Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 2008

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

Consensual review[edit]

Offroad Jeep 05760 2[edit]

Offroad Jeep 05760 2.jpg

  • Nomination Image of moving Jeep with splashed mud. Nevit 20:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This one is better because of better lighting. Too strong contrast here. --~~~~.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sufficient quality. Wonderful composition. --Norro 11:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unnatural sharpness. The unsharp-mask too work, maybe. _Fukutaro 15:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High res. --Beyond silence 13:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background is noisy. It is like this image has had too much processing. -- CarolSpears 00:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This one is on the borderline. But this time I like the composition and tight framing -- Alvesgaspar 19:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  promoted  -- carol 00:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Kezmarok CoA.png[edit]

Kezmarok CoA.png

  • Nomination Coat of arms of Kezmarok city (Slovakia) - Pudelek 23:16. 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- shouldnt it be a SVG?-LadyofHats 14:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment SVG isn't required. in my opinion PNG is better - Pudelek
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info please read Category:Images that should use vector graphics. ty-LadyofHats.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Out of curiosity, why do you prefer PNG? In any case, you can have both. Some maps with very large filesizes have a PNG version for accessibility—I've even done so with some of my uploads; I don't see why there couldn't be an SVG and a PNG of this image. Fvasconcellos 13:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  not promoted -- carol 00:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Baths[edit]

Sanssouci - Rzymskie Łaźnie 02.jpg

  • Nomination "Roman Baths" in Sanssouci park. Second version. --Lestat 22:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too unsharp, sorry. Possibly due to aggressive denoising? --Aqwis 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree, photo is sharp. If somebody want sharper one may resize it (it is bigger than minimum size for FP). --Lestath 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the grass looks very unnatural FRZ 19:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Due to good composition and despite not-so-good image quality -- Alvesgaspar 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted -- carol 00:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Paper mill in downtown Danville, IL[edit]

Danville, IL grain mill.jpg

  • Nomination Paper mill in downtown Danville, IL. Hooray depressing pictures! --Dschwen 15:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question is this Danschwenville? -- CarolSpears 23:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not good for your health to get up so early in the morning... Nice atmosphere, but the barrel distortion is quite disturbing -- Alvesgaspar 1:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I reuploaded a version which corrects for the distortion. I didn't notice it before you mentioned it, but now I agree it looked very disturbing. --Dschwen 17:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good -- Alvesgaspar 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The snowflakes remind me of a town I visited long long ago which had a coal plant that rained down chunks of soot. --Thisisbossi 04:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support maybe a bit dark though FRZ 19:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  promoted -- carol 00:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In my area of the "midwest" (quite mis-named) there were always many more winter days that looked like this than not. The photograph is not even depressing to me as this is just how things are there. -- carol 23:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This last vote doesn't count as it was cast after the 2 days rule that I think I read somewhere; but this does not affect the outcome. -- carol 00:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Marching[edit]

Marching towards the Capital - September 15, 2007.jpg

  • Nomination Anti-war protest in Washington, D.C. --Ragesoss 04:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good depth of Field, very Impressive to me! --Stefan-Xp 16:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but, once again, I cannot agree this is a quality image. There are visible artifacts all over the picture, which suggests that the camera was not used at it's best capacity. The worst is the background -- Alvesgaspar 21:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for now, Alvesgaspar can you be a bit more specific on the artifacts? Dori 21:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • With the picture opened in full size, look at the arm of the man with a dark shirt -- Alvesgaspar 21:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
      • So the skin detail in the shadow? That doesn't seem a big deal to me as overall the image is good. It's a DSLR and it can't get that detail, we'd have to accept only MkIII's and D3's if we were to go that far. Dori 1:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed parts. --Lestath 11:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition, high resolution, detailed foreground. --Beyond silence 13:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Dori. --Aqwis 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Pudelek 14:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  promoted -- carol 00:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cucurbita[edit]

Cucurbita pepo - new bud - Kourou.jpg

  • Nomination Cucurbita pepo, new bud. Arria Belli 16:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well Done! Very nice focus! --Stefan-Xp 16:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I don't agree. The centered composition is boring, the background is distracting and there are visible artifacts - Alvesgaspar 21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Alvesgaspar: the background has too much detail and the color similarities with the subject. --Thisisbossi 02:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  'declined -- CarolSpears 23:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Stable[edit]

