Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 2011

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

File:Volvo N86 in snow.jpg[edit]

Volvo N86 in snow.jpg

  • Nomination Volvo N86 truck.--V-wolf 14:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --Pudelek 19:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, for me the snow is overexposed --Croucrou 18:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version up. Still too bright? --V-wolf 21:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment sorry but your correction is worth than the original. You just turn the white in grey. I try to finds some details in the white but it's difficult without the raw fill. I upload à third version who still not perfect --Croucrou 12:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have no software to deal with the RAW format, so I shoot in jpg.--V-wolf (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On the Exif of your pictures I can see that you use Photoshop cs2 under windows to edit your pictures. this is a good software for editing Raw. Shoot in Jpeg can be a choice but you must be careful with the highlight. In this picture, for me, there is to much burned zones and this is a pity because the rest of the picture is interesting --Croucrou 15:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think my camera is too new for the program, CS2 can't read the files. I will try to save some money to get a better version. Anyhow, thanks for the critique! --V-wolf 15:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
            • en:GIMP is free, and deal with RAW-format.--Ankara 10:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --V-wolf 17:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-02-25-puits-ste-marie-1.jpg[edit]

2011-02-25-puits-ste-marie-1.jpg

  • Nomination An old mine, near Ronchamp, France. --ComputerHotline 20:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit dull weather but technically fine. Qiqritiq 13:25, 26 February 2011
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, hadn't noticed the pixelation. Qiqritiq 07:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this is a beautifull picture but the sky is too pixelated --Croucrou 17:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong pixelization of the sky, indeed.--Jebulon 13:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --ELEKHHT 07:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Lilla_Nyckelviken_februari_2011b.jpg[edit]

Lilla Nyckelviken februari 2011b.jpg

  • Nomination Lilla Nyckelviken. --Ankara 13:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very noisy, overexposured parts (the chimney), bad crop at right, framing too tight IMO.--Jebulon 15:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I dont agree. Its not very noisy, chimmey (a very small part of the image) reflects the sun, have to have a tight framing (trees, the house is located a few meters from the water). The choice of lens (normal 50 mm) gives a detailed picture of the house, and have minimal distortion.--Ankara 11:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 07:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Rattikelkkailua Yyterissä.jpg[edit]

Rattikelkkailua Yyterissä.jpg

  • Nomination Snowracer in Yyteri. --kallerna 13:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rakastan Suomi (i love Finland) --Ralf Roletschek 14:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I need other opinions about colors, levels, sharpness, noise, and other small issues I find disturbing, please let me put this picture in Consensual Review (but nothing personal against Finland...)--Jebulon 17:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral IMO, the colors are great, it is what makes the picture appealing to me. On the other side, sharpness is an issue that I can't get over. Also, there is weird noise on the black part of the snowracer and on the person. Overall, hard to decide. Letartean (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice atmosphere, but per Jebulon --Carschten 11:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose white balance imo off, sharpness problems --Mbdortmund 11:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 11:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

File:LIF-VIK block.jpg[edit]

LIF-VIK block.jpg

  • Nomination Ice hockey situation in a game in the Swedish second league.--V-wolf 10:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very noisy and unfortunately cropped at the right-hand side. --Qiqritiq 10:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support acceptable noise for me, QI --Ralf Roletschek 16:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Indeed noisy and problematic composition (subject missing; left crop). --Elekhh 11:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Switch to Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral due to some improvement of composition. --Elekhh 00:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support STOP. Noisy, it's normal for this type of photography. An ice rink is a dark place. The subjects are highly mobile. An action photo - without noisy - in a rink is impossible. Ludo29 00:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC) 
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Would it look better if I crop away the player to the right (Fredrik Johansson)? --V-wolf 07:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I think so. (No offense meant to Mr Johansson.) --Avenue 22:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Me too. --Jebulon 00:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed I also had some extra space to the left in the original file, so I used some of that.--V-wolf 17:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now --Jebulon 00:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Me too. --Avenue 03:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 07:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Bürstegg Winter.jpg[edit]

