Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 2007

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

Consensual Review[edit]

Halo in cirrostratus[edit]

Halo in cirrostratus 1.jpg

  • Nomination Halo in cirrocumulus near the city of Łódź, Poland --Przykuta 12:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • does it really needs that much space? i mean the trees give him stavility to the composition but i am not sure if it is enough to promote it, any second opinion? -LadyofHats 09:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the trees add dimension and depth, Gnangarra 01:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support i would agree in promoting it then -LadyofHats 13:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 13:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Bubo bubo winter[edit]

Bubo bubo winter 1.jpg

  • Nomination Eurasian Eagle Owl (Bubo bubo) Przykuta 12:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • same as the one after. overexposed but tolerable, i would promote it what do you think? -LadyofHats 09:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support snow background, use of flash to compensate has slightly flattened the owl but IMHO it meets the requirements Gnangarra 01:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support agree with Gnangarra --AngMoKio 13:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 13:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Lviv Panorama[edit]

Lwów - Widok z wieży ratuszowej 01.jpg

  • Nomination Downtown Lviv (Ukraine). --Lestat 22:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose perspective distortion and a bit blurry around the trees. --Digon3 talk 16:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is panorama view - it can has little perspective distortion... and if You want sharper view You can resample it - resolution is enought. --Lestat 21:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> decline? --Tony Wills 22:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

  • One second, it should be here longer. You recapitulate it after 1 hour. --Lestat 10:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(sorry, I was not trying to hasten the decision! :-) --Tony Wills 12:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Lestat, voting is still running, notice the questionmark. Pictogram voting question.svg Question The brown tree bottom left is blurred, looks to me like the bad habit of feathering some stitiching programs have. Is that present in the original image(s)? yes, it is in the original image as well, not a stitching bug--Klaus with K 12:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support shows town structure nicely, simulating a wide angle lense one cannot avoid some distortion - and on balance I accept the slanting lines let's keep it in the voting for now -- Klaus with K 12:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support i do not find it so disorted, i think is a false impresion of the almust destryed buildings. i would promote it-LadyofHats 13:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Anemone Thalictrum thalictroides Flower[edit]

Rue Anemone Thalictrum thalictroides Flower 2479px.jpg

  • Nomination Rue Anemone (Thalictrum thalictroides) flower. -- Ram-Man 02:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • I'm not sure on this one. Both composition and sharpness are great, as well as the texture of the flower. But the image seems somber and undersaturated. I think that a little more colour and light would make the pictute much more attractive. - Alvesgaspar 21:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it may be a little undersaturated/ underexposed. However, this brings out the glitter in the petals. Very good focus, therefore I promote it. (I hope this is allright, because it wasn't in CR). --Florian Prischl 22:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit: Therefore, I Symbol support vote.svg Support both the old and new version (I guess the only one we are voting on here is the new one anyway, since it overwrote the old one, right?). --Florian Prischl 22:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't agree. I'm with Alvesgaspar that the image seems somber and undersatureted. In my eyes not good enough for QI. --LC-de 05:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Now Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --LC-de 18:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I uploaded and overwrote the old version. The new one is levels-adjusted and should be much brighter now. -- Ram-Man 17:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Only because the white texture of the flower is superb, and despite the so so composition and leaves out of focus. - Alvesgaspar 18:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the picture is nice, the white would be oversaturated if more light was used.-LadyofHats 13:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

King Vulture closeup[edit]

Sarcoramphus-papa-king-vulture-closeup-0a.jpg

  • Nomination King vulture closeup. Adamantios 18:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The feather thingy is overexposed and the photo is too tight. Otherwise a marvellous shot. –Dilaudid 11:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I wouldn't call this picture overexposed only if there were a tiny white area with little contrast in the object pictured as a tiny white area with no contrast. An the tight crop... ok, maybe it won't be FP, but in my opinion it's good enough for QI. --LC-de 12:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- unfortunatly for you the tiny white area ( wich is not so tiny) is in the midle of the atention focus. and that detail kills the wonderfull picture that this is -LadyofHats 13:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The ironic thing is that, from the other photos (Sarcoramphus_papa), the white feather is not part of the head but a stray feather just plucked from its chest. --Tony Wills 13:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 13:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Áskirkja[edit]

  • Nomination The "stern" of Áskirkja, church designed with a nod to Viking ships. - Stalfur 15:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline

Pictogram voting info.svg Info if the dust speck in the sky (right side mid height) were properly removed, I'd make that QI despite the marginal 1600x1200 resolution -- Klaus with K 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • - i do not think the composition is that good, surely is in focuss and all, but there is just too much empty space-LadyofHats 12:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with LadyofHats and therefore decline it. Also, it seems to "collapse" a little - the building looks very hard to caputre, though. --Florian Prischl 22:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 13:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Zabrze-panorama-v2[edit]

Zabrze-panorama-v2.jpg

  • Nomination panorama of Zabrze, Poland Przykuta 12:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • i have the idea many parts are either overexposed or deformed.. what do you think?-LadyofHats 13:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose - from Wieza cisnien to Kosciol sw. Pawla the focus moves forward off the central area, while the noted points remain there. Gnangarra 01:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI' --Tony Wills 13:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Crocodylus porosus[edit]

Crocodile Crocodylus-porosus amk.jpg

  • Nomination Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) --AngMoKio 20:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • ilumination problems, or is it a filter? any case shadow on the right side-LadyofHats 12:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think that this shadow is reason enough for the a decline. I think the photo is very sharp and shows very well the details of this crocodile - the shadow is a tree near by but doesn't affect the view on the main subject - the crocodile --AngMoKio 15:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • if it was a natural shadow maybe, but it is a color distortion in the whole image and that takes away quality. since color is also a detail from the subject -LadyofHats 08:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is strange. It does not look like an illumination problem, more like a filter to me. The subject is pictured very well, but the dark area is very distracting, especially on the front of the snout. I'll think about this one. --Florian Prischl 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Maybe it's a filter, maybe bad illumination, after all it's an odd thing and very distracting. --LC-de 05:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose i would also decline it-LadyofHats 13:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
(I think you already did in your original review above :-) --Tony Wills 12:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same reason as LC-de --Simonizer 13:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Edinburgh Scottish Parliament01 2006-04-29.jpg[edit]

Edinburgh Scottish Parliament01 2006-04-29.jpg*Edinburgh Scottish Parliament01crop2 2006-04-29.jpg

Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Kea filtered2.jpg[edit]

Kea filtered2.jpg
  • Nomination A Kea (mountain parrot) on the Franz Josef Glacier, New Zealand. –Dilaudid 21:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Although a nice picture, and I appreciate the rarity of the species, until the chromatic aberration on the gravel is fixed I can't support it. --Pharaoh Hound 21:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Extracted from gallery so some work can be done on this before QICbot files it away :-) --Tony Wills 10:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm asking for help and hints on how to acheive this on the critique page. –Dilaudid 13:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thermos has uploaded a revised version with significantly less fringing. You will probably have to do a shift-refresh or similar in your browser to clear the cached version --Tony Wills 07:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good photo, colours are better now. It seems a little blurred, but I think that is just me... --Florian Prischl 23:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The newly uploaded version worsens the CA issue sigificantly. --Dschwen 13:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The bird looks good, even at reasonably large magnifications. The CA is a non-issue as I didn't even notice it on the rocks without all this discussion. People looking at this image pay attention to the subject (the bird) anyway. The quality of the main subject is sufficient. -- Ram-Man 15:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Is not that difficult to fix the CA issue, I will support it then --Simonizer 08:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've now replaced the candidate photo with a new version. I tried to work on the CA problem and there should now be less magenta and cyan glow on the rubble. Please tell me what you think. –Dilaudid 11:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose if after so long it hasnt come to an agreement the image should be taken out and fixed. -LadyofHats 12:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fixing is exactly what I was trying to do. Can you be more specific as to which parts of the photo are still suffering of excess CA? –Dilaudid 18:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • CA is nothing you can so easily fix, it apears basically in every "line" or "border" of objects. it is normally a group of pixels wich are of a completly diferent colot. in your case blue pixels all arround the feathers and bird. together with a lot of green in the stones. the problem is that if not done right messing so much with the image make end giving it a "fake" feeling. colors tend to overexpose, and lines become really blury.

still if you like to work on it, there is a chance to save it, but if you have never done it before and want to save yourself from hours of pixel per pixel work, then just try taking another picture-LadyofHats 09:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> not promoted to QI' --Tony Wills 12:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The voting is difficult to untangle because peoples votes refer to different versions. Latest version does have a lot of artifacts after all this processing and is twice the size of the original kea picture. Perhaps go back to original and start again ;-) --Tony Wills 12:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Panorama of Mt Elizabeth and hills.jpg[edit]

Panorama of Mt Elizabeth and hills.jpg

  • Nomination Fainting range and farmland --Benjamint 08:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • What I like: The ways the top of the hills roll, especially the lone tree. The colors. What I dislike: the shadow of one hill on the other. The shadow of I don't know what at the extreme right. (Maybe crop that?). The way the trees on the distant range sort of merge into the trees on the middle ground hills. Wouldn't object to a bit more detail, but that's more minor. Ben Aveling 10:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • - actually i like it all excet from the shadow on the right end, since it comes from the back of the photographer and mixes with the trees. if croped that part i would promote it-LadyofHats 12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • OK. Declined. But crop the shadow and we'll support promotion. Ben Aveling 04:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportThe showed image is already the croped one, if so then i would support the image. i think you would agree or?-LadyofHats 13:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about which shadow was meant, but now I see a new image has been uploaded over the old :-) --Tony Wills 13:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg SupportYes. I like the sinosoidal wave of the new crop. Pity about the shadow of the hill, but still very nice. Ben Aveling 10:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promote? --Tony Wills 13:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Church of Holy Trinity[edit]

Gornji Milanovac Holy Trinity church.jpg

*Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for QI. --Digon3 talk 16:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, the image is overexposed and blury -LadyofHats 13:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This photo apparently comes straight out of the camera. -- Klaus with K 15:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looking at the picture it does not seem overexposed, but the histogram says otherwise. --Digon3 talk 20:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yepp, the blue channel saturates. --Klaus with K 13:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Could something be done to it so that it is not overexposed and blurry? Nikola Smolenski 20:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (1) set you camera to underexposure if possible
  • (2) go for better quality compression if camera allows
    more on your talk page -- Klaus with K 13:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per above. –Dilaudid 08:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not prompoted to QI –- Tony Wills 12:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Cattle I[edit]

Bos taurus taurus face close.jpg

  • Nomination Some nice cattles from bavaria, where i come from --Makro Freak 13:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • one can see you are proud of this cows. this one is overexposed but within limits-LadyofHats 10:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Poor framing and composition, not a good example to show in the QI archive of what a photo of a cow should be - Alvesgaspar 16:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the composition is a bit too straight forward. Try to place main objects not in the middle of the picture - this results mostly (not always) in a more interesting composition. --AngMoKio 17:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The other cows in the background distract from the subject, especially the cut-off cow on the right side. Exposure is OK, but the composition seems a bit random/not planned. --Florian Prischl 17:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

ControlSurfaces[edit]

ControlSurfaces.gif

  • Nomination Plane controling Przykuta 12:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • can you make it move slowler? and also make the arrows on the small plane a bit more obvious. otherwise i think is a wonderfull image-LadyofHats 13:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- animation speed is too fast, if it could be slowed down to less than half the current rate then I'd support. Gnangarra 01:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed. The viewer needs enough time to look at the controls, and then look at the impact. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposethen it is desided. the image must be fixed-LadyofHats 13:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wien Hofburg Leopoldinischer Trakt[edit]

Wien Hofburg Leopoldinischer Trakt 2006-09-04.jpg*Wien Hofburg Leopoldinischer Trakt mod 2006-09-04.jpg

  • Nomination Leopoldinischer Trakt, Hofburg Wien -- Klaus with K 15:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed, can be easily corrected with editing. --Digon3 talk 16:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Lin histo wien20060904.png
Log histo wien20060904.png
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question The photo looks underexposed on the linear histogram, but the logarithmic histogram shows that brightening up (white triangle) introduces clipping as in the right version. How to choose 100% brightness? -- Klaus with K 17:40, 23 June 2007 UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Image quality of the sky and distant buildings is quite poor. I don't like the trees in the shadow either. - Alvesgaspar 18:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I did not downscale the almost 5Kx3K stitch despite distant building possibly looking sharper scaled 50% (would still be >3MB), shall investigate the noisy sky (will take time, stitch not on this computer), even the sunlit part of trees appear dark because of the high contrast (did not change gamma), without the slanting light the wall relief would be less pronounced -- Klaus with K 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> decline? --Tony Wills 22:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • in particular the noisy sky needs the stitching to be revisited (suspect noise in flatfield), something I do not have time for now, hence Pictogram voting delete.svg  for the time being -- Klaus with K 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Cattle excrement I[edit]

