Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 2008

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

Pimelia modesta[edit]

Pimelia modesta 3.jpg

  • 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg 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) 
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per carol. --Lerdsuwa 13:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Foliose lichen[edit]

Lichen on rock.jpg

  • Nomination Foliose lichen on rock. More precise ID anyone? --Dschwen 18:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment isn't it a bit dark? ABF 18:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It looks a bit like a Parmelia to me, but don't quote me on that ;-). Maybe this might help? Lycaon 19:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unless there is a problem with the category "Unidentified lichen". -- carol 05:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't find this sufficient. Of course we are not all lichenologists, but those specialist are readily available through the internet, and specialists tend to be quite helpful, i've experienced (e.g.). Lycaon 09:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
How come you didn't nominate that image? -- null 13:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Cause I don't think it is good enough for QI. Lycaon 23:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me Parmelia is great enough because identification and even definition of lichen species is so uncertain that we have to consider a Parmelia lichen is an identified lichen. It could be certainly Parmelia sulcata. --B.navez 14:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I just suggested Parmelia, I'm not at all sure about it, the image description does not yet reflect that tentative suggestion anyway. Lycaon 23:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion is not over Lycaon 06:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe discussion is not over but the 48 hours that are allowed to vote are.

Final total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose, promoted -- carol 07:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Total of days without discussion (discussion of discussion doesn't count): 3 days -- carol 04:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gallinula chloropus eggs.jpg[edit]

Gallinula galeata eggs.jpg

  • Nomination Gallinula chloropus, eggs and nest --Ianare 03:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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[edit]

Gallinula galeata female nest.jpg

  • Nomination Gallinula chloropus, female on nest --Ianare 02:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe photo seems overexposed to me. --Nevit 06:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg 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)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg 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[edit]

GamanderEhrenpreis01-2.jpg

  • Nomination Germander Speedwell by böhringer friedrich-- carol (tomes) 04:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Full of noisy artefacts. Lycaon 07:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pictogram voting comment.svg 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[edit]

Potorous tridactylus being curious v2.JPG

  • Nomination Long-nosed Potoroo. Shallow DOF but focus is on the eyes – Peripitus 10:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor lighting. --Nevit 11:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg 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)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg 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)

Potorous tridactylus being curious.JPGPotorous tridactylus - 3 views.JPG

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg 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[edit]

Tulip-opened up.jpg

  • Nomination Naturally opened up unknown type of tulip. --Staka 23:02, 26 May 2008
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition & background. --Dilaudid 08:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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[edit]

Donetsk topaz.jpg

  • Nomination «Topaz» factory in Donetsk --Butko 07:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSorry, but all the branches seem to have those whitish (oversharpening/processing?) haloes. Lycaon 09:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)

Schnepfenfliege Rhagio scolopaceus[edit]

Schnepfenfliege Rhagio scolopaceus2.jpg

  • Nomination A snipefly (Rhagio scolopaceus) --Richard Bartz 11:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment super! --Mbdortmund 17:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Super soft.... -- carol 14:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Maybe i should downsample it --Richard Bartz 14:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Itemized list
    1. When does 'bokeh' become 'blurkeh'? I think that there is a line and this image crossed it.
    2. I read a review elsewhere about the awkward crop -- and 'technically' it is an awkward crop.
    3. There is a secret bot that counts the hours and minutes since the proclamation "Because I am Makro Freak" in tainted english has been proclaimed; might I suggest it is that the photographer is as soft as this image and that is the reason the bot is counting months now instead of minutes and hours. -- carol 16:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Obviously a QI. --Calibas 06:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestath 10:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see any possible reason why this should not be a QI. -- MJJR 16:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see any reason why this should not be an FP... except for the crop (sorry :D) Fvasconcellos 13:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support "Super soft"??? --Berrucomons 19:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose, (promoted more votes?) -- carol 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Leiocephalus carinatus armouri[edit]

Leiocephalus carinatus armouri FL.jpg

  • Nomination Leiocephalus carinatus armouri --Ianare 05:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)