Barn-stable p100984.jpg

  • Nomination Hdr image --Nevit 12:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love the green. Arria Belli 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too unnaturall. --Lestat 11:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose HDR effect is overdone. Thegreenj 16:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose HDR alone doesn't carry a picture. In this case it actually ruins it. Plus it is just fake HDR, real HDR needs several bracketed exposures. --Dschwen 17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Bracketed exposures are available on request. --Nevit 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • If you don't mind, would you upload them? This doesn't look like a scene that would require a very large dynamic range, just a little headroom, perhaps, for the sky. Thegreenj 03:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The green is absolutely fantastic, but it's otherwise a bit overprocessed. --Thisisbossi 02:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose ->  declined -- carol 23:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fernão Vaz Dourado 1575[edit]

Fernão Vaz Dourado 1575-1.jpg

  • Nomination Old nautical chart by Portuguese cartographer Fernão Vaz Dourado, 1575 (British Museum, London) -- Alvesgaspar 15:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Not convinced by the background, maybe it can be cropped better. --Dori - Talk 04:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps an SVG would be better. -- carol 02:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm, its a reproduction of an old map, I don't think an SVG would give a faithful representation. The sharpness is borderline, some of the labels are hard to read, but that might be due to the handwriting. --Dschwen 17:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem is the quality of the printed reproduction that was shot. I don't think it is possible to do better this way -- Alvesgaspar 18:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm, so it looks like someone has to take a trip to the British Museum :-) --Dschwen 18:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I honestly was joking when I made the previous suggestion -- carol 20:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  (more vote?) --Fukutaro 09:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Camara de fotos[edit]

Camara de fotos.svg

  • Nomination Cross-section view of a single-lens reflex camera --Anuskafm 19:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentIt should get a Information template with a good discription. Kolossos --12:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentW3C,DTD,labels and prism.... -- carol 22:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • IF the description page is fixed i would support it.-LadyofHats 10:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have questions about what I learned from the validator.
    1. If the image were a bitmap -- the original upload would have been similar to a .psd or .xcf or whatever native file format the application that makes the file uses. Native files from software applications like this do not display in browsers -- making it easier to figure it all out and convert it into a format that does display (like jpg, png, gif) and don't include any of the application-specific information. This file as an example, 983KB with the inkscape stuff, 288KB without it -- both with the same image being displayed.
    2. The validator should have respected the other namespaces and while I like removing the application information, I am very unhappy with the fact that it doesn't allow embedding license information that is properly namespaced. On a personal level, if I were ever to make such a beautiful and original image, I would want my name and my license choices to go with it wherever it went; I would skip the validator 'stamp of approval' and include the cc licensing xml.

-- carol 11:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Description page fixed --Anuskafm 20:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This could become FP after some modifications and therefore deserves QI status. For FP several things are missing:
  1. graphical quality of the zoom and focus ring
  2. graphical quality of the threads inside the lens.
  3. The Diaphragm label is on the wrong place. You don't see the blades.
  4. The autofocus sensor is missing
  5. The Exposure meter is missing.
  6. The bajonet is not labeled.

Good luck with ameliorating the drawing! --Ikiwaner 22:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Agree with Ikiwaner on the details but think this is a very nice illustration deserving well the QI tag - Alvesgaspar 19:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  (more vote?) --Fukutaro 09:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Caligo memnon[edit]

Caligo memnon 002.JPG

  • Nomination Caligo memnon by Lilly M. Yarl TalkPL 12:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood colours and sharpness -- Lestat 18:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeAs much i like the pictures of Lilly M, but the deph of field/focus is not satisfactory for QI in my eyes --RichardBartz
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportfield/focus depend a lot on the subject of the foro, and even when it is true that part of the body is out of focus, the image has quality enough to be in QI. INMO -LadyofHats
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It was focused on slight front of the butterfly, and so her body is out of focus. _Fukutaro 12:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Enough good. --Beyond silence
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough. --Aqwis 14:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fukutaro 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agreed with the DOF on the body, but my opinion is that the wings serve as the primary subject; and the DOF is good on those. --Thisisbossi 04:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> Promotion -- carol 23:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hala Miziowa hostel[edit]

