi Limani.jpg

  • Nomination Sharri Mountain Dogs with Sheep ---- Mdupont 12:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Does not conform to the 2MP minimum resolution requirement, sorry. --Murdockcrc 20:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info now updated check new resolution --Mdupont 16:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Agreed, resolution is now over 2MP, I'm switching it back to nomination. Thanks. --Murdockcrc 17:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Underexposed image, but this is very easy to fix --Archaeodontosaurus 09:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Rtouched image now uploaded ----Mdupont 12:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Sorry but the subjects are blurry and with little detail. No QI in my opinion. -- Alvesgaspar 00:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noised in the heads of dogs: Poor detail where the detail interests. To me (perhaps only to me) too tight crop: I need to see de horizon--Lmbuga 13:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Quito Proc del Jesus del Gran Poder 2010 e.jpg[edit]

Quito Proc del Jesus del Gran Poder 2010 e.jpg

  • Nomination Street procession in Quito, Ecuador. --Cayambe 18:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeInteresting, but IMO too much going on. Can't concentrate on anything. Sorry. --kallerna 12:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No technical problem and that image is very rich --Archaeodontosaurus 15:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Plus very good white balance, no overexposure. Agree with Archeo.--Jebulon 16:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Carschten 15:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 00:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) (4).jpg[edit]

Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) (4).jpg

  • Nomination Two fox cubs out to play -- Ken Billington 10:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion Not perfectly sharp, but good enough--Jebulon 10:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 1,600 × 1,200. --kallerna 08:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done A larger crop has now been uploaded (2,000 x 1,500). Hope this resolves this problem -- Ken Billington 18:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support another time, if needed.--Jebulon 23:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. Perhaps the image could be more sharp. Good composition--Lmbuga 13:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok. --Makele-90 17:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PetarM 18:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 00:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Kärsämäen eritasoliittymä, Turun ohikulkutie (kantatie 40), Turku, 11.7.2010 (4).JPG[edit]

Kärsämäen eritasoliittymä, Turun ohikulkutie (kantatie 40), Turku, 11.7.2010 (4).JPG

  • Nomination Kärsämäki interchange at Finnish national road 40 (part of European route E18) in Turku, Finland. --Makele-90 17:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Better if almost half of the sky be cropped out.--Jebulon 01:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technical quality is good, but I do not know what the image is for. Neither does it illustrate the subject appropriately, nor is this a particularly beautiful or interesting view. Also I find the front area too dark. -- H005 17:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - good quality. -- Felix Koenig 10:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition not good: very ambiguous, unclear what the intention was. PS. sky crop would indeed help, per Jebulon. --Elekhh 20:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Echoing the comments above, unclear composition. The picture is in three disjoint parts: the sky, the road, and the hill; not sure what it's depicting. -- King of Hearts 19:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Elekhh 20:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Sanderling (Calidris alba) (6).JPG[edit]

Sanderling (Calidris alba) (6).JPG

  • Nomination Sanderling has short stopover in Austria during circumpolar migration -- Ken Billington 10:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion Ok. Nice colours. --Ankara 23:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Needs a discussion IMO because of the grey disturbing thing in foreground (and maybe small overexposure of the back of the bird)--Jebulon 23:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition altogether! But: 1,92 MB, isn't it a little too small? Moreover the legs, the beak and the face are a little diffuse. And the stone in the foreground is disturbing. Sorry. --Bartiebert 17:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: Despite the size and the "stone" (which appears as a shell to me), still a good image. -- H005 21:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question Such a shell in Austria ?--Jebulon 00:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info It's definitely a stone and not a shell. --Ken Billington 13:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for QI imo, despite the disturbing stone. --Cayambe 17:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Size is 4.3 M pixel. QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 08:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bartiebert does raise some valid concerns, but they are minor and I feel this is an excellent image overall. -- King of Hearts 09:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Elekhh 20:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Linnanmäen Vonkaputous 4.jpg[edit]

