Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 2008

Consensual review

Pimelia modesta

• Nomination: Pimelia modesta . Tenebrionid beetle near Ampolla, Baix Ebre (Catalonia), Spain. Lycaon 16:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Review
• I was, in fact I do decline this, but to save Lycaon some typing I jumped right to discuss. If Lycaon accepts my decline, he should change the status.... -- carol 06:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Rear part is soft, back leg is cropped, lighting is harsh. It is difficult to take photographs of black bugs in bright light. -- carol 13:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Precisely because it is difficult to take photographs of black bugs in bright light, and this is a good one :) The DOF actually works for me. Fvasconcellos 13:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  Draw --LC-de 19:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose per carol. --Lerdsuwa 13:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gallinula chloropus eggs.jpg

• Nomination Gallinula chloropus, eggs and nest --Ianare 03:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Unethical nest photography. Lycaon 05:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Please explain how this unethical, the eggs and female were not disturbed, she left on her own to get food, and I took the opportunity. --Ianare 13:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Ethical conduct is not always about one selves, but also about an ethical example function. In this case you may have acted correctly, but the photo doesn't tell that story, and might instigate others making similar snaps, while not acting correctly. Lycaon 09:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment By this reasoning, we would have to discard basically all wildlife photography, because you can harldy ever tell from a photograph if it was obtained in an ethical manner. I don't agree with this reasoning. --Stefan Vladuck 12:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Can you expand that logic? To me you are saying 'if you do not allow speeding 10mph over the speed limit, then you do not allow the driving of vehicles.' -- carol (tomes) 22:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• I don't see the analogy. Rather, Lycaon's argument sounds to me like "I can't tell if you are speeding or not, therefore I'm forbidding you to drive at all." By this logic, we might as well reject his rare flower shots, because he might have acted correctly, but the photo doesn't tell that story, and might instigate others making similar snaps, while trampling down lots of rare flowers with their clumsy feet. Where is the difference? --Stefan Vladuck 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• What doesn't work with your analogy is the consistent lack of support for nest images previously here. I stick by my analogy and I actually like the definition of ethical and the previous consistency it was applied. -- carol (tomes) 04:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• The fact that it was done consistently doesn't automatically make it coherent. This whole thing strikes me as rather murky: if those images are unethical, why is there no written rule against them? And what's more: if they are unethical, why aren't they deleted? Isn't it a bit hypocritical to on the one hand keep and use them, but on the other hand not recognize the work of the photographer? --Stefan Vladuck 08:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Since I have been watching none have been promoted. Which images are you referring to? The thing about all of the 'rules' everywhere, some make sense and get followed easily by many, some don't make sense and don't get followed as often, some seem to be there entirely to make a warlike situation, I like the rules which really seem to make sense 2MP images don't (a 1600x1200 pixel snapshot, when a good one can be gotten is fine by me) but this one seems to be a very good and easy one to follow. I can find example of non-promotion via the name of a photographer, not the month. If you find one that was promoted since I have been observing, I am going to be asking some questions about the new "EXIF Bot". EXIF is an incredibly easy hack if you have access to the original upload (or before it is uploaded). -- carol (tomes) 09:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think that everything about this photograph perhaps was ethicial as stated previously, the same way I think that most drivers can drive 10mph over the speed limit safely. It is an easy to understand line that requires not too much reading of things to understand. -- carol (tomes) 09:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You are ignoring my question: If nest photographs are unethical, why don't we delete all nest photographs from the Commons? Please explain. --Stefan Vladuck 10:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Define delist which is the word that was used, and probably for the same reason that they do not delete images that are not large enough for this review system. Your questions are quite boring. -- carol (tomes) 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
And your replies are first-class non-sequiturs. Image size is not an ethical issue. It seems that you are saying that there is no ethical issue in uploading and storing nest photographs on Commons, for everyone to see and ready to use across all Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia which happens to be one of the top ten most visited websites of the entire internet. But acknowledging when such an image happens to be technically a quality image on the other hand is unethical. Doesn't strike me as the most coherent stance. --Stefan Vladuck 13:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  declined -- carol 17:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Image:Gallinula chloropus female nest.jpg