Euphorbia characias (flowers)[edit]

Euphorbia characias (flowers).jpg

  • Nomination Euphorbia characias, near El Perelló, Spain. -- Lycaon 13:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI and a yawn. -- carol (tomes) 01:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Crop is kind of close. -- carol 07:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Looks fine to me - Peripitus 05:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  promoted to QI --LC-de 19:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wallabia bicolour and joey[edit]

Wallabia bicolor and large joey.JPG

  • Nomination Swamp Wallaby with large joey. -- Peripitus 06:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportSlightly blured (and sharped), but QI. #!George Shuklin 10:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QI needs to be sharp. --Nevit 10:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that at 2mpx it's quite sharp though I'd prefer not to downsample to simulate this - Peripitus 11:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I am not a fan of downsampling. You can do and try your chance. --Nevit 20:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I think he means judging the image at a 2MP standard, which makes sense. Actually uploading a downsampled image on the other hand would make no sense at all. --Stefan Vladuck 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes that is what I mean. I've seen many uploaders downsampling (like this) for various reasons, and much argument about doing this to achieve apparent sharpness and low noise. At 100% this process always makes the image look sharper and cleaner though when printed or viewed at the same size as the original the loss of information is clear. - Peripitus 04:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Given the size of the image it is sharp enough. It really frustrates me that people blindly review at 100% without thinking one second about the size of the images. This is especially unfair to people with 12.8MP cameras uploading at full resolution... ...which would be me for example... ...yes, this is a rant, probably misplaced, but I'm annoyed! --Dschwen 15:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition. Not a fan of downsampling either. :) --Lerdsuwa 13:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  support --Dschwen 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Platanthera bifolia (flower spike)[edit]

Platanthera bifolia (flower spike).jpg

  • Nomination Platanthera bifolia, Belgium - La Calestienne. -- Lycaon 21:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The blade of grass in the foreground ruins the composition. -- carol 03:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not condone of removing other plants in a nature reserve, just for the purpose of taking a picture of a rare species in its natural habitat. Lycaon 21:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Defense: You make it seem as if the blade of grass will be damaged if it was gently bent to remove it from the frame. I am certainly happy that you did not remove it from where it was growing, place it on a cardboard or paper and take a perfect photograph of it that way, but I think it grows among these gentle grasses for reasons -- the flexibility of the neighbors being one of those reasons. -- carol 08:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I could use a little more contrast and the blade of grass is a little distracting but I still feel this is a QI. --Calibas 04:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That grass leaf is a slight distraction. But I prefer the nature scene to be left intacted. Not FP material but a QI. --Lerdsuwa 13:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  support --Dschwen 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Statue_of_Liberty_frontal_2[edit]

Statue of Liberty frontal 2.jpg

  • Nomination Statue of Liberty, vertical panoramic. --Dschwen 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Come back when it is life-sized. -- carol 19:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think that is a legitimate reason --Ianare 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Nope, it was a joke. Other jokes I thought about including in the review were about identifying the camera being held by that man on the observation deck and/or something about looking up her skirt. Then I asked the photographer about how much the camera helps because the point and shoot I have has a moderately useful hack that blocks off new frame and shows the last frame to make the alignment of the camera easier -- but it only works horizontally. So, not only did people look at the image right away because of the stupid reason I gave, but when they looked at this image, they saw not only manually lined up images in the shot taken but also stitching which was really well done. Meticulous at each step of the process. I like to think that software can assist, but sometimes the assistence is a stupification of the people who are being assisted. I haven't used hugin, but it must involve some human skill as well to make it work well. The joke should have been obvious. Let me know if it wasn't. Offensive jokes might have included things about the French, I didn't bother with that and it isn't what is great about this image.... I opted for absurdity. -- carol (tomes) 06:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems OK. --Nevit 20:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilt --Ianare 21:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Where do you see any tilt? Please note that this shot is slightly on angle, thus the edges look slanted due to the perspective. --Dschwen 00:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I can not see any tilt. Measure from base & horizontals. Not the statue itself. --Nevit 06:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 13:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 05:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Kid girl stare[edit]