Linnanmäen Vonkaputous 4.jpg

  • Nomination Vonkaputous in Linnanmäki, Helsinki. --kallerna 09:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition - too much uninteresting empty sky. Mattbuck 04:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
As it was an aesthetic choice I like, I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 00:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per my opinion above.--Jebulon 10:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I don't like the composition--Lmbuga 00:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting use of rule of thirds. LeavXC (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Composition is a breath of fresh air (no pun intended). -- King of Hearts 09:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Elekhh 20:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Liss-Ellas mustard and Vika crispbread.jpg‎[edit]

Liss-Ellas mustard and Vika crispbread.jpg

  • Nomination Mustard and crispbread in stall.--V-wolf 16:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportSome mild overexposure, but I really like the composition and the warmth here. Mattbuck 19:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe "pole" in foreground disturbs the composition IMO.--Jebulon 00:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's a stall with roof and as a such it has supporters in the ends.--V-wolf (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The composition is good for QI, imo. More important is that it is technically OK too.--MrPanyGoff 16:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jebulon. Composition is equally important with "technically OK". If is bad composition is not going to be used. --Elekhh 01:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad composition --Archaeodontosaurus 10:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a really good photo! For me a quality image. --A.Ceta 17:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad composition--Lmbuga 20:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is a little messy. -- King of Hearts 09:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline? Elekhh 20:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Monet - un bras de Seine près de Vétheuil.jpg[edit]

Monet - un bras de Seine près de Vétheuil.jpg

  • Nomination A Monet painting in Tours. --Eusebius 11:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good and useful.--Jebulon 15:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, but shouldn't the frame be cropped to ensurer it is a 2D reproduction of a 2D artwork (frame is 3D!). --Dschwen 15:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentWho cares? It is not PD-Art, it is PD-self: I am the photographer and I choose to release it under a free license, like many other photographs of 3D scenes. We can make a version without frame of course, but we're not forced to do that by "legally technical" reasons. --Eusebius 10:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Indeed. The frame would only be a problem if the uploader weren't the photographer. PD-Art is for 2D photographs of artwork taken by third-party photographers. This, however, is a PD-old painting by Monet, photographed by a Commons user who releases his own photograph into the public domain. So, no need to crop. Gestumblindi 02:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, good point. Sorry for the holdup then. --Dschwen 04:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 03:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Borjomi's Park.JPG[edit]

Borjomi's Park.JPG

  • Nomination Nice photo from Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park in Georgia. --Geagea 21:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately, NR has destroyed the textures of the greenery. In general compact cameras need to be shot at ISO 100 or lower for a good signal-to-noise ratio. --King of Hearts 20:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support OK with your comment, but it isn't too drastic to ask such technical requirement? It is only QI... Borvan53 (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't find it all that drastic. If the ISO 200 were necessary given the light value, then I wouldn't mind. But here we have a shutter speed of 1/100, which could be lowered instead of raising the ISO. -- King of Hearts 09:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon 15:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 00:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Green turtles at Black Sand Beach.jpg[edit]

Green turtles at Black Sand Beach.jpg

  • Nomination Green turtles at Black Sand Beach--Mbz1 16:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn No composition & not horizontal --Borvan53 23:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC) What is not horizontal? Shoreline? Please see how it looks.--Mbz1 00:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the shorline is not horizontal, as well as the canopy. But it is more a perspective effect than a mistake: the scene is unbalanced and not built. Nothing to stop the eye at right, left turtle is cut,... Sorry, in my opinion, rotating the image is necessary but should be not enough. Waiting for opinion from someone else... --Borvan53 (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The turtle is cut? It is not cut at all.--Mbz1 12:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbz1 (talk • contribs) 2 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Privlaka (Dalmatien) Panorama.jpg[edit]

Privlaka (Dalmatien) Panorama.jpg

  • Nomination Privlaka (Dalmatien) Panorama --Böhringer 22:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's tilt! --Pudelek 13:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it isn't tilt, you don't have a real even water horizon. QI for me. --Alchemist-hp 15:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I see water horizon and on the left is tilted! --Pudelek 17:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilt is obvious to me. Should be easy to fix. --Dschwen 22:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If the image is not tilted, there are distortion. Rule of thirds: Too much sky. I don't like the composition: Too tight al bottom--Lmbuga 18:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Glenview Station.jpg[edit]