• Nomination Gallinula chloropus, female on nest --Ianare 02:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  OpposeUnethical nest photography. Lycaon 05:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ethics? I thought we were judging quality. Quality can come from "unethical" situations, so that's not a valid reason. I know quality's subjective, but talk about morals. Rocket000 13:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  InfoPlease explain how this unethical, the female was not disturbed. These birds are used to me, I feed them and built the nest box, and if you look she is not in defensive mode (feathers puffed up and making a creaking sound - like they do when a cat comes near) --Ianare 13:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  OpposeThe photo seems overexposed to me. --Nevit 06:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment The difficulty lays in the eye, it is almost the same color as the head and at a higher shutter/aperture it was barely discernable. Also the white spot on top really is white, it's a piece of PVC (in Florida sun) which the nest is built on. I suppose I could clone/crop it out --Ianare 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment To the best of my understanding, they have discussed the ethics stuff (possibly more than could be read in a single day or two) at another time and have narrowed it down to nest photography is not acceptable. All photography is by its nature unethical as it is quite often injective (the person taking the photograph does not want a photograph taken of him/her). It is a good generic rule, in my opinion, as it possibly prevents more invasive photographs to be taken of similar subjects. -- carol (tomes) 22:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted -- carol 17:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


GamanderEhrenpreis01-2

• Nomination Germander Speedwell by böhringer friedrich-- carol (tomes) 04:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Full of noisy artefacts. Lycaon 07:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I scoffed at your review and then (eventually) uploaded an improved version of the improved version into the proper namespace where it now awaits further review, etc! -- carol (tomes) 10:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose  Comment One word, blurkeh! -- carol (tomes) 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  declined -- carol 17:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Potorous tridactylus being curious

• Nomination Long-nosed Potoroo. Shallow DOF but focus is on the eyes – Peripitus 10:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Poor lighting. --Nevit 11:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral Lighting seems fine to me, but foot is cropped a bit. Would support if crop fixed. --Ianare 01:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• There is an overall blue/cyan tint. --Nevit 06:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added the most below the foot I can (and adjusted levels up a bit) - I can't see the tint Nevit has mentioned though either in the shot or in the level histograms - Peripitus 08:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I see what you mean after looking at other pictures of the same animal, it should be a bit more brown. I test adjusted the color balance with GIMP and it looks like about +25 red -25 cyan, +20 yellow -20 blue would do the trick. Of course Peripitus should do the adjustments since he saw the animals firsthand -- Ianare 17:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment as seen from the combined shots on the right (at least 1 shade and 1 bright sun shot), perhaps the colour is ok. It may be that the underfur is redder so from some angles the colour is different to what I saw on the day ? - Peripitus 04:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  declined -- carol 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


Tulip-opened up

• Nomination Naturally opened up unknown type of tulip. --Staka 23:02, 26 May 2008
• Decline
•  Support I like the crop, and the quality is acceptable! Beautiful flower too. --Serbish 23:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• put word here: Needs identification. Also awkward composition. Lycaon 05:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition & background. --Dilaudid 08:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Dilaudid. – Ilse@ 09:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Final total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose, not promoted -- carol 16:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


Donetsk topaz

• Nomination «Topaz» factory in Donetsk --Butko 07:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Composition is good, photograph is crisp. -- carol 15:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about how the right and the left of the building are cut off. -- carol 04:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
•  OpposeSorry, but all the branches seem to have those whitish (oversharpening/processing?) haloes. Lycaon 09:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Lycaon. --Lestath 18:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Final total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose, not promoted -- Peripitus 05:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


Leiocephalus carinatus armouri

• Nomination Leiocephalus carinatus armouri --Ianare 05:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose I'm torn, it looks good, but only the head is in focus, which is a fault for a quality image. I wonder what the wildlife shooters over here would think. Benh 19:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose DOF is insufficient. Lycaon 05:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 11:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


Dolphins at Loro Parque

• Nomination Dolphins (Delphinidae) at Loro Parque Dolphinarium. Cropped version with help of User:CarolSpears, original by Piotrus 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Nope. A bit blurry. Not that big enough. And I don't like the composition. -- TwoWings 08:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I think it is sharp enough, bigh enough to show the subject (jumping trio of dolphins), and one likes or dislikes are not relevant here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• If it weren't big enough to show the subject it would be a sub-standard image. This one is a standard image, but not quite a QI IMO. hence  Oppose. --Dschwen 15:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• If size is a problem, I have both a bigger and a smaller version (added).--Piotrus 22:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose For image at 2Mpix, I expect it to be perfect. This photo is a little bit short of perfection. --Lerdsuwa 13:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "I don't like the composition". "This one is a standard image". "This photo is a little bit short of perfection". On Wikipedia, we have a simple response to that: see here. Sigh. --Piotrus 19:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Lestath 09:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Dschwen 19:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Melolontha