Koribelów-orawa 138.jpg

  • Nomination Hala Miziowa hostel (Żywiec Beskids, Poland) -- Pudelek 15:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Slight tilted to right.. _Fukutaro 12:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportis it tilted or it is just that is a hill side? in any case i find it good enough. --LadyofHats hh:mm, d March, 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's OK --Lestat 11:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->    promoted to QI --Fukutaro 15:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Jacek Malczewski - Pithia[edit]

Lwowska Galeria Sztuki - Jacek Malczewski - Pithia.jpg Lwowska Galeria Sztuki - Jacek Malczewski - Pithia 2.jpg

  • Nomination Jacek Malczewski - Pithia --Lestat 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bit tilt (first picture), Symbol support vote.svg Support second picture without frame - Pudelek 00:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoIt isn't tilt!! It is effect of this frame. --Lestat 10:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment maybe remove the frame?
        • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I added one without frame. --Lestat 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support frameless version -- Ianare 00:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Did you set Camera position what was in correctly front of the Art? I also see the frame is tilted or perspective. _Fukutaro 10:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 Left ver. Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  not promoted to QI --Fukutaro 15:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 Right ver. Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  promoted to QI --Fukutaro 15:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Jerzy Gorzelik[edit]

Dr Jerzy Gorzelik.JPG

  • Nomination Jerzy Gorzelik --Lestat 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor lighting, sorry. _Fukutaro 12:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • What's wrong with lighting? --Lestat 13:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
      • i think he refers to the overexposed clock,hands and book on the table.. and maybe at the greenish wall.. i myself find it more worring the dark red of the ears.. is that always so? -Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose--LadyofHats 10:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Poor lighting : I meant just front light. And improper his shadow, some of overexposed points, cause by lighting. _Fukutaro 14:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted to QI  --Fukutaro 09:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Phalaenopsis white cultivar[edit]

Phalaenopsis white cultivar 2.jpg

  • Nomination Phalaenopsis orchid, white cultivar (Corrected version) -- Ianare 22:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The DOF is a bit shallow, but I think it's QI. --Dori - Talk 04:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor lighting. Lycaon 06:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, these plants grow in the shade ... --Ianare 17:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High resol. it's QI --Beyond silence 18:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI  --Fukutaro 09:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Horse headshot 4409[edit]

Horse headshot 4409.jpg

  • Nomination Domestic horse. --Dori - Talk 22:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not so good. -- carol 10:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Rethinking. --carol 15:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support So good! --Beyond silence 17:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support no problem (DOF, exposition, composition - all ok). #!George Shuklin 10:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice _Fukutaro 10:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, good quality, but a cruel title ;-) --Dschwen 17:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah I realized that as soon as I was done uploading the series. Until an easy rename is implemented, I'm not bothering renaming them. Dori 19:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted to QI --Fukutaro 11:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • {{rename|new name.jpg|reason}} works eventually -- good luck with the wording of the reason, CarolSpears 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Port Anvers 5 Luc Viatour[edit]

Port Anvers 5 Luc Viatour.jpg

  • Nomination Port of Antwerp (Belgium) -- Lviatour 08:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Spot on upper right hand side, should be easy fix. -- Ianaré 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is corrected Lviatour
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sharp and white and CA fringes. Lycaon) 03:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness good enough, high resolution -- Ianare 18:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. Toubabmaster 13:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted to QI --Fukutaro 09:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Port Anvers 3 Luc Viatour[edit]

Port Anvers 3 Luc Viatour.jpg

  • Nomination Port of Antwerp (Belgium) -- Lviatour 08:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Spot on upper right hand side, should be easy fix. -- Ianaré 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)It is corrected Lviatour
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sharp and fringes. Lycaon) 03:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • How do you see c/a on a b/w image? And what is "white", white balance? In b/w? Maybe your monitor is broken?
      • He is right, not a drop of colour (256 shades of grey), maybe a monitor convergence fault? --Tony Wills 11:49, 3 March 2008
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--it is a bit noisy in full view but still good enough -LadyofHats08:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC) (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm OK with this kind of noise, but I don't think B&W goes with quality anymore (at least not in this case, I'm not saying I'd automatically oppose every B&W for QI). It's more artistic, but I think colors would make for better quality. --Dori - Talk 04:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted to QI --Fukutaro 09:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