Glenview Station.jpg

  • Nomination Glenview Amtrak/Metra Station --Jovianeye 03:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A bit tilted and a bit of perspective distortion (to me)--Lmbuga 19:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
See if it's better now (this is much harder than I thought!) --Jovianeye 05:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The crop is too tight, especially left.--Jebulon 23:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop (at left and at bottom)--Lmbuga 13:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 13:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Schwafheimer Meer, Feld Sonnenuntergang, CN-2010-12.jpg[edit]

Schwafheimer Meer, Feld Sonnenuntergang, CN-2010-12.jpg

  • Nomination Sunset at a snowy field in Moers --Carschten 12:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, uninteresting composition. --kallerna 12:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you confound FP and QI. --Carschten 13:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition is part of the image quality. Yann 15:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yann, of course. But boring composition, uninteresting composition and no wow factor aren't QI criteria imo, that's FP. Bad composition would be one, but if there's bad composition, please tell me what's bad. And if you tell me uninteresting composition is a QI criterion I know my vote decisions at a lot of the candidates here, e.g. File:Porto July 2009-10.jpgFile:Okochi Sanso32n4592.jpgFile:N Connector.jpgFile:Coral reefs in the Red Sea.jpg etc. --Carschten 15:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment At least you should follow the rule of thirds for the sun. Better you could also try playing with the tracks on the ground. Yann 15:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment so you mean yes, boring composition is a QIC criterion?!? --Carschten 16:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree with Carschten: "uninteresting composition" is not a QI argument, only "bad composition" is. The image could be cropped if you would like to achieve rule of thirds, so is no reason to oppose IMHO. --Elekhh 01:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 13:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Edfu Tempel 42.jpg[edit]

Edfu Tempel 42.jpg

  • Nomination Sunken-relief in the Temple of Edfu, Egypt. --Oltau 17:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Dschwen 21:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Needs a slight perspective correction IMO.--Jebulon 01:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is not always necessary and sometimes counterproductive to correct pespective in a compulsive manner. In this case it would crop essential parts of the relief. Good image as it is. -- Smial 15:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Perspective correction ready, --Oltau 18:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it now--Lmbuga 02:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for this, by Oltau himself perspectively corrected, version. --Alupus 10:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now, with this slight enough (and not compulsive) perspective correction. Nothing essential lost. Much better.--Jebulon 16:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 23:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Práce s navlhčeným svalákem (002).JPG[edit]

Práce s navlhčeným svalákem (002).JPG

  • Nomination Working glass mould.--Juan de Vojníkov 11:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Noise is visible in the person's shorts. Denoising might help! --Jovianeye 05:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support NR has clearly been applied already, and in any case being absolutely noise-free is not a requirement. I think overall this is a good image. --King of Hearts 19:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me ; but a caption in English is recommended --Archaeodontosaurus 15:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support No relevant noise problem. -- Smial 17:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 23:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Sjöstadskapellet december 2010.jpg[edit]

Sjöstadskapellet december 2010.jpg

  • Nomination New Chapel in Stockholm.--Ankara 21:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • sin't it a white balance problem ? I think it is too "blue-grey"--Jebulon 00:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • New version uploaded.--Ankara 01:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you, better now, but not good enough, I'm afraid. Let's discuss--Jebulon 09:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Are you still concerned about the colours? Remember that the photo was taken at two o'clock in the afternoon (sunset 14:47) in Stockholm (59 degrese North) in 17 of December. It was also a dark day with low cloud cover. I think the image now reflects the natural light and colours of the day. Regards--Ankara 10:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    • You are not wrong. That's why I didn't oppose...--Jebulon 16:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose White balance isnt't ideal, but what concerns me more are other factors such as dull light, the tree hiding part of the building, the lines that go straight through the image. The fact that the weather was this way doesn't mitigate for the issues resulting from it. It just wasn't the rigth time to shoot a QI. -- H005 13:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's just not possible to create a QI for some subjects in certain types of weather. -- King of Hearts 09:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Elekhh 23:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Wall-038.jpg[edit]