• Nomination Melontha melontha by Tik --Sfu
• Decline
•  Support ok --LC-de
•  Oppose Size. Picture is very rough/grainy - no mitigating 4 me here, sorry --Richard Bartz 12:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Size. --Nevit 21:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 05:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Florida Box Turtle

• Nomination: Florida Box Turtle --Digon3 16:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Review
• I've uploaded an edit that addresses some background cut-out issues. Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with it. Thegreenj 01:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for the edit, it looks a lot better --Digon3 15:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Downsampling is not an acceptable way to improve an image. -- carol 05:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• What? I can name quite a few Featured Pictures that had been downsampled for sharpness (or other reasons) and there is no rule against it. Declining for downsampling is not a valid reason unless the image is downsampled under 2 megapixels. Digon3 15:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
1. This isn't FP and FP isn't a way to measure a QI
2. Even there, it doesn't happen much lately
• Well, the fact that others have been doing it doesn't mean that it makes sense. Images don't get sharper by downsampling. The downsampled image may look better at 1:1 on screen, but that's because you are looking at a smaller magnification. The purpose of high resolution files is not for viewing at 1:1 (pixel per pixel) on screen. Try printing both a high resolution file and a downsampled one at the same size (large). The downsampled one will look worse due to the lower resolution. --Stefan Vladuck 16:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• It doesn't matter. It is plenty big enough to be considered for a QI and QI's are not evaluated on how good they look on paper but how they look when you click the link (and FPs for that matter). That is not the way it should be, it is stupid, but thats the way it is. It is also big enough to look like a high quality photo on a full size piece of paper. And I am getting really sick of being lectured about it being downsampled. Either decline it for a technical or image quality problem with the current image, or don't. --Digon3 17:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• "it is stupid" - well, why should we keep doing something stupid? Why not do things in a more sensible way? Besides, there are several reviewers who already try to judge the images by actual quality. See for example Ram-Man's comment in this FP discussion. --Stefan Vladuck 18:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Meets QI standards --Ianare 06:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Love it. --Lerdsuwa 16:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose, not because of alledged downsampling but for for me too shallow DOF. Lycaon 06:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The downsampling is not alledged, it really did happen -- anyone can see this in the file history. So it would technically be more communicative of this particular situation to type "Not because of the actual downsampling" -- carol 14:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Looks good. Yarl 16:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  OpposeGiving it was shot in controlled conditions, with such static subject, smallest aperture, and wider zoom settings should be used to make the whole image sharp. --Nevit 06:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment It wasn't a static subject, it was a fast moving subject. Suprisingly fast for a turtle. The larger DOF pictures I took were blurred and focus bracketing was not an option either. What do you mean by wider zoom settings? I should of zoomed out? Digon3 14:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Getting closer with wider zoom should give you more DOF. --Nevit 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• No, it doesn't significantly change DOF. Subject size and framing are the major factors in calculating DOF. Wider images sometimes appear to have greater DOF, but it's usually because the framing is larger than a telephoto image. If one were to take a picture at 200mm while 10m away from the subject, then at 20mm while 1m away from the subject, DOF would be roughly equivalent (though perspective—and thus background blur—would be very different). Thegreenj 22:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose ->  draw --LC-de 11:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Carapils

• Nomination Carapils bier cans, --Romanceor 13:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support The photograph is good and the events that cause these photographs are often good as well. What I don't support, however, is under-age consumption of alcohol and in the blurry parts of this image, such questions arise. Heh. It is very good to have a foundation of fun without external assistence first. -- carol 05:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Info Uhuh... there is no underaged consumer in this picture, and neither arround the cans. --Romanceor [parlons-en] 16:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Those are man-legs, aged 15 to 25 years. Typical man-legs thicken after the age of 25, sometimes before. -- carol (tomes) 11:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose it seems jpg artifacts on the red part. And somehow, very complicated. _Fukutaro 14:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Question I just don't understand what's complicated ; is that the composition that disturbs you ? --Romanceor 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unneeded noise in the out-of-focus parts. Lycaon 05:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Info I tried to reduce the noise by JPEG compression by 5%, but I'm not sure what means "Unneeded noise" : how is it possible to have a needed noise ? --Romanceor [parlons-en] 10:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Unneeded or unnecessary or could/should have been avoided. Lycaon 12:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? carol (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cloitre grand moutier