Kid girl.jpg

  • Nomination Kid girl stare. --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 19:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. --Nevit 11:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The background is indeed less than perfect, but other than that I find the composition very good. --Stefan Vladuck 11:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs agreement from the parents. Lycaon 05:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • For all the kids images I uploaded, I ask the parents before taking the kids pictures. Muhammad 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Please mention this in the description to avoid further discussions. Lycaon 21:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar 15:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good portrait. --Lerdsuwa 13:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Dschwen 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dolphins at Loro Parque[edit]

Dolphins at Loro Parque 08-crop.JPG Dolphins at Loro Parque 08.JPG Dolphins at Loro Parque 08v2.JPG

  • Nomination Dolphins (Delphinidae) at Loro Parque Dolphinarium. Cropped version with help of User:CarolSpears, original by Piotrus 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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 Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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[edit]

Melolontha melolontha01.jpg

  • Nomination Melontha melontha by Tik --Sfu
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok --LC-de
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Size. Picture is very rough/grainy - no mitigating 4 me here, sorry --Richard Bartz 12:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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[edit]

Florida Box Turtle Digon3.jpg
  • 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Meets QI standards --Ianare 06:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love it. --Lerdsuwa 16:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good. Yarl 16:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg 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)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg 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)

Wan Chai[edit]

Wan Chai.jpg Wan Chai-repetitive spots.jpg

  • Nomination Panorama of a district in Hong Kong, called Wan Chai. --Base64 10:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seem ok. No it's phantastic. --Kolossos 18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting use of a star filter also -- not over done. -- carol 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually no star filter was applied, it's directly from RAW. --Base64 02:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I never thought I would ever say the words "nice use of a star filter", btw. I moved the discussion here because I have questions about the technical parts of this image. The few starred lights were that way on the RAW image or you put them there via a software filter while converting from RAW to jpg? Also, this goregous image looks like nothing I have seen that is real. While looking at it with 100% view, I was thinking about Bladerunner and the mood/atmosphere seems similar. -- carol (tomes) 12:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm 100% sure that I did not add a star filter (I don't even know how). My lens has 8 Diaphragm Blades, and the segment is shot at f/5.6 at 70mm. Here is my proof: Link. About the atmosphere, your concern is similar to the opposers in Another image. --Base64 13:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Not a concern for me -- I read where they don't like the clouds or something. Benh has a really good eye for stitch errors in panoramas; I have been able to see animations having a frame that is one pixel off, tables lined up unevenly and dust spots in gradients of blue and orange. Whatever any of these skills are worth.... I have seen lights reflect from low clouds -- just not such a view of such a large city and that happen. The image doesn't look unreal, but it reminds me of an unreal thing first because I have seen that. The plugin for GIMP which makes stars works on lights of a certain intensity -- I don't know if I am using the proper terminology. This photograph seems to have this same thing, where only certain sizes and brightness of lights are rayed. Probably the lens star filter is not so selective. And just because I think it is (or can be) a little 'tacky' doesn't mean that I would not use the filter or effect if it was available. It is really nice in this image. -- carol (tomes) 16:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose After I got over the beauty of this image, I saw the repetitive marks in the sky. -- carol (tomes) 16:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I can't vote now -- carol (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Alright, I'm so sad that after many hours a work on the image, a dust is found on the CMOS. I'm depressed when seeing this. I'm going to send my camera back to Canon Customer's service center soon. The dust spot is about 0.6851mm x 1.8271mm in size. May I ask is there any way to clone it? --Base64 06:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I just did this, The spot on the far right was more of a challenge than I thought it would be. Do you want me to upload it into the namespace or to my web site so you can upload it if it meets your approval or whatever. The repetition with the photography problems is interesting as well. One pretty sunset image with a spot or two on it and then a whole bunch of images with similar spots appeared here. I blamed that on the dull midwest winters, it would be nice not to have the same repetition with people ;)
I await further instructions on what to do with the cloned image. It is a beautiful image, no matter if it gets any of these templates pasted on it. -- carol (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thank you so much. Can you please upload it to your web site first? If no big changes are observable except the change in the dust spots, uploading it to the same namespace later is the best option, as it's sort of confusing when having separate images that have flaws. --Base64 08:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It is located here. It is a beautiful image and it was very nice to work on. It is also nice to be asked to work on an image. -- carol (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I've uploaded to the same namespace, as other parts were identical. You are the most helpful person that I have ever known. I've also added a "retouched" template to the description. Nice to have you editing, much appreciated. --Base64 14:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
At this moment in time, I think GIMP has the best jpeg saving; one of the developers did the "impossible' and figured out how to get information from the file that they said could not be done. gimp-2.5 is able to determine what quality level the jpeg was originally saved at and presents this quality in the save dialog. Most certainly, other applications will accept the free ride and use this impossible thing in future versions of their application as other people involved with GIMP also seem to enjoy this free ride. I often wonder lately if the level of helpful is a way to determine whether people "came in through the front door" or were "wedged in through a backdoor". Not changing the other parts of the image 1)GIMPs jpeg save abilities 2)not messing with perfection! It is really a beautiful image and I thank you for making it available here. -- carol (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice pic. --Dschwen 17:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? carol (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