Wall-038.jpg

  • Nomination Wall of a war memorial. --Bartiebert 16:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Good quality. --Dschwen 17:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose; overexposed sky. A.S. 17:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
A little better now? Please note there are possibly influences by weather too. It was not a clear and blue sky - not all through. --Bartiebert 20:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but on the other side, a wall cannot run away; I suppose that it's possible to shot the same motive to a more appropriate time. Imho, the upper third of the pic is still much too white; it may hardly be corrected by software. A.S. 21:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Remove the upper third?--Ankara 23:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is not any over exposure in both images. Please adjust your tft settings. Image meets QI requirements. This is not FP. Please do not crop without need. -- Smial 17:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Evaristo Nugkuag - Rathaus Köln (7177).jpg[edit]

Evaristo Nugkuag - Rathaus Köln (7177).jpg

  • Nomination Evaristo Nugkuag, a Peruvian environmentalist --Raymond 21:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok. --kallerna 10:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Red eyes and exotic colors in glasses and black parts. --すけ 17:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per すけ. The hair (dark color) is messed up --Niabot 22:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I don't see "messed up" colors. This is an above average portrait and certainly QI to me. --Dschwen 18:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for QI at least red eye reduction should be done and I see disturbing reflections on glasses and skin, caused by flash --J. Lunau 19:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Saqqara BW 7.jpg[edit]

Saqqara BW 7.jpg

  • Nomination The way to the pyramid of Unas, Saqqara, Egypt --Berthold Werner 16:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special; this kind of composition should have something interesting in the middle. --King of Hearts 18:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 1st This is not FPC. 2nd The interesting part is the light gap in the ceiling. --Berthold Werner 09:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • What I'm saying is, it does not depict its subject well in that case, which is a QIC requirement. -- King of Hearts 09:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support solid quality. --Dschwen 22:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon 15:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition. -- Elekhh (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well, it seems to show the way to the pyramid of Unas, and it does it fine. -- Smial 18:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 21:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Storfjorden autumn, 2009 09.jpg[edit]

Storfjorden autumn, 2009 09.jpg

  • Nomination Autumn at Storfjorden, Troms, Norway. -- Ximonic 10:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose oversaturated, chromatic aberrations --Carschten 13:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    Carschten is right but would be nice if corrected --Mbdortmund 23:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done I had some time removing the chromatic aberrations and also the saturation has been reduced in some color ranges. Any saturation wasn't added in the first place, but I think you were right about the bit too harsh colors anyway. --Ximonic 13:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks good for me now --Mbdortmund 23:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems to be a good and vivid landscape shot. LeavXC 21:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversaturated, us Carschten--Lmbuga 18:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Overexposed at left--Lmbuga 18:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
To me beautiful. Beautiful, beautiful, but not QI--Lmbuga 18:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversaturation is not corrected enough --Archaeodontosaurus 10:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be quite easy to go and fix if I knew which color is still oversaturated and where? I've desaturated it quite much all over already (I will soon make it just gray piece of work) Maybe I just desaturate it all over again. --Ximonic 16:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done Overall desaturation - still oversaturated? Before the doom, I would really like to give this photo all I can because I personally like it. --Ximonic 17:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • colors are best now --Archaeodontosaurus 09:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The colors are at the moment indecuate to me. I would like to see the original image--Lmbuga 02:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The original is very close to the first version in file history. During the photograph it was very strongly a colorful moment. So the original photograph might look like ”strongly oversaturated” to people here. Yet the original pictures are also quite dark to overexposure the bright sky at the right as little as possible. --Ximonic 14:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
So all I had done to the first file in file history after the stitching of original pictures was mostly just lightness increasing to make the picture not to look as dark. Not much anything else. So, if you would like to make your own version you would as well just edit the first file in the history. --Ximonic 15:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can not judge the colors without knowing the real locations, but in general for me a great shot in high Qualitiy --J. Lunau 19:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. Please add geo info. -- Smial 00:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done Location tag added. It was very diffucult to find just the right spot from the satellite pictures but I think I found it. Atleast I'm very sure about the part of the coastline. --Ximonic 00:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Ford Focus RS WRC IAA 2009.JPG[edit]