Bos taurus taurus turd .jpg

  • Nomination Some nice cattles from bavaria, where i come from --Makro Freak 13:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  ??? --Lestat 21:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • - i disagree in declining a picture becouse of the subject it portraits. Qi is about the image only, not what apears on it. and this image is sligtly overexposed but i think could be promoted. -LadyofHats 10:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Irrelevant, bad lighting, bad framing, not a good example of a quality picture - Alvesgaspar 16:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the image and I also oppose the claim of irrelevance as made by Alvesgaspar. Although the subject might be offensive or inappropriate for some, it can be (very) useful. Yes, the image is not very well framed or lighted. That is why I oppose, not because of the subject. --Florian Prischl 16:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose i agree with Florian Prischl - such a photo can be helpful. But this one is not of a good quality --AngMoKio 17:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> not promoted to QI' --Tony Wills 12:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Cattle excrement II[edit]

Bos taurus taurus pooh.jpg

  • Nomination Some nice cattles from bavaria, where i come from --Makro Freak 13:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline the backgowund is quite overexposed but still i think the image enters the standards-LadyofHats 10:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Irrelevant, bad framing, not a good example of a quality picture - Alvesgaspar 16:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the image and again I also oppose the claim of irrelevance as made by Alvesgaspar. Although the subject might be offensive or inappropriate for some, it can be (very) useful. In this photo, the framing is bad, the cow in the back obscures the view of the subject. --Florian Prischl 16:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose i agree with Florian Prischl - such a photo can be helpful. But this one is not of a good quality --AngMoKio 17:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sunflower-wide[edit]

Sunflower-wide.JPG

  • Nomination A bunch of daisies (Leucanthemum vulgare) in a creek. -- Scrumshus 16:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice quality, beautiful composition. What about the "bug"? - Alvesgaspar 19:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The contrast curve on this image is all wrong. The flowers are overexposed and the shadows are underexposed. There is very little detail in this image. -- Ram-Man 13:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Ram-Man. This appears to be heavily post-shot edited, or it was shot with some strange filter. Like Alvesgaspar, I would be happy to know what bug this is (this is not a point of critique, though). FYI, I will remove the QI template from the image description until CR for it is over. --Florian Prischl 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Am I allowed to support my own image? Anyways, the original shot was very color-deprived so I added some effects to give it a boost in the color and lighting department. If I can find it on my crowded hard drive, I'll try to upload the original shot so that we can compare the two. As for the bug, I couldn't get a clear view of what kind of bug it was, so its a mystery. I'm only starting out so any constructive criticism is appreciated. -Scrumshus 03:21, June 15 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course you can support your own nomination , but your vote is assumed and not actually counted in CR (see rules section above). But please do upload your original version. --Tony Wills 13:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 21:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan full length[edit]

Wikipe-tan full length.png

  • Nomination Wikipe-tan, as drawn by Kasuga -- grendel|khan 15:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The borders and strokes are very rough, and should be better anti-aliased. Besides that, I would say it is good. Maybe Kasuga can produce a better anti-aliased version? --Florian Prischl 22:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a good one. Rough strokes and border reflects the creator's technique and ekspression. I believe Kasuga created this illustration for printing purpose, right? Antialiasing makes it better for display but it will not work well for printing. 13:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC) the preceding unsigned comment is by Hariadhi (talk • contribs)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Moved here because there is 1 support and 1 oppose. In such a case, it have been set to discuss, not to promote. Not a problem, but please be more careful next time. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this is fine. This is obviously not a photograph and the rough edges look artistic to me: more like a real drawing would be. -- Ram-Man 13:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - And where do we find quality? --Arad 21:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The image is pixelated and not special enough - Alvesgaspar 23:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Lovely character, but the detail just isn't high enough quality. Nothing that couldn't be fixed. –Dilaudid 11:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> Decline –Dilaudid 11:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sawtooth Oak Trunk[edit]

Sawtooth Oak Quercus acutissima Trunk Bark 2008px.jpg

  • Nomination Sawtooth Oak bark. -- Ram-Man 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeDont understand the screw, why its not cropped?--Makro Freak 19:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The screw is there to add a sense of scale, just like adding a ruler or some other common object. Tree bark can be size ambiguous, so having this helps you understand it. While it may take away from the "magic" if this was a FP candidate, it is not a quality issue. -- Ram-Man 19:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Makro Freak. It breaks the picture for me. Otherwise, OK. Ben Aveling 12:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This isn't FP, there is now "wow factor" requirement. If you want to add a wow factor to QI, then QI becomes FP. Sure, it's easy enough to crop out the screw, but I shouldn't be required. Obviously a picture without a screw is going to be more pretty, but then it loses some encyclopedic value. Does this image have sufficient quality or not? -- Ram-Man 12:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it comes under composition rather than 'wow' - the edge of the sign makes me want to see the whole sign, but if the whole sign was there it would be even more distracting :-). I've been thinking about a photo of a worm (a very large worm :-) that I photographed today, in one photo I included my set of keys for scale, but I am considering using that to allow me to insert a small (unobtrusive) scale in the corner of the image (like you get on maps) as the keys will be very distracting. --Tony Wills 12:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Feeling like HAL3000 and say "i have to think about it" --Makro Freak 15:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The rules say ...
The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.
And i still have the feeling that the screw is distracting. We have to wait for more comments. --Makro Freak 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
For me, it's not the screw, it's the picture? sign? hanging off it. My eye is drawn straight to it, and off the picture. Anyway, a screw and sign is also size ambiguous. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and agree with Makro Freak and Ben Aveling. Composition is a quality factor for any photograph and is (and should be) one for QI. Instead of a sign, maybe an insect or an unobtrusive ruler (a transparent plastic one with black numbers held to the side of the tree, for example) would show scale better and be less distracting. Maybe the screw alone would have been unobtrusive enough for this to pass. But, as Ben Aveling said, the cut-off sign is a problem, too. Besides that, the photo is fine. --Florian Prischl 21:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> Not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Apis mellifera carnica[edit]