Image:Lower_Manhattan_pano_1.jpg[edit]

Lower Manhattan pano 1.jpg

  • Nomination Panoramic of Lower Manhatten as seen from the Staten Island ferry. --Dschwen 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Who's insisting on downsampling? I don't think this affects this particular nom, since you haven't lost detail as far as I can tell between original and downsampled versions, plus both versions fall clearly into QI, but if you're willing and prefer to provide a higher-res image, why don't you do so? One user has a nice and correct (AFAIK) page on it, so at least not everyone is out to get you... Thegreenj 16:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It doesn't need everyone to be out and get me, a few rotten apples are enough to spoil the fun. I am willing to provide high res, and I do so, thus I don't quite understand your question. And I am well aware of Stefan's page. --Dschwen 16:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm just saying, if you don't want to downsample, don't do it. Thegreenj 17:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry it doesn work that way. If the reviewers penalize original size, they'll get a downsampled version. Whether it will accidentally be replaced with the full-size after review is a different question... --Dschwen 18:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "Dust spot" above that other ferry that was aiming to hit the one you were on. carol 17:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you mean the cruise ship? I can see the ship engines exhaust which might resemble a dust spot (but it is in both overlapping frames, and a tiny helicopter (also in both frames). --Dschwen 17:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I am going to circle it and upload it into the same namespace, okay? -- carol (tomes) 17:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • But please don't overwrite. --Dschwen 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Separate namespace image is uploading. If I clean my monitor, I might be able to find even more of these (it is easy to determine spooge from spots on images, the spots on the images move with the image). Also, I can try to repair it but that always ends with me replacing the sky.... -- carol (tomes) 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Carol, you scare me. I honestly did not see these. I'll have to get back to the original TIFs to fix those spots. --Dschwen 18:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
              • It is worth it though, the photograph is so close to being perfect. That clipper ship (or whatever the boats with the multi-sails are named) was really cool and I liked wondering if the other boat hit the one you were on. The city there also, so many windows on so many buildings and only one window covered with green plastic; the city seemed to be perfect as well. -- carol (tomes) 19:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
                • This morning I uploaded Image:Lower_Manhattan_pano_2.jpg, taken a few minutes after this one. I spent some time looking at it (lots of seagulls, helicopters, sailboats, etc. ), plus it has Governors Island on it. You'll certainly find some dust on that one as well. I haven't been scrubbing my images lately. --Dschwen 19:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Just one, but my eyes are tired and the room is bright and the image of the trained dolphins is kinda disturbing.... This image was also less contrasty (and not so beautiful). My dad used to use a can of air to remove dust from sensitive places without leaving lint and more from the cleaning. How long were you where ever you were taking photos? -- carol (tomes) 20:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • Just FYI, please don't do this to a camera... the propellant will get on the sensor. Thegreenj 02:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
                    • Heheh, thanks, I know. Methanol works best. --Dschwen 02:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info. Dust spots removed. (I was in NYC for five days) --Dschwen 23:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I looked at some maps, and it looks like all of these panos were taken on/from Ellis Island, so the statue was behind you for these Manhattan images. How long were you on that island? -- carol (tomes) 11:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, the panos were taken from the (moving) Staten Island Ferry. You can see its trace in the water. --Dschwen 13:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
That seems not possible. -- carol (tomes) 16:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful panorama. I particularly like the deep blue sky and the sharpness of the buildings. -- carol (tomes) 11:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great panorama that meets everything to be a QI. Bidgee 13:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund 22:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Nevit 17:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? carol (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Staten_Island_Ferry_terminal.jpg[edit]