FireholeRiverFountainFlats[edit]

FireholeRiverFountainFlats0904.jpg

  • Nomination Firehole River in YNP Fountain Flats 09/04 by Mike Cline 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment nice color and view. But then, softly detail. And it need to add location. _Fukutaro 11:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I dont really like the "ghost" person walking. the image is reasonable good but that details make me inclined to decline the nomination- LadyofHats 12:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice composition and light. --Beyond silence 17:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Washed out, no detail. --Dschwen 18:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Fukutaro 09:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oiseau hein[edit]

Oiseau hein.jpg

  • Nomination Juvenile gulls (Brijuni archipelago, Croatia), possibly yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis), by Romanceor 16:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Composition is nice, sharpness seems to be good enough. sfu 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very noisy, and id not sufficient. Lycaon 20:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why do you think ID is not sufficient ? Romanceor 15:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Because possible is not a sufficient identification. Lycaon 09:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Hm that's right, and corrected. Romanceor 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very noisy, sorry --Beyond silence 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I don't understand that noise ; isn't it just water vapor ? Romanceor 12:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I think most of the noise is due to heavy compression (jpeg artefacts). Lycaon 19:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, I think you may be right, so the version issued from the RAW original file will soon be online. Romanceor 21:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Fukutaro 11:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sommet de la tour de Beurre de la cathédrale de Rouen[edit]

Sommet de la tour de Beurre de la cathédrale de Rouen.jpg

  • Nomination Sommet de la tour de Beurre de la Cathédrale, Rouen, France, by Romanceor 15:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A vertical composition would be more appropriate --ianaré 13:02, 10 March 2008 EDT
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, in fact the subject of the photo is the top of the tower and not the tower herself... Romanceor 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think for an encyclopedia there is greater value in showing more of the tower. --ianaré 01:34, 11 March 2008 EDT
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with the fact that it is important to have the whole tower, but I don't think it has to be the only photo : it is possible that a part of the article about the Cathédrale de Rouen is specific about the top of this famous tower, which has a very rare structure : an octogonal crown instead of the top initialy planed. Romanceor 11:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with ianare. _Fukutaro 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice, good detail. --Beyond silence 17:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not enough space in the top of the image. The very top of the tower seems to be cut off. sfu 10:28, 17 March 2008
 Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Aqwis 00:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hôtel des abbés de Cluny[edit]

Hôtel des abbés de Cluny.jpg

  • Nomination Musée national du Moyen Âge (Hôtel des abbés de Cluny) in Paris, by Romanceor 15:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very nice composition, but it could be lightened, there are 2 spots in the sky (clone out), and it's a little blurry (try shrinking ?) --ianaré 13:20, 10 March 2008 EDT
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Lightened, sharped, and sky artefacts corrected. Romanceor 20:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The spots are still there (deux grains de poussière dans le ciel vers le centre-droite). Much better now otherwise :-) . -- Ianare 00:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Blurriness is probably due to small aperture (f/29), but there is still a high level of detail that would be destroyed by downsampling. --Stefan Vladuck 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Wow, you made me discover it ! That's crazy... i'll use less my 29 for now on. Romanceor 13:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think you have blown some highlights in your lightened version. How did you do the lightening? Maybe try using curves to lighten only the dark parts a little bit... --Stefan Vladuck 23:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info That's right ; I had done it with a photoshop brush. I just corrected that (better lightened) and distortion. Romanceor 13:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks nice, not very good detail but high resolution. --Beyond silence 17:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Aqwis 00:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

FlamingoSD[edit]

FlamingoSD.jpg

  • Nomination A close-up of a flamingo facing backwards at the San Diego Zoo in San Diego, California. --Nehrams2020 05:15 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Slight overexposure in white and red channels. Lycaon 20:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportyes a bit overexposed, but it looks good enough to me--LadyofHats08:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon told so, indeed. Even so it's very nice detail and excellent for me. _Fukutaro 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kos wisnia6522[edit]