Apis mellifera carnica drone aborning 3.jpg

  • Nomination Bee, My Argument: Makrofreak style --Makro Freak 16:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Review, Good focus, but unclear composition. --LC-de 19:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC) ]] 14:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dont agree, why is the composition unclear? --Makro Freak 14:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The shallow DoF and the angle that the shot was taken at make it unclear what exactly we are looking at. It is not obvious without a caption. The blurry foreground doesn't help the composition either. -- Ram-Man 18:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems to be focused on the part in front of the bee's head, if I am not mistaken. Besides, I agree with Ram-Man that the subject is not made clear by the photograph itself. --Florian Prischl 21:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

GrozaOC14[edit]

GrozaOC14.svg

  • Nomination Excellent quality, nearly real look but more clear than any photo could be --PioM EN DE PL 08:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • My Firefox is not able to display this SVG. Barcex 10:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • worked fine on mine good detail cleanlines, not sure about the muzzle but presume its correct Gnangarra 14:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Did you try to look at the full sized version? I get:
XML Parsing Error: prefix not bound to a namespace
Location: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/GrozaOC14.svg
Line Number 181, Column 3:
<linearGradient id="id31" gradientUnits="userSpaceOnUse" xlink:href="#id30" x1="9474" y1="28693" x2="13273" y2="28693">
--^

Something is wrong, is it the image at fault, commons, or our browsers? --Tony Wills 12:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The alinearly aligned detail of the ammo pad is disturbing. –Dilaudid 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've put a page of the thing at different sizes at /GrozaOC14. Ben Aveling 00:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This doesn't appear to be passing, and there are concerns with both the details and the SVG code itself. -- Ram-Man 15:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IE displays it correctly, but displays "Unrecognised DOCTYPE declaration. Image might not display correctly.". I suggest that when the problems are corrected the image be resubmitted to QI --Tony Wills 22:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fulmer Falls Closeup[edit]

Fulmer Falls Closeup 3000px.jpg

  • Nomination Fulmer Falls. -- grendel|khan 20:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why QI nomination when it is already FP?? --Klaus with K 16:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great photo as such, but too much noise. --Florian Prischl 22:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • For a Nikon Coolpix its ok i think --Makro Freak 18:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I really don't care whether this becomes a QI, but I am concerned about the precedent. This was an 8MP camera at the lowest ISO setting. We get a LOT of cameras that have lower resolution and similar noise levels through QI. This noise is not visible except at poster size magnifications, and even then it isn't that noticeable unless you specifically look for it. We should probably reject most images non-SLR automatically if this one gets rejected. At 2MP, the noise is not visible. If it was downsampled, there wouldn't be any noise. -- Ram-Man 03:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think you should care, if this one doesn't get QIfied then I would question the QI qualification process. Lots of QI pictures aren't nearly as good as this one. Benh 07:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • My point was that it was already a FP, so being a QI as well doesn't mean all that much to me one way or the other. Much more important is setting a precedent where this level of quality is unacceptable. We'd have to expect closer to technical perfection. -- Ram-Man 12:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Agree - Alvesgaspar 08:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per RamMan. Ben Aveling 12:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info QI vs FP conversation moved to Commons talk:Quality images candidates#QI vs FP. Regards Ben Aveling 12:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It mustnt allways has the best quality, this picture has quality because of the scene and the colors --Makro Freak 18:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  4 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Two Hens and Chicks 3264px[edit]

Two Hens and Chicks 3264px.jpg

  • Nomination Two hens and chicks. -- Ram-Man 00:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose if this is not QI, then I think this one can't be for the same reasons. Symbol support vote.svg Support. This picture is well centered and lighting is good. Overall, quality is good enough. Benh 17:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Noisy and unsharp? Are we looking at the same picture? The image you have compared it to has visible noise in a prominent location at 2MP, but more importantly the buds are not very sharp. This image does not have much noise (except of course at large magnifications, but so do all digital camera images) and is very sharp. -- Ram-Man 17:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you have a problem with my assessment of another image, comment on that image instead. Judge each image on its own merits. -- Ram-Man 18:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • well, the other picture hasn't much more noise. This pic has some unwanted artifacts as well, due to noise from sensor or due to compression (which would still be noise, since it deviates from what the ideal picture should be). I agree this one is a bit sharper but I still think it's artificial, and due to (in camera or not) post processing. I'll have another look tomorrow, maybe I'll change my mind. Benh 18:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I changed my vote and decided to support this instead of opposing this one. Benh 09:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good quality, colouring and composition, and genus identified. I don't see any obvious flaw. Alvesgaspar 19:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support quality sufficient in my opinion --norro 08:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No complaints! –Dilaudid 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ACK Dilaudid, norro and Alvesgaspar. --Florian Prischl 22:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The framing is really on the border! The resolution compensate this --Makro Freak 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  6 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> Promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Verdon_pano01_hs[edit]

Verdon pano01 hs.jpg Verdon pano01 hs edit.jpg

  • Nomination Not very eye catching, but I like it and think it's very good technically. -- Benh 17:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeColours look washed out due to overexposure. Nothing a little edit can't solve. Alvesgaspar 22:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is too bright. I think the brightness conveys the atmosphere of strong sunshine. Feel free to move to review section below.--Klaus with K 10:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Alvesgaspar too, but will edit the picture if other people think like him. Benh 09:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - I tried to improve the colour and contrast of the image but that is a difficult task due to the brightness distribution, which clearly shows overexposed zones. Still I think it is a little better now Alvesgaspar 22:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose both versions. Now the front of the house is even brighter - although the rest is better in the new version. --Florian Prischl 22:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I still have the RAWs and will try to work on them again. But I'm really surprised by the consistency of the votes over here... Benh 07:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Tyne Cot Cross[edit]

before after

  • Nomination Tyne Cot Cross. --Ben Aveling 05:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline

Pictogram voting info.svg InfoThe original was declined on the grounds of tilt and lighting. I've rotated and cropped it. And I've done a bit of mucking with the levels, though not much. I didn't want to overdo it, not the least because this shouldn't be a 'pretty' shot. Ben Aveling 05:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Was ist foggy? The trees in the background seem to be obscured by fog. --Florian Prischl 22:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am not satisfied by the first or second version - The fog makes the colours washed out and the pedestal is cropped off. --Florian Prischl 23:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose (excluding the nominator) -> Not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Bombus lucorum[edit]