Staten Island Ferry terminal.jpg

  • Nomination Staten Island ferry and terminal with Lower Manhattan in the background. --Dschwen 17:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition and lighting. -- MJJR 20:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree! Detail is also fantastic! Bidgee 21:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dust spot on this image as well, not so bad though. -- 17:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Where? --Dschwen 17:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It was among the clouds in the left of the image, a darker area. This one is not nearly as sticking out as the other one. -- carol (tomes) 17:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really good composition. --Pymouss44 10:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted to QI --LC-de 14:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bas Relief Cuverville04.jpg[edit]

Bas Relief Cuverville04.jpg

  • Nomination "Bas-relief" of the Statue of the Genius of the Navigation, Toulon, France--Esby 22:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • To me, a clear QI... when it will be downsampled. I don't think this will take away any details. Maybe some unsharp mark would help as well (but before downsampling). Benh 16:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Downsampled it a bit and checked the AR again, added a note about AR in talk page. Esby 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. The downsampling does not increase the image quality. And the low amount of downsampling (thank god it wasn't more) seems to be more of a reviewer-appeasement anyways ;-). That being said, the image quality is certainly sufficient for QI! --Dschwen 15:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestath 09:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pymouss44 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fixed a stitching issue near where is written "Elisabeth Louis XIV"--Esby 19:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  promoted to QI --LC-de 14:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Empire State Building pano[edit]

Empire State Building pano.jpg

  • Nomination 33 Megapixel enfused HDR panorama of the Empire State Building.‎ Check full size. --Dschwen 20:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent picture, too bad the sky wasn't blue. However, the horizon on the left appears tilted, or does earth just look like that?--JDrewes 13:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find the picture very sharp, for sure. But it is so washed out that some details seem to have gone away. Perspective should be corrected on the horizontal lines IMO. Benh 16:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC).
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You just have to be f*ing kidding me!!!! This image has way more details than most other pictures on this page and perspective correction of the horizontal lines would look ridiculous given the large vertical viewing angle. --Dschwen 19:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm promoting this photo. You can see that it's smoggy (reason for the sky not being blue which I'm sure NY like any city of it's size has), Large image size and it has good detail. Bidgee 19:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nothing wrong with the details IMO. Lycaon 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- Composition is cluttered and congested. -- carol (tomes) 08:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - very good photo -Pudelek 09:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestath 09:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted to QI --LC-de 14:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Estuary mouth[edit]