Kos wisnia6522.jpg

  • Nomination Turdus merula in forest. -- Wisnia6522 13:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The beak is not sharp and there is noise on the head, but black is a difficult color to capture. -- carol 16:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It looks like the focus is slightly behind the bird, on the twigs. -- Ianaré 16:40, 5 March 2008 EDT
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposethere is a lot of problems with the focus , but also there is noise -LadyofHats 15:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Aqwis 00:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ettelgem StEligius Plafond[edit]

Ettelgem StEligius Plafond.jpg

  • Nomination Ettelgem (Belgium): medieval St Eligius church, ceiling of the choir. --MJJR 21:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perspective is slightly awkward, but on the whole it's quite good. --Adam Cuerden 22:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)-
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the image has color aberrations (green shadows) and is in general too dark. it has a strange prespective, like mentioned before. i woulnt accept it- user:ladyofHats 23:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 06:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

La Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris vue du pont d'Arcole[edit]

La Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris vue du pont d'Arcole.jpg

  • Nomination Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris seen from Arcole bridge, by Romanceor 17:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image is tilted, should be fixed first -- Richard Bartz 12:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tilted corrected. Romanceor 00:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I feel circular lens flare, slightly detail, lens distortion of right building. And could you add location? _Fukutaro 11:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentLens flare and lens distortion corrected -- Romanceor 14:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposePersonally i dislike the "ghost" that is standing in the midle of the image -user:LadyofHats 10:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per LadyofHats -- ianaré 12:52, 10 March 2008 EDT
 Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 06:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Babia Góra - view from Hala Miziowa[edit]

Babia Góra - view from Hala Miziowa.jpg

  • Nomination Mount Babia Góra in winter - view from Hala Miziowa -- Pudelek 13:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's super view, but slightly tilt? _Fukutaro 11:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info no tilt - ground is rough --Pudelek
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nothing with ground. I seem to tilt in about 0.3 degrees to left[7]. _Fukutaro 11:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)-
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support- noisy and with some small color aberrations. i find it is good but still would want someone to second this (or denying it) --LadyofHats
 Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 06:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Osrodek Narciarski Pilsko1[edit]

Osrodek Narciarski Pilsko1.jpg

  • Nomination Winter in Żywiec Beskids, Poland. -- Pudelek 13:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not enough size. _Fukutaro 11:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC) -
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 1600x1200 -> this is enough - [8] - --Pudelek
    • "guideline: Images should have at least 2 real megapixels of information, for example, 1600x1250." at en version.. _Fukutaro 12:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)--
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dark, some few jpg color aberrations, noisy. even when it is much better composition that the next one. so maybe someone wants to second this opinion? --LadyofHats
 Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 06:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Nice picture, and the darkness could be recovered by simple histogram stretching (the upper and lower ends are not used). Unfortunately the picture is not worth the effort due to its small size. Such a correction would have to be done on the original. --Dschwen 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Attacus atlas female Indonezja 001[edit]

Attacus atlas female Indonezja 001.JPG

  • Nomination Attacus atlas by Lilly M. Yarl TalkPL 12:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good colours and sharpness -- Lestat 18:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSame here. Flashlight and blur with distracting elements. From the aesthetical side i would say its unbeautiful--RichardBartz
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportI think it is good enough, since the light doesnt remove any detail from the buterfly itself -LadyofHats
 Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Aqwis 00:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Grand Trianon[edit]

Grand Trianon.jpg

  • Nomination Grand Trianon, dans le parc du château de Versailles, France, by Romanceor 12:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Did you correct color or contrast? I think this is artificialy color. And tilt. _Fukutaro 16:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • No, it's the original picture, the colors are real. Romanceor 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Not retouched: If so, did you use proper white-balance when time you shoot this? I seem still that slightly too amber (and tilt) Fukutaro 10:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
        • The photo has been taked arround 19h. Could it be the sunset that gives you this impression ? Romanceor 12:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support- I think it is on the edge of being acepted, i wouldnt try to fix the color. it may end seeming even more artificial -- LadyofHats
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good composition and color, support if slight tilt is corrected -- ianaré 16:51 5 March 2008 EDT
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - hmmm... a little dark - Pudelek 11:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad perspective, bad crop, too dark. --Lestat 10:54, March 7, 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info bright and tilt corrected. --Romanceor 15:40, March 9, 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the very tight crop bothers me. --Rampensau 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 06:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ogrodzieniec Castle[edit]