• Nomination Grand Moutier Cloister, Fontevraud abbey. --Berrucomons 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Seems ok. --Nevit 06:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose: Why don't you try hugin or some similar software. The manual approach leaves some weirdly tilted columns. Lycaon 09:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Could be a very nice picture, but stitching was done unproperly. you could use line guides or set your anchor point better. Benh 16:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Looks nice.--Piotrus 01:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Wavy roof on the middle building. --Lerdsuwa 14:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 05:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)-

Image:Reflections_1090029.jpg

• Nomination Reflections. --Nevit 18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support I have to say what this image quality: sharpness, noise, lightness, are not good. But above all, it is very typical reflected image. _Fukutaro 12:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Artifacts, lack of contrast. Nice idea though. --Dilaudid 16:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose as Dilaudid --LC-de 08:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Dschwen 14:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Zamosc - 32.JPG

• Nomination Zamość, Poland. Part of the former Zamość fortress, now a marketplace ('Hala Targowa'). Piotrus 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Acceptable quality, but odd framing. --Dschwen 19:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Actually there is a slight clockwise tilt even considering the sloped walls.  Neutral. --Dschwen 14:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose tilt! --Pudelek 07:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC) --
•  Support I don't see any tilt: old military constructions of that kind have sloping walls! -- MJJR 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Then why didn't the photographer straighten the building before taking the photograph? And while he was at it, he should also have removed the hill in front of the building with a bulldozer. How can you expect to make a quality photograph without such minor corrections? --null 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose ac Pudelek --Lestath 09:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Dschwen 14:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Serge Toubiana à la Cinémathèque française.jpg

• Nomination Serge Toubiana animating the yesterday's discussion about "Was May 68 filmed ?" at the Cinémathèque française --Romanceor 03:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Withdrawn
•  Oppose Significant motion blur on the hand and microphone. --Lerdsuwa 05:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Microphone and hand are not the subject of the photo, and their blurness contribute to the effect of dynamisn of the picture, which name is Serge Toubiana "animating". --Romanceor 05:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• You gotta clean your sensor, dude. --Dschwen 00:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Question Yes I know ; it's a catastrophy... But I've been told that's VERY expensive. May I ask where do you see it in this picture ? --Romanceor 10:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• It's not expensive. You need lint-free paper tissue and Methanol. I've done it twice before (and I'm overdue too :-) ). Spots are all over the bg.--Dschwen 12:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Well if you were speaking of lenses that's not the problem : it really is the dust arrived on the sensor in Ouagadougou (a very dust&dirty city, true horror for SLRs, overall when you need objective changes). But in fact I'm just discovering the "Dust correction" tool in Capture NX which will permit me to wait until I have the 25€ asked by Nikon to clean the sensor... 'cause yes, I prefer to let doing it by professionals : to risky. Thanks anyhow. --Romanceor 12:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Of course I'm talking about the sensor! First time is always the scariest. But then again, I had a nicely equiped lab to do my cleaning in. --Dschwen 12:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Serge Toubiana is too much blury, even if he has a very expressive face on the picture. --Romanceor [parlons-en] 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Platycnemis_pennipes_LC0152.jpg

• Nomination Male white-legged damselfly (Platycnemis pennipes) --LC-de 16:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Detail/forcus is not much for closeup-shot. It seems just like was upscaled to me...? _Fukutaro 13:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry, I don't understand your statement. Where do you want more detail and how do you define it? Btw it wasn't upscaled. --LC-de 14:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Not upscaling, O.K. But it seems to focused on nowhere. The insect's head and back are a bit blurred. I think that is not enough for QI even if approve what the tip of tail is out of focus. Not upscale, then, that may over edited. Lighting, I can see some overexposued points. Color, good. Composition, very good. _Fukutaro 15:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Beyond silence 15:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Insufficient details. Lycaon 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not up to standard with the other quality image arthropods. -IvanTortuga 08:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 07:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Caterpillar-ZebraLongwing-01 crop.JPG