Estuary mouth.jpg

  • Nomination Casuarina Coastal Reserve. --Bidgee 16:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion .
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs tilt correction, and for the subject it is a little on the small side. Most of it is sky and water. There is little detail in the frame. --Dschwen 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It was taken on a sand bar and it's a photo of an Estuary mouth which forms part of the Reserve, also how is the image small? Bidgee 15:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the way it is, full of blue color and it gives the idea of peace. Enough for Ql --Manco Capac 07:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs tilt correction Lycaon 11:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can't fix it until someone points out where it's tilted. So the area it was taken isn't flat (Sand bar may make it look as if it's tilted) Bidgee 11:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment sorry, you can't vote as editor. Lycaon 22:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC). I went ahead and uploaded a rotated version. (btw I answered the tilt question on my talk page :-). --Dschwen 22:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Hm, I didn't see an oppose from you. Checking the diff, there was none! This would have made me the sole opposer. I fail to see how the simple mechanical act of fixing a problem should make me ineligible for voting. This looks like a case of taking the rules a bit to far. Well, if you still have a problem with the image its place should be in CR, but please don't paint me as a rule violator in the edit summary. --Dschwen 23:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I didn't mean to paint you as such. Sorry if I gave you that impression and my oppose was here. Lycaon 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh, ok. Hm, then it should have been moved to CR much earlier. The way I saw it was that I was basically just reverting my vote. No hard feelings. --Dschwen 23:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crispness not optimal, tilt is gone though. Lycaon 22:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technical quality perhaps not optimal, but good enough. Thegreenj 00:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted to QI --LC-de 14:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Carapils[edit]

  • Nomination Carapils bier cans, --Romanceor 13:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg 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)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it seems jpg artifacts on the red part. And somehow, very complicated. _Fukutaro 14:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I just don't understand what's complicated ; is that the composition that disturbs you ? --Romanceor 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unneeded noise in the out-of-focus parts. Lycaon 05:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg 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[edit]

Cloitre grand moutier small.jpg

  • Nomination Grand Moutier Cloister, Fontevraud abbey. --Berrucomons 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems ok. --Nevit 06:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks nice.--Piotrus 01:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)-

Oconaluftee river[edit]

Oconaluftee river.jpg

  • Nomination Oconaluftee river, North Carolina --Ianare 05:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: Sharp rocks and the motion blur of the water are really nice; the trees are all leaning the same.... -- carol 22:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the trees leaning is natural. Maybe a rotation would help. -- carol (tomes) 17:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The trees are leaning towards the center of the river to get the most light, however if you look at the top section of the bigger tree it is straight. I had to rotate the image before uploading (standing on a rock in the middle of a river w/ no tripod will do that ;-) ) --Ianare 17:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. It is really a beautiful image and almost unbelievable that you took it without a tripod! To me, it should be what a Featured Picture should be; I don't know if I understand what that means to others though. Also, please do not geolocate this place; it should remain this beautiful a little longer that way. -- carol (tomes) 20:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (just) Too much CA on the rocks and the water. Composition is good though. Lycaon 08:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: Sharp rocks--Beyond silence 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 14:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Dschwen 00:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hoverfly[edit]

Sphaerophoria scripta female June 2008.jpg

  • Nomination Sphaerophoria scripta. -Keta 15:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice and sharp image Bidgee 16:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not so. Good composition but poor image quality: blurry and plenty of artifacts. The QI bar for insects is much higher than this -- Alvesgaspar 17:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Do you think that QI level must be the difference among some category? _Fukutaro 15:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me. --Nevit 17:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good Muhammad Mahdi Karim 04:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? carol (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Serious Boy[edit]

Kid boy.jpg

  • Nomination Serious Boy --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 19:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I find the composition of this one much weaker than the other portrait below, and the overexposed sky doesn't help it either... --Stefan Vladuck 21:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeCentered subject. --Nevit 06:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Others have been declined for not being centered. -- carol 14:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Stop declining pictures just because they are centered: centered is not always wrong! For this portrait it's the right choice. But the overexposed sky is rather unfortunate indeed. -- MJJR 19:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- This is QIC, not FPC -- Alvesgaspar 15:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Clear QI. I can overlook the sky in light of the good quality of the main subject. --Dschwen 12:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice sharp eyebrows. --Lerdsuwa 14:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The main subject is the (serious) kid, the bluryness of the background and centered subjet contributes to the photograph. Esby 19:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Dschwen 00:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sheep Nepal.jpg[edit]