Bombus lucorum.jpg

  • Nomination Bombus lucorum. –Dilaudid 23:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline The flowers are a little out of focus, the bee is OK. The background is noisy. It's close, but I'm not sure it's quite there. Ben Aveling 10:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Also, composition is weak, with the subject right on the center, and the bee is too small and unconspicuous. Alvesgaspar 21:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ACK Ben Aveling; also, the bee itself seems to be not fully in focus. --Florian Prischl 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The colors are fantastic, the quality is so so but enough i think. Its not just the bumblebee, this picture has more to offer. The composition is nice --Makro Freak 16:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Prunus spec sprout[edit]

Prunus spec sprout.jpg

  • Nomination Sprouts and trunk of a Prunus sp. tree (probably a cherry-tree - Prunus avius) - Alvesgaspar 22:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems noisy and unsharp to me. Composition/Subject is really nice though. -- Ram-Man 12:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Moved to CR because of Benh's comments above, which seem to imply that my assessment is wrong. -- Ram-Man 18:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • ah :) I don't say it's wrong, but I think this wouldn't be consistent. Benh 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I find the image not in balance, sprout in the middle and trunk to the right but nothing to balance it on the left. I would have turned the camera 10-20 percent further right, crop would be second best only. And the nearmost sprout is slightly out of focus. --Klaus with K 18:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support quality sufficient in my opinion --norro 11:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support To me too. A bit soft, but overall it's good, and it has nice blurred background. Benh 09:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ACK Klaus with K and Ram-Man - The right side is too heave due to the tree. Also, there are focus and noise issues. --Florian Prischl 22:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like the composition. But I agree it's too noisy, and focus isn't what it should be. Ben Aveling 22:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The comp is so so, the colors are very boring ... i think with the propper light on a other time it looks like more dramamtical and plastical and minor Focus problems --Makro Freak 16:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> Not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

SonyF717.jpg[edit]

SonyF717.jpg

  • Nomination Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F717 -- Thegreenj 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The long shadow behind looks a little odd, but clearly QI --Tony Wills 07:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I've been thinking about this and the shadow and white surface really bug me too much. Yes the camera itself is splendidly captured but as a whole I don't think this should be set up as an example of good product photography. –Dilaudid 16:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Dilaudid. A product shot like this should be near perfect. I think it needs a second diffuse lighting source to eliminate the shadow. -- Ram-Man 18:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack the above. Ben Aveling 00:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose both version, the first one just barely - the shadow, background and blue-ish tone are too distracting, however. ACK Ram-Man: With a second diffuse light source, the first one would probably be QI (the angle is good!). The second one is too flat. --Florian Prischl 22:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> Not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F717.jpg

  • Nomination Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F717 -- Thegreenj 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • New Version Thegreenj 23:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support new version. Ben Aveling 01:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support new version. -- Ram-Man 03:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Are you guys sure, the first image is a much, much better image of the camera. Ok the background isn't pristine white etc, but what's the point? Just because it is fashionable to have 'product' images done in a ceratin way, that doesn't make them technically 'better'. I'll go for the better image of the item and b*gger the background every time :-) --Tony Wills 07:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I prefer the angle of the first one, but the second one seems generally sharper. I can find a few areas that aren't perfectly clear in each one, but both seem pretty good to me (apart from the long trailing shadow on the first one). Ignoring the shadow, why do you think the first one is such a better image of the camera? Ben Aveling 08:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ignoring the shadow :-), The first one has depth, the second looks flat (clinical). The first one is better lit and a better angle (eg front of lens detail, flash shoe, options dial). The cameras surface looks noisier on the second one (but maybe that's better focus and it's showing surface texture better?). I don't like the dark shadow under the lens of the second. (and what colour is that 'M' logo on the front meant to be). It might be an emotional reaction rather than technical appraisal, but 'attractive' vs 'clinical' sums it up. --Tony Wills 12:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
(don't really oppose it though I liked the original --Tony Wills 12:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC))
The Memory Stick logo is the same material as the grip, so the second photo is a little more accurate in that sense, depending on how your eye corrects for shadow. The first one used a higher ISO (my mistake), so I cannot see why the second would appear more noisy. Thegreenj 19:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That's more like it, though it does seem to have lost some of its depth. –Dilaudid 15:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The 2nd photo does have less depth and is flatter. It's taken from a different angle, so we are looking down on it instead of along the top of it. Yes, the options dial is rendered less distinct, but the controls behind it are clearer, as is the side of camera. The lens is better in the first, the Sony logo better in the second. The shadow under the lens (and also under the body )in the second shot isn't great, but it doesn't leap out like the shadow behind the camera in the first shot. If it wasn't for the shadow, I guess I would prefer the first shot, but not by a big margin. And with the shadows, the 2nd clearly wins. Pictogram voting question.svg Question How would a professional deal with the shadow? Put it on a stand? Use more indirect lighting? Photoshop? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose both version, the first one just barely - the shadow, background and blue-ish tone are too distracting, however. ACK Ram-Man: With a second diffuse light source, the first one would probably be QI (the angle is good!). The second one is too flat. --Florian Prischl 22:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very advertisingly --Makro Freak 16:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  4 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Unidentified Grain Field Lancaster 3008px[edit]

Hordeum vulgare in Lancaster, PA-001.jpg

  • Nomination A field of grain in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, USA. -- Ram-Man 00:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe field itself is superbly caught but the background doesn't work – I'm sure there were better options available. –Dilaudid 14:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree: The background is the farm associated with the field. When used as example of a typical Lancaster County farm, this is ideal: show the field and the farm buildings in proper context. This is way too picky for QI, but perhaps not a FPC. -- Ram-Man 14:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I fully understand what you're aiming at, it's just that I personally would've preferred the buildings not to be as central in the composition. I might be picky but then again, as I see it, there's plenty of room for doing that here – I'm not going to complain if someone else wants this one promoted :) –Dilaudid 16:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background is basically OK, but the building seem to be titled (look at the silo - it looks a little strange). The background is too close vertically to the top of the spikes, and the sky is a strange shade of gray. --Florian Prischl 22:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Library of Congress Great Hall - Jan 2006.jpg[edit]

Library of Congress Great Hall - Jan 2006.jpg*Library of Congress Great Hall - Jan 2006 Example.jpg