• Nomination A zebra longwing caterpillar on a leaf. --DeadEyeArrow 05:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Interesting caterpillar. Also shows nice detail on it's spikes/spines. Bidgee 13:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too small for the quality. Lycaon 17:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per Lycaon. –Dilaudid 18:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Beyond silence 21:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per Lycaon. --Lestath 20:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 21:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gymnorhina tibicenposing.JPG

• Nomination Australian magpie posing. -- Peripitus 06:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Subject too small. --Dschwen 12:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I like it. -- carol 18:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Sharp, interesting photograph. The branch across the upper portion of the image really makes the composition. -- carol (tomes) 14:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Smallish and unfortunately lit. Lycaon 08:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support good --Beyond silence 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Lycaon. I think it would also be better with a frontal view. -IvanTortuga 08:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Subject too small. --Dilaudid 06:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Peripitus 12:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Katowice - Róg Sienkiewicza i Dąbrowskiego.jpg

• Nomination Corner building at the ul. Sienkiewicza/ul. Dąbrowskiego in Katowice. --Lestath 14:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Dark composition, too cluttered.--Piotrus 16:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• This building is dark, but exposition is good and this is necessary for QI. Cluttered - why? Main theme of this photo is that building and I don't know where do You see any element of clutter. --Lestath 22:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose White balance problem, sharpening fringes, yet not very sharp. Lycaon 08:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 08:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Leżajsk Monastery 17.JPG

• Nomination Ceiling of Bernardine Monastery in Leżajsk, Poland. --Piotrus 11:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Distortion --Lestath 09:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• What kind of a distortion? Look good to me. Please be more specific.--Piotrus 17:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Barrel distortion and additionaly perspective is bad. --Lestath 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose a per Lestath --Sfu 18:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? carol (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Swab Ватные палочки.jpg

• Nomination Swabs less blue photograph by George Shuklin. -- \mathbf{C} 20:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Decline .
•  Oppose What a poor and sad composition. Has background any link with the topic ? --B.navez 08:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Nah, it was an easy repair and I was having a good day. Good day to you, sir or ma'am. -- \mathbf{C} 19:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Hello MathbfC, this is still not what I have in mind. I expect the cotton to be whiter, i.e. RGB with value closer to 255,255,255. Here the cotton still looks gray. --Lerdsuwa 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I am confused by the original decline of this image. It was uploaded at the same time that I 'engaged' my stereo, and whatever "poor and sad composition" that is being alluded to here eludes me. -- carol 23:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
1. I have uploaded a new version of the file with the swabs greatly whitened, I would appreciate further review.
2. I am also wondering what composition B.navez perceives is a problem here
3. What the hell does cotton swabs have to do with carol using his her stereo?
4. -- \mathbf{C} 00:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• It should be obvious that I am female -- several decades of being a female and I should be getting good at it by now. -- carol (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I have in mind. The brightest part of the image should be around 255,255,255 (cotton's color in bright light) while the details, texture, shadow are retained. --Lerdsuwa 04:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I have uploaded a version which is an attempt to address the composition problems mentioned by B.navez -- \mathbf{C} 06:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1. Not a problem of balance but of composition : change the background (why such an ugly grey cloth not even ironed?), don't put 3 swabs so regularly in a flat position, give some pieces of context. In two words : change all.--B.navez 04:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• I really really really wanted to replace the swabs in the original image with pickles and use the clone tool to 'iron' the surface, but I was not in the mood to manage (consume) the new subject after the photo-op; I have added an attempt to "change all" but unfortunately, with all changed, it is incorrect here to upload the new image into the old namespace. Is this what you were after? -- \mathbf{C} 22:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• By my count, there should have been four pickles, not three. -- carol (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? carol (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Clochard parisien à Bercy.jpg

• Nomination Clochard à Bercy, Paris --Romanceor 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support I like this picture more for its composition rather than its technical qualities. The lighting conditions were tough, and there is considerable clipping in the highlights, as well as alight noise overall. I'm supporting it, it still is a good pic. --Dschwen 00:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose It has problem so that, I think it needs discuss and some opinion. _Fukutaro 15:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support good --Beyond silence 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Compositional not bad but technically insufficient for QI (clipping and noise). Lycaon 11:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with Lycaon --Simonizer 22:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? carol (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)