Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 2008

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

Images[edit]

Male Chaffinch[edit]

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. Eight days in the case of a tie vote, 48 hours after the last vote and the tally of unequal votes determines the outcome. I understand it is a cruel world in which very often the rules apply to some and not to others, it is just not going to be that way here. -- CarolSpears 08:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Final total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose, promoted -- carol 07:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fringilla coelebs in Thuringia Germany.jpg

  • Nomination A male Chaffinch --Regani 18:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very cute bird, but the photograph only has focus on the eye, cheek and wing. -- carol 06:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, the focus is on the most important parts. Considering this picture of a male chaffinch is a featured picture I think this one is surely a QI. --Regani 10:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
If QI is to be considered images that are good but not good enough for FP, then sure. I thought the review for QI was more about technical aspects of images and not so much a measurement with FP being the standard. I could be wrong about this though. If my opinion matters, I would have liked to have taken that photograph. -- carol 12:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I read the image guidelines before nomination, the first paragraph says essentially that FP are QI + "wow factor". So I compared with other featured pictures of such small birds and think my picture is comparable, except for the lack of "wow". --Regani 13:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not so fond of that as a descriptive word that is also a requirement. That being said, this photograph has more of that than focus. The same thing is true for this Asteraceae04.JPG. Plenty of that other thing, too much soft. -- carol 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF too shallow. BTW, QI isn't FP-junior—it places more emphasis of technical quality and less on photographic value. Though the idea of FP as "QI + 'wow factor'" generally holds true, I doubt the FP example would pass QIC. Thegreenj 04:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted -- carol 13:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF too shallow --Ianare 06:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ianare, your opinion was too late. On the other hand, it would not have changed the outcome.  So, both sorry and not. -- carol 13:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


Isaac Diaz Pardo[edit]

Isaac Diaz Pardo. Sigueiro. Oroso. Galiza.jpg

  • Nomination Isaac Díaz Pardo, Sigüeiro, Galicia--Lmbuga 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Still some grey pixels to erase on the fringe and then it will be very good.--B.navez 19:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor masking. Lycaon 12:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose same Lycaon • <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:2">Rohan T </span>6:11, 24 May 2008
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted -- carol 13:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Skyline Stralsund[edit]

Skyline Stralsund 001.jpg

  • Nomination old town of stralsund --Simonizer 12:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate framing - pointing the camera 10-20 percent higher would have made the difference. -- Klaus with K 19:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe the crop is a bit too tight to meet your WOW criteria but this is QI and wether the skyline nor the church is cropped. It is completly visible. So i would like to have second opinion --Simonizer 21:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image is almost as atmospheric as the mountain above the mist that was a featured picture the other day by the same photographer and that is nice. The digital image though feels like it needs a slight ccw rotation and there is a sloppy crop line on the upper right corner. -- carol 04:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the crop and the quality is acceptable. Lycaon 12:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I would be more than happy -- heck! -- honored even, if you allowed me to put a similar white corner on all of your images then.... -- carol 14:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I will change the corner in a few hours --Simonizer 14:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Funny Carol. I fixed it for you Simon. Lycaon 14:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You mean that you fixed 'most of that corner'? -- carol 02:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Hans --Simonizer 18:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice colors, atmosphere --Ianare 06:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What is the 'technical term' for this Quality? -- carol 01:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Like the lighting. --Lerdsuwa 15:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What is the 'technical term' for this Quality? -- carol 01:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It should take just a few seconds to complete the repair of that corner. I understand that I would not have seen the little bit that is there still if I hadn't seen the large white corner in the original -- greater photographs have been declined for less than this by others far more nitpicky than carol. -- carol 15:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Where? I dont see anything --Simonizer 18:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The supporter did not see the white corner. Then the supporter did not completely repair the corner (I knew where to look which is the reason I could see it). Then the supporter of the image closed the vote and I think counted his own vote.