  • Nomination The Great Hall of the Library of Congress --grendel|khan 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • This needs barrel distortion correction before it can be promoted. I understand that this is a panorama, but this is correctable. -- Ram-Man 12:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with barrel distortion (a lens defect), it just is a choice of projection. And every projection has its pros and cons. This one is a sensible choice for a confined room like the Great Hall. Barrel distortion is corrected automatically in the individual constituent images. --Dschwen 12:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The correction you are aiming for will most likely convey a false sense of the proportions. --Dschwen 12:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, you're right, "correction" will likely be unsuccessful. Still, the center of the image bows out like barrel distortion and I find it very distracting. However, the outside edges of the image are pinched. The projection looks highly unnatural to me. I'm glad this is in CR, so others can discuss it. -- Ram-Man 12:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • As suspected, any attempt to eliminate the barrel-type "distortion" in the first image results in distortion at the edges and edge cropping, as shown in the example above. However the lines straighten out and are much less "annoying". The relative sizes also look better, with nearer objects appearing larger, albiet stretched. Let's see what others think. -- Ram-Man 01:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
        • While I'm not others :-) the edit introduces skews and tilts. Plus we loos the front of the stairs. IMO it is just not worth it, the original is fine. Plus relative sizes also look better is a conclusion you could only take if you have seen the Great hall in person (have you?). --Dschwen 07:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I agree, this edit was just an example only. The cropped out elements, skewing, and the lower quality make it a poor candidate. It's main purpose is to show why I don't like the original. The original has many straight lines in reality, but many are all horribly curved. You can see from this panorama the correct relative sizes. -- Ram-Man 11:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per above, I don't like the projection. Everything else is fine. -- Ram-Man 14:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. I dislike the seeming bowing of the ceiling. But the walls are really nice. Maybe this image is trying to do too much? Ben Aveling 08:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeACK Ram-Man, but just barely oppose. However, I do not like the projection and the sharpnes seems a little weird - unfortunately, I cannot point out yet what it is that bugs me, sorry. --Florian Prischl 23:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cygnus olor flirt edit[edit]

Cygnus olor flirt edit.jpg

  • Nomination Cygnus olor flirt, retouched version. My Argument: Fantastic scene --Makro Freak 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support see below We do allow retouched photos? Yes? Then this event is viewed well enough to make it QI.--Klaus with K 21:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It pains me to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this since it shows that image editing is becoming more accepted but I feel that the edit is far too visible in the form of the jagged edge. I will see what I can do in the way of fixing it --Benjamint444 08:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You have done more editing to the left of clone area that you declared, what is it? You have clonestamped large areas in the original in at least two places and they have not been declared there or in the this edit. I don't know why nobody has noticed but I want to know what you did before I go any further with this. --Benjamint444 09:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Since I may be wrong.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I wonder what and how much image editing is acceptable here in QI. Apart from the editing issue I think the photo is fine. I also see this image being discussed on FPC.--Klaus with K 09:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In my opinion any amount of editing is acceptable as long as it is flawless because I do a lot of editing myself but the other problem is that it is undeclared --Benjamint444 10:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cygnus olor flirt.jpg
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why you think its not declared ? There is a retouched picture tag on it, above the description which says ... removed a 3rd swan, so whats your problem? Should i write a long story how i did it? This lasts longer than the 30sec retouche. As i said before, cant understand why you are wasting so much time with this. And if you disagree with the quality, oppose. Be happy! :) :) :) --Makro Freak 13:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If we allow retouched photos, then this should be a QI. --Digon3 16:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the quality of the retouching is such that it alone warrants promotion Gnangarra 13:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is it tilted? Ben Aveling 10:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted, noisy and way to many distractions.--ReeceWarner 00:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted in a way that the weight slopes to the right. –Dilaudid 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted too much; the posterior of the right swan is awkwardly distorted. --Florian Prischl 17:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support both versions. The title said "Flirt", right? Then we can not say the background/foreground are distracting, because they also build the set. Anyway, it's not a product shot, so we dont really have to worry about the tilt. Hariadhi 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> Not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cygnus olor flirt edit 20070609.jpg

  • Nomination Cygnus olor flirt, retouched version. --Makro Freak 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Have uploaded a rotated and cropped version. Ben Aveling 01:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Both versions. --Klaus with K 10:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The new version. –Dilaudid 15:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the new version. Ben Aveling 23:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I still Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, also the new version. I stand by my arguments. --Florian Prischl 23:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This is the 'donor' photo: Cygnus olor flirt quadrat.jpg The posterior of the right swan has been faithfully copied. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support - Counting only explicit support for this version. 3 oppose - Counting Benjamint444, Reece, and Florian, and not counting Dilaudid because the tilting seems to have been resolved? he explicitly voted for this one --Tony Wills 09:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC) More input needed please. Ben Aveling 23:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC) (I'd have counted the other two previous supports if I was going to count the previous opposes as the tilt change didn't seem to be a factor that would affect their support, so either (3 support 0 oppose) or (5 support, 3 oppose), but we'll see where this goes --Tony Wills 09:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support both versions. The title said "Flirt", right? Then we can not say the background/foreground are distracting, because they also build the set. Anyway, it's not a product shot, so we dont really have to worry about the tilt. Hariadhi 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Funny discussion! You meant it serious, eh? :) :) :) --Makro Freak 16:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  4 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Santa Cruz do Sul catedral 2005-03-21[edit]

Santa Cruz do Sul catedral 2005-03-21.jpg

  • Nomination Catedral de São João Batista in Santa Cruz do Sul --Klaus with K 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Left and right towers in different perspectives - makes it skewed. --Florian Prischl 09:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Although it is a stitched image, converging lines are what an observer and a standard camera would see. Would rotating the image suffice? Or is full architectural correction (see Image:Santa Cruz do Sul catedral vertical 2005-03-21.jpg) required - this looks unnatural to me?--Klaus with K 15:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Both, but with a large preference for the corrected version. bottom part looks very clean !. Benh 18:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> redundant if corrected version promoted -- Tony Wills 10:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Santa Cruz do Sul catedral vertical 2005-03-21[edit]

Santa Cruz do Sul catedral vertical 2005-03-21.jpg

  • Nomination Catedral de São João Batista in Santa Cruz do Sul --Klaus with K 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The corrected version. -- Ram-Man 15:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Both, but with a large preference for the corrected version. bottom part looks very clean !. Benh 18:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This Brazilian city is proud of its German heritage (and virtues...) --Klaus with K 16:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Neat one, the correction brings out the architectural exaggeration. –Dilaudid 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> Promoted to QI --Tony Wills 21:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Lothianbridge viaduct01 2000-05-28[edit]