Castle in Ogrodzieniec - 59 edit.jpg

  • Nomination Ogrodzieniec Castle, Poland - tower. Original author: Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|Talk ; edited by Ianare
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition and sharp, but it was bit dark so I lightened it. -- Ianare
    • you can't promote as (co-)author. Lycaon 11:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy on the sky, and compression artifacts. -- Lestat 18:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> decline -- carol 16:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Conciergerie in Paris[edit]

Exposure 20 seconds.jpg

  • Nomination Conciergerie in Paris, by Romanceor 12:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A really good and pleasant illustration of nocturn long time exposure B.navez 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice typical image that is the slow shutter shot at the night time. But I think that at the left buildings are not good sharpness. And it need to add some [[Category:]] and some location. _Fukutaro 14:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Location et categorization done. Are you sure sharpness of the walls of the building is what makes quality or not of thess kinds of long exposure pictures with moving objects ? --B.navez 18:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes. I meant historic building's sharpness for QI. The road at the lower right in focused. _Fukutaro 11:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it's too dark and too soft (coincidence btw : I shot a panorama of this from the same location, but threw it because one of my pics was blurred... ;) ) -- Benh 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It dearly needs a better filename --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 02:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> decline -- carol 16:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ecluse du bord de Marne arround Dormans[edit]

Ecluse du bord de Marne.jpg

  • Nomination Ecluse du bord de Marne arround Dormans, Aisne, France, by Romanceor 12:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good timing, QI -- Ianaré 22:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp and CCW tilt. Lycaon 08:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Sharped and tilt corrected. Romanceor 12:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now is ok - Pudelek 10:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promote -- carol 16:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestat 10:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
this last vote doesn't count since it wasn't a draw but nothing changes with or without it. -- carol 16:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sausage making-H-5[edit]

Sausage making-H-5-edited2.jpg Sausage making-H-5-edited2.jpg

  • Nomination Sausage making --Beyond silence 21:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose seems really pink. -- carol 23:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
And decline? --Beyond silence 12:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
? -- carol 19:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too pink, moved. --Lestat 22:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like too much blue to me. --WikiWookie 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg First version. --Beyond silence 08:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Edit - I love the edited version and supported it in FPC. QI is supposed to be a more friendly forum for receiving and improving good images (although, I am curious at the reason that both forum cannot be like that). Approving a lot of sunset and unsharp photographs in QI probably will not do much to raise the standards in FPC again -- competition among craftsmen and women should. Sausages are a tried and true way to manage offal -- one that doesn't need an expensive fine dining experience to enjoy. Beating up women or encouraging a biased wrestling match between them online is a way to make those other sausages -- groups of straight guys who were too willing to express their manliness by subordinating women. What century is it? Every little bit of my involvement with this image is emotionally inspired and lacking any effort on my part to be impartial and look and judge just the image. -- carol 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Which is the masenta colored hands and arms are whether natural color or artificaly color? _Fukutaro 10:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - A nice job, though the theme is not very appealing... -- Alvesgaspar 15:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result edit: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question The version of this which was promoted is due to be deleted? -- carol 10:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Newer version Edit2 is better, there is no need for this. --Beyond silence 10:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a very unusual situation. At least some of the people who put their images here take this process somewhat seriously. I spend my time with this because I take it seriously, for example. Others really look at the images before supporting or declining. From my limited view of how this works, anyone looking for a photographer or an image editor could look on talk pages for QI templates and perhaps find one. This particular image has an atmosphere around it in which another similar review process was taken much more seriously; and perhaps it should have been -- I have no opinion about that. I do have the opinion that I don't want to include an image which is scheduled to be deleted -- it is a problem in the gallery of images it will be included in. -- carol 12:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Both images displayed here are scheduled to be deleted. I would really like to see the opinion of people who spend time with the review system here and leave a trail of respect and enjoyment of it. -- carol 14:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hm, odd, they are pretty similar. Just a slight rotation. But I cannot see the colorbalance issues being adressed. By the way, the duplicate template does not imply that both versions should be deleted. IMO neither one should be deleted, as the template does not apply (not exact duplicates). And comparing it to the bottom of the commons pile this image is stellar. So why delete it? --Dschwen 12:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The duplicate template was applied to both images that are here. I guess that QIC is expected to not only simply agree with whatever FPC says is a good image but to also hunt for the image that is not to be deleted and that won an FPC nomination and trust that that image will not be deleted after it is manually inserted into a gallery. Correct me if I am wrong about the process that I am assuming was assumed here.... -- carol 21:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Jacksonville Skyline at Night[edit]