Ford Focus RS WRC IAA 2009.JPG

  • Nomination: Ford Focus RS WRC, IAA 2009. -- Felix Koenig 12:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Review Good image. --King of Hearts 19:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC) bad white balance IMO. Please discuss--Jebulon 16:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    You may call it "bad white balance", but the car was in blue light, and it would be nonsense to correct that. -- Felix Koenig 17:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Eusebius 10:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Trosky, věž Panna.jpg[edit]

Trosky, věž Panna.jpg

  • Nomination Castle Trosky, Czech Republic — Jagro 12:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline A bit undersaturated and unsharp. Not the best weather for this shot, unfortunately. --King of Hearts 19:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Not so bad. Please discuss --Jebulon 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful picture, bat us King of Hearts--Lmbuga 02:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Nicht typisch für Trosky; Grauschleier über dem Bild --Ralf Roletschek 16:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Eusebius 10:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Ritz Cracker.jpg[edit]

Ritz Cracker.jpg

  • Nomination Ritz Cracker that I just ate. ZooFari 03:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol support vote.svg Support QI - please does not photo of what has become --Archaeodontosaurus 10:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Shadow and border does not look good to me. --Niabot 15:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI to me.--Jebulon 16:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I don't like it. Perhaps too yellow (or orange), but i'm not sure--Lmbuga 18:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The color of the cookie looks ok. I was actually pleased with the shadow, but others' opinion count too. Not sure what border Niabot refers to though. ZooFari 19:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm referring to this borders: [1] --Niabot 22:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 17:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Eusebius 09:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Bastion Valletta.jpg[edit]

Bastion Valletta.jpg

  • Nomination Bastion of Valletta with the Hastings Garden on it. -- Felix Koenig 20:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment left side seems to be tilted/distorted ccw --Mbdortmund 07:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    Nicht unbedingt. Das Ding ist definitiv schief, vgl. auch hier, fragt sich nur, wie sehr. -- Felix Koenig 15:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too tight crop at bottom imo --Carschten 15:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry, I don't think so. The whole bastion is shown. -- Felix Koenig 19:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Slight perspective correction applied -- Smial 23:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm not sure whether it is totally realistic, but good rework I think. Felix Koenig 16:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Eusebius 09:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Friedhofskapelle Bönnigheim-2.JPG[edit]

Friedhofskapelle Bönnigheim-2.JPG

  • Nomination Cemetery chapel in Bönnigheim, Baden-Württemberg. -- Felix Koenig 11:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Shadow in the bottom right is a bit dark, but good quality otherwise. --Dschwen 15:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed at right and at windows, see notes--Lmbuga 02:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps too tight crop only at right, but to me it's not QI with this crop--Lmbuga 00:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good view, only very slight under exposure. Details in shadowy parts are visible. Please adjust your monitor. -- Smial 16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • die Schatten haben Zeichnung und können bei Bedarf auch problemlos aufgehellt werden. --Ralf Roletschek 12:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good composition. Alofok 17:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Amphiperca_multiformis_01.jpg[edit]