Sheep Nepal.jpg

  • Nomination Sheep. --Dilaudid 16:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Focused and captures a baa moood. -- carol 16:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Composition: The round shape at the lower part of image (half cut head of another animal?) seems disturbing to me. --Nevit 17:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? carol (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:NYC N train cockpit.jpg[edit]

NYC N train cockpit.jpg

  • Nomination N train cockpit, New York City Subway. Please take the difficult conditions under consideration. --Dschwen 14:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is some noise in this image, behind the reflection. -- carol 00:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • After looking at the image and the murky reflection there -- I took off to look at the documentation because I had heard a story where the author felt weird about riding in NY subway trains that did not have a driver (they put one of those toy steering wheels up and worked it for comfort). I learned that only some of the trains are like this and I also forgot to come back to support the image. I could clearly read 'Buzzer' and 'Zone Light' on some of the panels.... -- carol (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree. You should consider the image size. This can be reviewed at 50%, then there is essentially 0 noise. --Dschwen 22:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • You disagreed or you are disagreeable? -- carol (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Control panel out of focus #!George Shuklin 13:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Uhm.. ...no. I can understand that you want to close this nom after ten days on this page. But I cannot let factual inaccuracies stand. There is focus in front, behind, and on the panel. --Dschwen 15:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Look at head of screw in the door opener (sorry, do not known english name for ручка) and to the buttons on pannel. Huge difference. Look at note "Alston" on pannel - it blured at the far end. Text under buttons (white board) blured and half-unreadble. Focus come to the door opener and DOF is not enough to take intresting part to focus. #!George Shuklin 17:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
        • This stands exactly for the things I was complaining about. The screw is not out of focus. Smaller Pictures with this sharpness get promoted here all the time. This is unfair punishment for uploading a 12 Megapixel image. If I downscaled it to 2MP it would pass without any discussion, but at 12MP there are some regions which offer even more sharpness than that screw on the door opener, and suddenly the rest of the image is deemed out of focus. --Dschwen 22:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? carol (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Reflections_1090029.jpg[edit]

Reflections 1090029.jpg

  • Nomination Reflections. --Nevit 18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Artifacts, lack of contrast. Nice idea though. --Dilaudid 16:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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[edit]

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
  • Symbol support vote.svg 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. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. --Dschwen 14:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilt! --Pudelek 07:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC) --
  • Symbol support vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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:Altstadt Lindos04.JPG[edit]

Altstadt Lindos04.JPG

  • Nomination church in Lindos. --Böhringer 10:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Clear QI. --Dschwen 14:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Isn't it a little off on the composition? It is half sky and half stuff.... -- carol 15:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is not super quality and technically, but enough to QI. Half composition is not such wrong thing, though I feel that a little distracting composition from what the artificial cape behind the close below of the roof. This image is separated into half literally. _Fukutaro 15:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Serge Toubiana à la Cinémathèque française.jpg[edit]

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
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Significant motion blur on the hand and microphone. --Lerdsuwa 05:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg 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)
      • Pictogram voting question.svg 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)
    • Pictogram voting delete.svg 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[edit]

Platycnemis pennipes LC0152.jpg

  • Nomination Male white-legged damselfly (Platycnemis pennipes) --LC-de 16:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 15:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient details. Lycaon 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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[edit]

Caterpillar-ZebraLongwing-01 crop.JPG

  • Nomination A zebra longwing caterpillar on a leaf. --DeadEyeArrow 05:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting caterpillar. Also shows nice detail on it's spikes/spines. Bidgee 13:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small for the quality. Lycaon 17:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Lycaon. –Dilaudid 18:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Beyond silence 21:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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[edit]

Gymnorhina tibicenposing.JPG

  • Nomination Australian magpie posing. -- Peripitus 06:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subject too small. --Dschwen 12:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like it. -- carol 18:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Smallish and unfortunately lit. Lycaon 08:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Beyond silence 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Lycaon. I think it would also be better with a frontal view. -IvanTortuga 08:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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[edit]