Lothianbridge viaduct01 2000-05-28.jpg
  • Nomination Lothianbridge viaduct near Edinburgh (photo taken in 2000) --Klaus with K 17:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I was going to say it looked like it was taken with a Fuji camera and then I found out it was. Very blotchy and low out-of-camera quality. -- Ram-Man 16:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question The reviewer has pointed out that he declined QI solely on camera-techical grounds. Using this 1800x1200 pixel (2.16MB) photo from a FUJI MX-2700 (1999 vintage) as a benchmark, may I politely ask for a few second opinions whether this camera and QI are incompatible. (Maybe a topic for the discussion page?) --Klaus with K 14:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If this is the best you can get out of this camera then I'd have to agree with Ram-man. solely on camera-techical grounds is a bit misleading as the camera-techical grounds are very serious in this picture. Low res and washed out detail would require a downsampling to image sizes way below the threshold for QI to get acceptable quality. Sorry, but cellphone camera pics would have it equally hard. --Dschwen 07:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It depends on your subject. I've got 1 FP and 2 QI out of my point and shoot, but they've all been of interesting things I've been fortunate enough to get close to (like meters, not cm). Anything further away and the images just aren't quite sharp enough, even with a tripod. So it depends on conditions and subject. But on the other hand, 2.16MB really doesn't give much margin for error; if your shot isn't perfect, it's going to be hard to crop it and still have something large enough. Probably time to upgrade if you can. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I have upgraded several years ago, but do have a sizeable pre-upgrade collection.--Klaus with K 14:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ACK Ram-Man. --Florian Prischl 09:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Indeed, Fuji-ish. –Dilaudid 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> Not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 21:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Crown of Thorns Euphorbia x lomi (Unidentified Cultivar) Flowers 3264px.JPG[edit]

Crown of Thorns Euphorbia x lomi (Unidentified Cultivar) Flowers 3264px.JPG*Crown of Thorns Euphorbia x lomi (Unidentified Cultivar) Flowers Crop 3264px.JPG

  • Nomination Crown of Thorns. -- Ram-Man 13:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • maybe a cr image for a wider opinion, I thnk the focal point is off the flower Gnangarra 13:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Poor composition/framing, the viewer's attention is dispersed by the presence of the flower in the foreground and the aesthetics of the image is affected. Alvesgaspar 08:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info How about the cropped version? -- Ram-Man 12:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Almost there. Composition-wise, the right-hand edge and the bottom are a problem. –Dilaudid 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you saying crop it more or just give this one up? -- Ram-Man 22:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm saying I'm out of ideas as to how to balance up the composition :( It's a pity since otherwise it's a fine shot! –Dilaudid 08:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Falco biarmicus 001[edit]

Falco biarmicus 001.jpg

  • Nomination Falco biarmicus (head) by Lilly M --Przykuta 20:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - I'm not sure on this one. Photo quality is good enough but the framing is unfortunate and the background distracting. Alvesgaspar 07:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Clearly way above the average in terms of quality. The bg doesn't bother me, and the framing is acceptable for QI. --Dschwen 13:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 12:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The background's ok to me. A powerful photo overall. –Dilaudid 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now I see what bothered me somewhat – it's the steep slope of the bird's back (and how it reacts with the wing) that weakens the composition. –Dilaudid 23:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  1 neutral, 0 oppose -> Promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicotiana Tobacco Plants 1909px[edit]

Nicotiana Tobacco Plants 1909px.jpg

  • Nomination
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoTobacco in a field. -- Ram-Man 13:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The horizon is not straight. I tried to straighten it but it resulted in the bottom leaf being cropped. I think it is worthy of QI otherwise. Can you try to correct that? Cacophony 07:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm 95% sure the horizon is a hill and was really curved like that (the lens doesn't have this much distortion). The barn only a couple pixels off. -- Ram-Man 12:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeHorizon - as Cacophony. Lestat 17:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've fixed the lens's barrel distortion. I had to perform a little edge extension on the sky only, but it doesn't affect the integrity of the image. Could this image be reevaluated based on the correction? -- Ram-Man 21:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If you are 95% sure the horizon is a hill, then it is a quality image for me. --Digon3 16:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well I fixed the lens distortion and rotated the picture (very slightly) so the horizon was flatter. It looks much better now than it did when the reviewers above were commenting on it. Notice how the line of tobacco is not parallel to field behind it? It's either a hill or uneven plant growth. Distortion can't account for that effect. -- Ram-Man 19:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the subject is well presented, if the horizon is anissue why not just crop it off either way its QI Gnangarra 13:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I might prefer a cropped version though. –Dilaudid 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI --Tony Wills 21:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Red billed gull-05[edit]

Red billed gull-05.jpg

  • Nomination Juvenile Redbilled gull --Tony Wills 13:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Blurry, purple fringing around the bottom edge of the wing and the thing it's standing on. --Pharaoh Hound 13:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have removed purple fringing from feathers and bollard --Tony Wills 00:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good fix. I'm still seeing some fringing, but I think that's just my glasses (the darn things do that a lot, stupid anti-reflective coating). --Pharaoh Hound 13:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks fine to me, composition is a little central but nothing serious. Gnangarra 13:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, although it could still use some de-fringing, if I am not mistaken. --Florian Prischl 09:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting composition! –Dilaudid 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Ram-Man 12:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
HaywardFieldPano.jpg
  • Nomination Hayward Field in Eugene, Oregon. --Cacophony 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good, sharp and the clouds effect is nice. Barcex 18:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Vertical band of imperfect stitching visible at full scale just right of number four on lane. --Klaus with K 20:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded a higher resolution image that corrects this stiching problem. Cacophony 06:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It corrects the problem indeed. --Klaus with K 09:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support stitching issue appears to be gone, good composition Gnangarra 13:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive colours! –Dilaudid 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Ram-Man 12:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Ixodes ricinus.jpg
  • Nomination Chelicera of Ixodes ricinus. My Argument: Scientific approach, imagine the size of a ticks head which is approx 0,3 mm in size!!! --Makro Freak 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe size is precisely the problem of this guy: he is too small according to the guidelines... Alvesgaspar 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support !! This is a really good photo of a tick's head. Surely the size of the subject is a sufficient mitigating circumstance. As viewed at 100% on a 17" screen the real tick would fit in the gap between those two protruding mouth parts. --Tony Wills 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think that precious few 1000x600 images should be considered QI, and with the subject matter being so tiny, this should be accepted. It is a very illustrative pic. Cacophony 07:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support agreed Lycaon 09:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support perfect example of a mitigating reason, since he is so very small. -- Ram-Man 12:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This picture was the startingpoint for me to donate pictures to Wikimedia. I had no usage for my personal gallery so i decided to donate it for a scientific use. And now see what happen ;) iam Wikiadict! --Makro Freak 15:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support strong mitigating reasons for small size! --Benjamint444 08:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  5 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Madrid - Fiestas de San Isidro - 20070515-35.jpg