Amphiperca multiformis 01.jpg

  • Nomination Amphiperca multiformis from the Messel Fossil Pit Site --Llez 16:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeA bit too small, too little resolution on the subject (padding left and right) --Dschwen 21:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The support is rarely symmetric, which explains the fossil plate of the framings sometimes unsightly. Fish is perfect. --Archaeodontosaurus 09:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Guys this image barely has 2 Megapixel and some of the space is wasted by padding. --Dschwen 13:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The space around the fish is very interesting. It's plastic, not stone. The fossilization of this field is amazing including extraction techniques that are complex. The fish itself is absolutely true! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Then go nominate it at VIC. This is QIC and the quality of this image is substandard. --Dschwen 18:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Dschwen. Should be centered. --kallerna 13:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Dschwen. Subject is too small and should be centred. Besides, reflexions are overexposed, although this might be unavoidable. --Eusebius 10:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Eusebius. --Makele-90 20:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Nippenburg Burgtor West.jpg[edit]

Nippenburg Burgtor West.jpg

  • Nomination On the castle ruin Nippenburg, Germany --Harke 17:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad orientation of the light. Disturbing shadow in foreground right--Jebulon 09:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it, imo the shadow isn't disturbing. Let's discuss. -- Felix Koenig 17:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support light is ok IMO, shadow in the foreground definitely not disturbing. --Elekhh 02:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, your subject is not backlit, but the shadows are disturbing--Lmbuga 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose even it is a nice shoot in good quality, I agree with Jebulon and Lmbuga: disturbing shadows in foreground. (could be avoided by better crop, I think) --J. Lunau 19:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If there is light, there will be shadow. Excellent composition, good lighting that enhances the old masonry, details in shadowy parts still good visible. Sharp, no CA, no blur, perfect exposure. -- Smial 23:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image. However, it could be cropped a little bit, to make the shadow smaller. But the composition is more important than that. -- Lipedia 03:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others: distracting shadows. --Eusebius 09:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There are shadows, but those are vivid shadows. Real life landscapes have some shadows in Summer, yes.--PereslavlFoto 15:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support shadow isn't disturbing. Alofok 16:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Alofok. --Makele-90 20:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 21:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Henriksdals station december 2010.jpg[edit]

Henriksdals station december 2010.jpg

  • Nomination Henriksdal station.--Ankara 18:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it --Mbdortmund 22:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like those brances, the focus is not in the station. The right side is too messy. --kallerna 12:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The bus stop is of course related to the station. I was not trying to create an artistic image, but to show the place as it looks. The area around the station is messy, and when the image is intended for use on Wikipedia, it should portray the site as it looks..--Ankara 20:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Is a good illustration of a train station-bus stop interchange. The time of taking the shot is ideal (winter, two trains and a bus of the same colour) to make it look as unmessy as possible, although I think a vantage point from further right might have been better, to avoid some of the branches. --Elekhh (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per kallerna. -- H005 23:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The branches are quite distracting. Per Elekhh, a view from further right would be better. --LeavXC 22:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Standing further right would mean standing in the middle of the tracks ... I think this depicts the subject well. -- King of Hearts 09:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Kallerna. In addition, the branches and others are disturbing. Not sharp enough--Lmbuga 02:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 17:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • unten und links radikal beschneiden, dann wäre das was. Zuviel unwichtiges Gestrüpp auf dem Bild --Ralf Roletschek 11:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of composition, distracting branches on a significant portion of the picture, subject centred. --Eusebius 09:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per kallerna. --Makele-90 20:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Sean_Astin_1.jpg[edit]

Sean Astin 1.jpg

  • Nomination The actor Sean Astin giving a talk at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign --Dschwen 15:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good portrait! --AngMoKio 15:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Less than 6 megapixels and unsharp. Let's discuss. I'm not sure--Lmbuga 01:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp enough for me and already a featured picture...Letartean 18:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Weak support. The face isn't entirely in focus, but ok for QI (but not FP) IMO.--Ankara (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support focus not perfect, but otherwise a very good job, especially for an indoor portrait picture. --Carschten 22:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Siřejovice, střecha domu.JPG[edit]

Siřejovice, střecha domu.JPG

  • Nomination Roof covered by "bobrovka" in Litoměřice District, Czech Republic.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality and useful -- Smial 12:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See the detail of transition between roof and black colour. Image is nice and should be QI, however it needs more work to be QI. Not now and not this version. --Chmee2 15:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Chmee2-- --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Chmee2-- --Kyknos 16:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Chicago_lifeguard.jpg[edit]