Bürstegg Winter.jpg

  • Nomination Bürstegg by Alex.vonbun nom --Böhringer 20:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Vertical perspective distortion?--Lmbuga 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Nice, very sharp and well composed to my eyes, but why is the snow so grey ? --Jebulon 00:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Please white balance this. --IdLoveOne 06:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Grey snow stays grey :-(. Qiqritiq 18:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    Was fixed --Qiqritiq 07:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me QI --Ralf Roletschek 16:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much better. Pictogram voting question.svg Question : has the improver of the picture permission to support his own work ? Only a question, nothing personal.--Jebulon 00:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think there is a policy on this. I myself have avoided doing so in these cases just to be safe. But in any case, I personally think they should be allowed to for two reasons: 1) they don't really get credit for this, so there's no COI; 2) a dilemma occurs if someone (not the nominator) really really wants an image to get promoted. Do they vote "support" for it, or do they improve it in the hopes that it will convince a later !voter to support when he would have opposed? Allowing improve + vote eliminates this scenario, which reduces the overall quality of images because we are incentivizing people to not improve images in certain cases. -- King of Hearts 06:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, nice image, so Symbol support vote.svg Support King of Hearts 06:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --King of Hearts 06:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Haustellum_brandaris_01.jpg[edit]

Bolinus brandaris 01.jpg

  • Nomination Shell of a Purple Dye Murex, Haustellum (Bolinus) brandaris --Llez 11:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, Sharp, perhaps the light is a bit flat --Croucrou 12:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am not very convinced. the shell looks old, weathered and a bit dirty. It is also not terribly sharp and the colors are a bit off. Your compositions are often very valuable and representative for the species. This is here not the case IMO. Qiqritiq 13:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Old and dirty?? This shell is from a living caught (dreged) specimen, which I prepared and cleaned, and I cleaned it again before making the photos. This picture shows a nearly perfect shell and the best preserved specimen in Commons we have. Please look at the Category, all others are more or less damaged (lacking the spines - abraded by the waves or by lying at the beach for some time, no complete aperture and so on), no other is in the original state --Llez 15:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I find everywhere on the internet shells with colors (yellow inside e.g.) and also the operculum (the door of the shell) is missing if it was a live one. Qiqritiq 07:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Please read the comment above, I spoke of a "living caught specimen, which I prepared and cleaned". I never said, that I photographed a living specimen. You're right, a living specimen has an operculum. I preserved this when preparing the specimen, too. Especially for you I made an annotation on the description page. Please have a look at it. Second, you are right, in the web you find shells with colours: whitish, greyish, yellowish, brownish or a even with a touch of orange. Nearly every shell has a quite different colour. This shell is within the colour range. --Llez 12:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, you seem to have a lot of fans that support your vision :-). --Qiqritiq 06:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. Please see annotation --Jebulon 16:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)✓ Done Many thanks --Llez 17:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is a really perfect picture of a Murex shell Holleday 23:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Many of us do not realize, that for an image like this, it does more than half a workday. But, mostly, it is successful and it is useful. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe 15:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really good. Please see annotation. --Avenue 03:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks, correction done --Llez 16:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 03:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Old Kolomna town - Kremlin 03 Resurrection Church2.jpg[edit]

Old Kolomna town - Kremlin 03 Resurrection Church2.jpg

  • Nomination Church in Kolomna Kremlin. A.Savin 09:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support--Taxiarchos228 09:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    Sky spots
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose hard chromatic aberrations at the left, dust in sky --Carschten 22:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC
    the CA is not hart and for QI good quality, the dust in the sky I have cleaned --Taxiarchos228 09:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC))
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon 14:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe 15:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dust spot, blatant CA, unfortunate foreground. --Eusebius 18:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong CA, and lighting doesn't suit the angle this is taken from. The tree in the left foreground is nicely placed to block the people though. --Avenue 03:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry, after a second review, I see that the CA are really blatant at left (columns...), I didn't notice this at first review, not careful enough. So I must change my vote.--Jebulon 11:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support CA is for me no an exclusion criterium --Ralf Roletschek 13:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA is very easy to fix. An image cannot become QI with such CA.--PereslavlFoto 14:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 03:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Rolf Hochhuth, McKinsey is Coming, Duisburg 2005.jpg[edit]