Jacksonville Skyline Night Panorama Digon3.jpg

  • Nomination Jacksonville Skyline at Night --Digon3 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I feel somewhat unsharp details cause by Chromatic Aberration. But, I think include that in all of the other daytime version too, so interesting and enough to QI. _Fukutaro 13:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not sure, but I'd say something is wrong with stitching, river seems curved when I feel it shouldn't. Isn't anchor point set a bit too high ? Otherwise, nice stitching. -- Benh 21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 13:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result orginal: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- carol 09:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish on a street[edit]

  • Nomination Rubbish on a street. ABF 12:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Resultion lower than 2Mpixel, bad light and most important it's rubbish --Kolossos 20:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Uploaded Higher resolution. Its rubbish means nothing. ABF 12:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Full size it looks blurred, nothing in sharp focus --Tony Wills 09:03,23 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result orginal: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- carol 09:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Lentos Linz[edit]

Lentos Linz.JPG

  • Nomination Lentos Museum in Linz. --Rampensau 23:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice gradation color and composition, but serious perspective distortion (and even if I would't point out "overexposure", probably somebody will say so). --Fukutaro 13:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support enough for QI. --Beyond silence 22:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Fukutaro. Thegreenj 01:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support i think it meets all qi standards. --Frauerika 00:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise, perspective, overexposure, ... Lycaon 01:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me it looks ok. --Kolossos 09:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is a bit noisy, but I like the lighting effects and the perspective. --Libelle 11:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Fukutaro sfu 14:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 2 votes struck, CU shows connection with nominator Herby 13:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 Result orginal: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> decline  -- carol 09:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Time lapse animated gif[edit]

Cicada molting animated.gif Cicada molting animated-2.gif

  • Nomination Time lapse animated gif. Not high enough res, but incredibly descriptive. Maybe there's another place to nominate this? -- Skoch3 16:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, nice. For animated gifs the resolution isn't as important. --Calibas 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose but for organisms, identification is! Lycaon 22:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGreat!--Beyond silence 14:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice idea, but given the patterned background, wouldn't it have been possible to align the images before making a gif, too much camera jiggle. --Tony Wills 09:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done -- carol 11:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice editted version. _Fukutaro 13:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Till 17:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a suggestion at FPC to have the last frame pause instead of the first as I have chosen it. Any thoughts about this? -- carol 12:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result orginal: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> promoted to QI -- carol 09:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Laysan Albatross[edit]

Feeding chick.JPG

  • Nomination Laysan Albatross Phoebastria immutabilis feeding its chick in the typical manner of all petrels by Sabine's Sunbird. -carol 02:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a Bit fuzzy but QI --Ianare 21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose exposition and sharpness not at top (with these kinds of birds you have time to set your camera the best) --B.navez 08:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 15:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per B.navez. Lycaon 15:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It used Reflex Lens? Background bokeh is unique.. A bit digital noise is there. _Fukutaro 13:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result orginal: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- carol 09:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Flowers of Dombeya[edit]

Dombeya acutangula 01.JPG

  • Nomination Flowers of Dombeya acutangula --B.navez 07:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a bit darkness, I think. --Fukutaro 21:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Sun came back--B.navez 08:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeHummm... I feel that very flat lighting destroy the 3D effect of white flowers, sorry. I suggest use the flash-diffuser or some kind of diffuser panel, when next time. --Fukutaro 22:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure to understand what you mean by flat lighting. Shallower DOF could have given 3D effect but that was not my aim --B.navez 16:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You know, 3D effect is given from shallow DOF and "light and shade" (and etc...). The both light part and shade part at this flowers that closely resemble lightness. So I seem to about "2D flowers". If it would have been little more good contrast of flower, it would be beautiful image. _Fukutaro 09:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I still think they are good enough (just) for QI. Lycaon 10:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I still think they are good enough (just) for QI. --Beyond silence 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lighting and focus could be better, noisy. --Ianare 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> draw -- carol 10:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination--B.navez 14:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)