  • Nomination People riding in an amusement park. Barcex 18:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Good enough for QP. Nice colors, composition, subject. Not perfectly sharp, understandable, but unfortunate. Ben Aveling 21:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Also, I think the bacgr. and foreground are distracting --Orlovic (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice motif with fantastic colors but with a disturbing element ... the tree. I think there was light enough to set a larger ISO value and fasten up the closure time. A picture like this needs a minimum of 1000ms-1600ms 1/1000s - 1/1600s. Taken by a Canon EOS 400d, this result doesnt convince me for a skillfull camera like this. Even the static counter on the left side is blurry. --Makro Freak 15:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • So you're suggesting a 1 to 1.6 second exposure for this? Thegreenj 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I could be wrong, but I think he really means a "faster" shutter speed of 1/1000 - 1/1600, which bumping up the ISO would provide. Either way, I think that the shutter should be faster to stop the action or slower to cause the motion to blur substantially for effect (probably just the former though). -- Ram-Man 17:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that the tree is really distracting. It looks like the shutter speed is ok, it is just focused on the tree instead of the people. I love the girl's hair though. Cacophony 07:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> Not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Shadowsandtalltrees.jpg

  • Nomination Trees against a turbulent sky --Thegreenj 02:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • fringing + needs noise reduction Lycaon 11:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, there is fringing, but it is 1 pixel width at maximum and not noticable at 100%. Where's the noise? It's not perfectly smooth, but then again, these clouds were not perfectly smooth. Thegreenj 00:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The sky doesnt look that turbulent to me. The info sound better than the result. --Makro Freak 15:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is purple and green fringing on tree branches that is noticeable at 100%. --Tony Wills 08:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Superb fairy wrens mark 2.jpg

  • Nomination Fairy Wrens - Malurus cyaneus - composite --Benjamint444 07:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Modifications list adding detail into blue blown areas on male bird, where did the detail come from? Even in this new version the blues are still blown. --Dschwen 07:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • They're definitely not clipping like they did in the old version, I just rechecked, I got the detail from one of the channels (red, if I remember correctly) and brushed it in on the blue areas at a low opacity. --Benjamint444 07:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question The blue bird appears to have been sitting at an angle of maybe 45 degrees to camera? But the other bird was much more like front on? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the question is but I'll see if I can answer anyway, both shots were taken within minutes of each other so that I was in the same position relative to the birds for both shots and the wire was close enough to being perpendicular to the direction the camera was pointing in. It was exactly the same in both shots. It looks as though the female is facing slightly towards the camera more than the male (what difference does it make apart from compositionaly?) I haven't skewed either of them or rotated them at all, so the angles are all real. :-) --Benjamint444 09:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 15:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> Promoted to QI --Tony Wills 13:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Auguste Rodin signature.jpg
  • Nomination Auguste Rodin's signature on The Thinker. --Dschwen 06:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • I am sorry for taking ever more to CR, but I am totally split on this one since having seen it for the first time yesterday. The only sharp part is the middle of the "R", and besides that, the photo is blurred. However, the metal gives it a great structure, and makes it really lively. It may not be technically great, but the subject is so compelling...--Florian Prischl 22:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think the blurring matters, if anything, it moves the focus to the signature itself. Yes, there are imperfections that appear at full zoom, but remember that full zoom on this one is 4368 × 2912. Overall, it looks great. Ben Aveling 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes --Makro Freak 15:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> Promoted to QI --Tony Wills 13:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Xylota segnis.jpg
  • Nomination This is Natures GOLD! Yes the DoF is a issue and where to put it ? I decided to put it on the head of this beautiful critter which beams with pride. My Argument: Colors. --Makro Freak 17:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ID is not correct (sorry). Lycaon 18:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Barely promoted due to DoF, but great focus on the eyes. Makro Freak,
  • I don't get what you mean by "ID" - the classification of the fly? Could maybe use a CR. --Florian Prischl 22:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I feel that an animal image can't be promoted until the species is known Lycaon 22:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I definitely agree with you. However, I was unsure what you meant by "ID". I was assuming that the uploader indentified the fly correctly. Not being an expert on hoverflies (or a biologist anyway), I did not know. If it is indeed incorrectly classified, I oppose it. --Florian Prischl 22:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      •  !!! Last minute !!! Its a Xylota segnis. It was hard to find out. --85.181.15.55 00:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, very sharp on the head, DOF sufficient and species correctly identified. Lycaon 05:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tony Wills 11:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI --Tony Wills 13:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Red billed gull-02.jpg Red billed gull-02 edit.jpg

  • Nomination Red billed gull --Tony Wills 07:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Underexposed. --Dschwen 07:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Deliberately so. If I use normal exposure the white feathers will be over-exposed and lack detail. This is a photo of the gull, not the background :-) --Tony Wills 08:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks better, although slightly softer lighting would have improved the shot. My comment was too quick and not really to the point, sorry. What I meant was the harsh lighting. --Dschwen 06:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I liked the older version better and Symbol support vote.svg Support the old version. The new version looks too artificial. --Florian Prischl 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the older version. The lighting looks more natural than the one with the enhanced shadows. The underexposure is fine, as it preserved the all-important white detail. -- Ram-Man 22:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Version 1 and 2 --Makro Freak 15:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Ram-Man 15:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  Someone other than me should close this --Tony Wills 11:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  No one else is really doing these promotions.  This one is obvious, so please just go ahead and promote it. It wouldn't be the first time someone has promoted their own image. -- Ram-Man 17:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)