Rolf Hochhuth, McKinsey is Coming, Duisburg 2005.jpg

  • Nomination Rolf Hochhuth after a reading of his book „McKinsey is Coming“. --BlackIceNRW 14:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice and useful, but background is distracting, needs perhaps a little photoshopping!? --Mbdortmund 16:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Removed unwanted reflections in the background (left site; used Photoshop). ✓ Done --BlackIceNRW 20:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • My problem concerns the light just behind the head. --Mbdortmund 19:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I have not enough experience and patience to perform this task. Thanks for the review. --BlackIceNRW 10:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've tried something. Please revert to the previous version if you disagree.--Jebulon 22:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It's okay for me. Thank you. Let us hear, what other users say now. --BlackIceNRW 06:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Annoyingly inconclusive. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- IdLoveOne 07:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good enough for QI imo --Carschten 11:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry there is a problem with this nomination: as I remember, Mbdortmund never opposed to this picture in "Blue frame". He gave only a comment. I don't know how this image is in Consensual review now, but I think we have only one vote ("pro" by Carschten, just above). As I worked on this file, i didn't vote --Jebulon 14:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, the light behind the head is imo disturbing too much and its not so easy to correct because of the hair; I tried to get it better in PS but it would last too long --Mbdortmund 23:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition problem. I don't think it would be reasonable to try removing it in PS. --Eusebius 18:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Mbdortmund. --Till.niermann 22:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose background and flash --Ralf Roletschek 19:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 03:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Bettina Kenter Foto 52.jpg[edit]

Bettina Kenter Foto 52.jpg

  • Nomination German actress de:Bettina Kenter --Ralf Roletschek 13:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wollte ich schon promotet haben. Ausdrucksstark. --Mbdortmund 14:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The eyes are not sharp, and that IMO is a must for a portrait. --Qiqritiq 07:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support One can see her lenses ! Good picture IMO.--Jebulon 18:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good and expressive picture. Man sieht bei einer Linse sogar eine Katsche am Rand. Schärfe daher in Ordnung --Alupus 19:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support passt alles, very good picture. -- Felix Koenig 19:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm agree with Qiqritiq, The eyes are not sharp, the focus is made on the back of the head. --Croucrou 13:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others, wrong focus. --Eusebius 18:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Eusebius 18:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Koret Söderbärke kyrka.jpg[edit]

Koret Söderbärke kyrka.jpg

  • Nomination Choir of Söderbärke Church, Sweden.--V-wolf 19:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Needs correction of perspective. --Till.niermann 22:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How to do that without ruin the frog perspective?--V-wolf 22:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Symbol support vote.svg Support As the point of view is not central, then the distortion is not so disturbing, IMO. I think it needs a discussion.--Jebulon 23:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   ---Jebulon 17:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Rheinfelden - Adelberger Kirche1.jpg[edit]

Rheinfelden - Adelberger Kirche1.jpg

  • Nomination Rheinfelden: Adelberger Church --Taxiarchos228 08:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • This is my first review here, but according to the guidelines I think advertisements are against the rules, and there's a noticeable one behind the otherwise pretty good-looking church. -- IdLoveOne 23:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No, there's nothing wrong with ads themselves. They usually aren't freely licensed, although here it is probably de minimis. It distracts attention from the church, but not too much IMO. A small perspective correction seems desirable though (right side of church not vertical). --Avenue 19:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --Ralf Roletschek 22:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Still needs persp. correction IMO. --Avenue 20:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The ads - a passing van actually - are no problem. But a perspective and tilt correction is needed indeed: especially on the right side, the vertical lines of the building aren't vertical... -- MJJR 21:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Advertisement red line to be retouched.--PereslavlFoto 14:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Advertisement is retouched now, and the whole picture is fine. What about perspective correction, that's not a real trouble. So I support.--PereslavlFoto 13:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment advertisement is removed --Taxiarchos228 09:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 11:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Petronas Twin Towers byN.jpg[edit]