Chicago lifeguard.jpg

  • Nomination Lifeguard at North Ave Beach in Chicago --Dschwen 01:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image quality is fine but the guy with the DSLR is stealing all the attention from the lifeguard. --Jovianeye 03:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Uhm, ok, now we are really drifting off into the realm of COM:FPC! --Dschwen 20:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no, in this case we don't drift off to the FPC. Composition is part of the QIC, too, and I also think that the composition is not good enough (the man in foreground, lifeguard tower cutted off at the left) --Carschten 14:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Carschten. Makele-90 20:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • So if the filename of the image would have been Photographer on a Chicago city Beach, it would have been fantastic, considering that I went out of my way (into the water) to include the lifeguard tower with the Chicago city flag, and an iconic Building (Hancock Center)? This review is confusing to me. --Dschwen 21:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In this case not convinced that the composition is OK (framing: left side of the construction and of the man standing there cut off; no concentration on the main object; random background)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

File:National Park Service ranger vehicle.jpg[edit]

National Park Service ranger vehicle.jpg

  • Nomination National Park Service ranger vehicle in Mesa Verde. --Dschwen 00:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • schönes Foto, mach doch die Vignettierung/das Rauschen in den oberen Ecken wech, vor allem links oben. --Mbdortmund 04:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • {{o}} I can't understand your language. To me, good picture, but too tight crop. And the car of the right is disturbing--Lmbuga 01:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Sigh, this is not FP. --Dschwen 02:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Sorry, is not "too tight crop" criteria to QI when, in adition there is a foreground disturbing? It's dificult to me understand the differences--Lmbuga 19:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Ok, I only understood half of that, but a) how is this crop too tight? b) there is no disturbing foreground, c) the background is hardly disturbing, it does not interfere with the bright car at all. --Dschwen 23:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you are right. I will be able to learn with the opinion of others users, if I am able. Thanks and sorry--Lmbuga 12:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support On FP, reviewers may object to the crop on the sides, but I think it satisfies the criteria for QI where the emphasis is more on technical quality than composition. A tight crop makes an image more useful as a thumbnail. Vignetting on a 5D at f/9 and 75 mm FL is not a reasonable explanation; sky brightness variation occurs and is the probable cause, in my judgment. I don't think a polarizing filter could be responsible over the corresponding FOV and no such filter was mentioned on the file page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can't understand, Wsiegmund, perhaps I can't understand English. Is the concept of composition writed in Commons:Image guidelines? Why does the composition, in QI, have less value? For me too tight crop at right and at left--Lmbuga 20:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
But the image is good (perhaps QI). Only I wish to understand and I do not understand the explanation. The explanation, I think, would have to be present in the policies --Lmbuga 21:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Purpose implies that QI is a more inclusive set than FP. I find no detailed guidance to distinguish the two. In the absence of more explicit guidance and as long as the explicit criterion is satisfied ("The subject should not be cropped"), I will likely support an image that some may consider cropped too tightly. It is one component of five of the "Composition" item, which is, in turn, one of eleven criteria (please see Commons:Image_guidelines). Operationally, a QI is whatever a majority of reviewers decide. That said, I think explanations and criteria for QI and FP could and should be improved. Changes may be proposed at Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates. Wsiegmund 22:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I think (all users think) that QI is a more inclusive set than FP, but I don't will likely, habitually, support an image that some may consider cropped too tightly. I can do this if there are policies that express it--Lmbuga 00:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have changed my vote {{o}}: Too tight crop at left and at right. Not much, but the background are disturbing (black car at right)--Lmbuga 00:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps too tight crop only at right, but I must see the new image--Lmbuga 00:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality. Alofok 20:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO the framing is acceptable for a vehicle. --Jovianeye 00:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • New opinion Symbol support vote.svg Support--Miguel Bugallo 23:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Car at right is not too disturbing. Makele-90 20:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)