Also, when I looked at the repair at 200% view, I could see that the cloned branch is too much like a spear or an arrow (wedge ending instead of straight with the image border). Today is the first time that I used magnification to see these errors, btw. I am curious if magnification was used while repairing the errors. -- carol (tomes) 01:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW. Should I upload these to my web site where the not so simple to use html can easily put a little border around the images so that the white stuff can be seen more easily? --carol 01:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Viroinval landscape[edit]

Viroinval (landscape).jpg

  • Nomination Landscape of the Viroinval, close to Nismes, Belgium -- Lycaon 21:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion *Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeA good photograph, but the composition is lost due to the tree in the middle. -- carol 20:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the tree makes the image. Lycaon 20:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Sure, a boring little tree for a boring landscape. Too bad there is no 'symmetry' in the technical quality words galleries.... -- carol 20:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree about the tree; it muddles up an otherwise relatively unobjectionable pastoral scene. My advice is to [kill it, please]. (Ideally the stuff off to the left should go also, though that's a technically more involved process, and borders on outright image creation instead of retouching. Ah, well...) RevolverOcelot 23:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Don't you see guys that this tree is our planet's future and you could be responsible for biodiversity loss because of an academic (allmost dictatorial) point of view calling for tree killing, not less ! This young tree, (Betula verrucosa), is the very substance of my contemplation. Congratulations. --B.navez 01:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I was considering a dancing slug there (to slime over the boring). -- carol 13:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A marine slug, of course ! --B.navez 13:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The subject and the composition aren't really exciting indeed, but technically speaking (sharpness, colours...) everybody should agree that this picture is O.K. -- MJJR 20:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Meets QI standards --Ianare 06:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted -- Lycaon 13:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)  02:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is lovely on the same wiki page in which I added a heading, a single word that was not a vote to the same 'editors' opinion. It is sad. I am going to put it back now. It should remain here. -- CarolSpears 02:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a self professed expert cloner who could leave some white around the edges of the repair -- carol 02:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Covered bridge in Indiana[edit]

Cox Ford Bridge, IN 1.jpg

  • Nomination Covered bridge in Indiana. --Dschwen 21:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion *Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is good, but the DoF is too shallow. Only the bridge portal area is sharp. I don't think a QI should have such a technical weakness. Ram-Man 02:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Feel free to downsample to 50% before judging. Given the resolution your assessment is a bit unfair. Tons of macroshots with low DOF are nominated and pass all the time. Here I make a choice to put the focus on the bridge, this is not a technical weakness. --Dschwen 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I was going to support this later that day. I haven't seen one of these since the early '70s and perhaps the late '60s. They used to be more common. I spent some time recently trying to figure out the reason they were covered -- I think I asked my grandma that and I can't remember the reason she gave me if I did. Does it make sense to cover a bridge? -- perhaps over-thinking carol 05:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ah, springtime! I agree with Dschwen on the DOF. In this case I think the overall effect is rather nice. Arria Belli 15:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted -- carol 02:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DOF fits to the motif --Simonizer 07:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted -- Lycaon 13:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Was the goal to make it look like a drunk driver hit the review system?

Ouagadougou fishery[edit]

Pêche rustique à Ouagadougou.jpg

  • Nomination Fishers and their fishing net in Ouagadougou --Romanceor 12:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A good composition and nice colours. --Ikiwaner 08:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Really! This is too noisy to pass QI's technical requirements. Lycaon 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Couldn't you do something about it ? Have I to reduce the size ? Romanceor 18:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It's difficult. I removed some of the noise, but more would compromise the details of the image! Sorry. Lycaon 07:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy, not qualifiable for a day light picture. --B.navez 17:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose washed out, low detail --Simonizer 07:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted -- carol 14:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ac Simonizer, Lycaon and B.navez. --Lestath 10:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with voting after the allotted time! --carol 14:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Caiman crocodilus[edit]

Caiman crocodilus (Nausicaä).jpg

  • Nomination Close up of a Spectacled Caiman at Nausicaä, Boulogne-sur-Mer, France. -- Lycaon 08:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight a crop (them teeth are rather important, eh?); lighting is unnatural at the point where the image was cut to provide the black background. (ie: try 'burning' it out in an editor program). RevolverOcelot 00:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Second opinion please. Lycaon 05:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop is too tight, and the subject is seriously underexposed. If you don't want to change exposure on the subject, a white background cut-out would have been better for more contrast with the Caiman. Thegreenj 18:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Crop was inevitable as the beast was in a very dark aquarium and the rest of the animal was spoiled by some structure inside. Lycaon 21:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Champs-Élysées[edit]