Petronas Twin Towers byN.jpg

  • Nomination Petronas Twin Towers byN--Alex.vonbun 19:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The perspective distortion is a stupidity, I think
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image is of good quality under difficult conditions. But the distortion is too important gateway between two towers can not be curved. We could discuss. --Archaeodontosaurus 09:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't find the distortion too visually terrible, though the crop on the bottom corners is a bit tight. Still I just like the image. -- IdLoveOne 19:15, 24 Febrary 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with IdLoveOne -- MJJR 22:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad crop (per IdLoveOne) --Carschten 14:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose idem --Jebulon 00:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the bottom crop at all and the image is tilted (0.3° to the left, apparently). --Eusebius 18:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support tilt to right? to left? 0.3°? --Ralf Roletschek 19:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose crop. --Elekhh 07:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Eusebius 18:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Harpa_articularis_01.JPG[edit]

Harpa articularis 01.JPG

  • Nomination Shell of an Articulate Harp, Harpa articularis --Llez 16:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn Very good picture Holleday 19:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    Looks good in thumb, but at full resolution again not sharp. The fact that an image looks spectacular (as they do, really!) is not enough, IMO to promote it indiscriminately. AFAIK, there are some stringent criteria to be met for a QI. --Qiqritiq 07:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Llez 13:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Sestertius Hadrianus Roma Victory Cornucopia.jpg[edit]

Sestertius Hadrianus Roma Victory Cornucopia.jpg

  • Nomination A sestertius of roman Emperor Hadrianus (125 C.E.). Two sides of the same coin. Brass.--Jebulon 00:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 01:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The black Background has been correct with a stamp tool in the right corner. This problem wasn't present if the original picture. --Croucrou 09:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I don't see any masking problem on the current version. The problem was on the previous version. Maybe could you purge the page cache ? Anyway, as you mention a very easily fixable issue, a message before an opposing vote should have been appreciated...--Jebulon 11:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem is on the current version
  • ✓ Done Thank you Croucrou, you were right ! --Jebulon 20:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You correct the problem on the third version and now the black is deeper, good job --Croucrou 20:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Lanteglos DSC 8617.jpg[edit]

Lanteglos DSC 8617.jpg

  • Nomination Gate to the churchyard of Lanteglos parish church, Cornwall --DKrieger 20:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise due to high ISO, small DOF, no geocode.--PereslavlFoto 21:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Noise is very minor, deep DOF isn't needed for this object and geocoding could probably be added easily enough, not that I even see a need for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdLoveOne (talk • contribs)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good picture, noise is not distracting when viewed in full size.--S nova 08:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon 17:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 21:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund 21:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 21:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Alpendohle, Pyrrhocorax graculus 4.JPG[edit]

Alpendohle, Pyrrhocorax graculus 4.JPG

  • Nomination Pyrrhocorax graculus --Böhringer 19:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Only the back of the animal is shown. -- IdLoveOne 06:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    but a good quality, right? --Böhringer 22:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Well, yeah... detracts greatly from the educational value, but if you insist then this can be discussed. Switching to Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral IdLoveOne 20:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 21:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not shure, but it would be clearly better if the bird would turn his head .... --Mbdortmund 21:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Veratrum viride 6061.JPG[edit]

Veratrum viride 6061.JPG

  • Nomination Veratrum viride (Green False Hellebore), flower --Wsiegmund 05:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DPF could e deeper, but good and useful. -- IdLoveOne 06:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, wrong focus plane. The yellow thingies (stamina?) are out of focus. Qiqritiq 07:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Yep, thanks, those. --Qiqritiq 06:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Qiqritiq --Carschten 19:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Carschten 19:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Crocodylus-krokodilskopf.jpg[edit]

Crocodylus-krokodilskopf.jpg

  • Nomination Overview of a skull of Crocodylus sp. -- Holleday 19:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI, far better than the former versions! --Llez 02:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree ! --Jebulon 09:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What kind of crocodile is it? Can't be to difficult to find out. there are not to many species AFAIK? Qiqritiq 13:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)-
    • Thank you for your comment to my picture!Sorry, an exact determination of the skull is a little bit difficult for me (a living animal should be better).The skull is old and came from a "teenager" Crocodylus and therefore I found no clear characteristics for the species. The only information about the skull is: It came pretendet from a Thailand-crocodile-farm. Therefore I think it could be Crocodylus siamensis but I´m not 100 percent sure because other "crocodile-teenager-skulls" looks similar. I wouldn´t tell false informations.Holleday 23:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • OK. Can you add this info to the description of the image? Qiqritiq (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
        • ✓ Done I added the information to the picture description. Thank you very much Holleday 08:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)