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
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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[edit]

Leżajsk Monastery 17.JPG

  • Nomination Ceiling of Bernardine Monastery in Leżajsk, Poland. --Piotrus 11:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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[edit]

Swab Ватные палочки.jpg Swab Ватные палочки.png Three bamboo skews six cottonballs one screencleaning chamois(used but not moist).jpg

  • Nomination Swabs less blue photograph by George Shuklin. -- \mathbf{C} 20:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline .
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What a poor and sad composition. Has background any link with the topic ? --B.navez 08:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg 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)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg 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)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg 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)

Ватные палочки-edit.jpg
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)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg 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:Тенерани - портрет графини С.Л. Шуваловой (1).jpg[edit]

Тенерани - портрет графини С.Л. Шуваловой (1).jpg

  • Nomination Pietro Tenerani - Portrait of countess S. Shuvalova (Hermitage) #!George Shuklin 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Shadows are a little noisy and the base is a little soft, I would like more opinions though. -- carol 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree about noise, not only in the shadows, and the contours are soft. Due to the rather DOF nothing on the pic really has a crisp focus. However, at 7.5 Megapixels the image provides enough quality for QI. (I'm going to refrain from a vote here, to make my WP:POINT slightly less obvious ;-) ) --Dschwen 00:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 15:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise should (and can) be removed. Lycaon 19:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --.snoopy. 15:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not too noisy for me since there are no other drawbacks. --Dilaudid 18:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? carol (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tettigonia virdissima nymph on Phleum pratense.jpg[edit]

Tettigonia virdissima nymph on Phleum pratense.jpg

  • Nomination Female bush-cricket nymph in the 2nd last stage of genus Great Green Bush Cricket (Tettigonia viridissima) on Timothy-grass (Phleum pratense) --Richard Bartz 08:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion No doubt, QI --Romanceor 09:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This female is interrupting the composition of the image simply by being in it. Also, shouldn't it be rotated so the grass is straighter? -- \mathbf{C} 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No, it shouldn't :) To me the composition is impeccable. --Dilaudid 08:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolut QI --Berthold Werner 12:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support obvious QI Ianare 04:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? carol (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Autel cathédrale Saint-Étienne, Toulouse.jpg[edit]

Autel cathédrale Saint-Étienne, Toulouse.jpg

  • Nomination Altar of cathedral Saint-Étienne --Pom² 15:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok, quality. --Dschwen 14:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beg to differ. Crispness and details are insufficient IMO. Lycaon 19:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • ?! This is a 9MP image, and in most regions of the image sharpness is perfectly ok. Even after a 50% downscaling the image would be above the 2MP limit, and it would look super crisp. So just thank the uploader for not downsampling and wave it through. --Dschwen 16:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hi, i had a bit of sharpness to the raw, but its the best I can do as its the original 10MB picture of my D80 (was slightly re-sized before, maybe it had some blur too) --Pom² 19:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp enough for the resolution. --Calibas 18:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestath 20:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For info, as it's the first time I post for QI, do you think this can be a FP candidate ? (if it get QI approbation) --Pom² (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The two have not that much to do with each other. Images can and have gotten the whatever (the boot or the template) from both. I suggest that you read the stuff about what makes a commons Featured Picture -- unless you were talking about one of the other Featured Picture Candidate reviews available elsewhere in wiki-world. -- carol (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Any picture can be a FP candidate :) (It doesn't have to be a QI.) Go for it and see what happens! –Dilaudid 19:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --.snoopy. 15:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dilaudid 19:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Oh, and could this be geotagged please? --Dilaudid 19:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Dschwen 15:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Clochard parisien à Bercy.jpg[edit]

Clochard parisien à Bercy.jpg

  • Nomination Clochard à Bercy, Paris --Romanceor 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It has problem so that, I think it needs discuss and some opinion. _Fukutaro 15:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Beyond silence 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Compositional not bad but technically insufficient for QI (clipping and noise). Lycaon 11:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)