Champs-061101.jpg

  • Nomination View from Arc de Triomphe -Pp2007upload 16:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks like 40 years old, but I like it. --Mbdortmund 11:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose So does the sharpness... :-( Lycaon 11:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree about sharpness. Aperture is far too small for a compact; f/4 and a shutter speed of 1/500 likely would have been much better. Thegreenj 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted-- carol 08:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Figure in church[edit]

Łódź - Kościół pw. Zesłania Ducha Świętego - Wnętrze 04.jpg Łódź - Kościół pw. Zesłania Ducha Świętego - Wnętrze 04 edit.jpg

  • Nomination Figure in church on Piotrkowska Street in Łódź. --Lestath 08:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It`s tilted --Sfu 17:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks like there's some distortion, but it doesn't detract from this image. --Calibas 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No it`s definitly tilted. And it`s not very sharp - propably due to a long exposure in a dark church. --Sfu 06:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It's not tilted, it's perspective distorted: the photographer was not standing exactly in front of the statue but slightly to the left. --Stefan Vladuck 09:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • You are right, but despite the reason it`s still the problem. While trying to correct distortion, a fragment of a bottom ornament have to be cut off, what still looks bad. --Sfu 13:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have uploaded a perspective corrected version, with a delicate enhancement of the shadow sharpness on the statue. --Stefan Vladuck 10:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Result original: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  promoted -- carol 02:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Result edited version: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> unassessed -- carol 02:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhr-Uni-Bochum-0105a[edit]

Ruhr-Uni-Bochum-0105a.jpg

  • Nomination: Germany, Bochum, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, RUB, chinese garden --Mbdortmund 22:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically acceptable. Lycaon 09:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not agree with that, the main idea of the photo is not clear, shadows of the tree on the central object makes it more confused to understand. --Manco Capac 07:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportThe main idea of the photo to depict chinese garden is well executed. --Nevit 11:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice motif but otherwise not much. Especially the circle of the center, it should be symmetry composition, I guess. And then, it would be more better. _Fukutaro 16:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • the building is not symmetric --Mbdortmund 01:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I meant composition, not building. In other words the circle should be on center. _Fukutaro 05:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • «symmetry ist beauty for the poor» ;-} --Mbdortmund 14:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> draw -- carol 08:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't know what a Chinese garden looks like but this is a good photograph. -- carol 08:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, this opinion was too late to count. -- carol 08:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 I think we should count this vote to get a decision: 3 support, 2 oppose -> supported --Berthold Werner 13:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Eight days is a long while to wait for opinions. I was sorry that I made my mind up and got to it too late, but to make it nine days or more is too me, just too much. It can be sent through again and at least one of the regulars sent an already promoted image around again (and I don't think there is anything that says that this cannot happen). -- carol 05:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Inner court at Port Ghalib[edit]

Marsa Alam R22.jpg

  • Nomination Inner court at Port Ghalib (Red Sea, Egypt) -- MJJR 20:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportQ. OK for me. --Nevit 05:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Completely blown sky - Peripitus 10:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See above --Berthold Werner 11:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sky Bryan 15:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted -- carol 02:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Closed-brain coral[edit]

Closed Brain Coral copy.jpg

  • Nomination a closed-brain coral RevolverOcelot 19:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs exact species identification (should be not too difficult as it was shot in an aquarium). DOF is also a bit shallow. Lycaon 20:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Technical name added. DoF still a deal-breaker all by itself? RevolverOcelot 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Send this image through again after some time has passed, I lost track of time.... -- CarolSpears 04:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> not promoted -- carol 04:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Penguin at Loro Parque[edit]

Penguins Loro Parque 01.JPG

  • Nomination Spheniscidae penguins at Loro Parque Penguinarium, Tenerife. Note: Reposting October 2007 with better id per last reviewers comment. --Piotrus 12:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not identified. Lycaon 07:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • How so? It is categorized and identified as "spheniscidae".--Piotrus 13:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This animal belongs clearly to the Spheniscus genus. The picture doesn't allow to identify the species because the plumage of this individual is uncommon and the photographic quality is very low (unsharp, not focused, green color, reflections in the glass) but the only species owned by the Loro Parque is Spheniscus humboldti (the Humboldt Penguin) as you can see here. --B.navez 17:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted -- carol 04:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yellow Daffodil Narcissus[edit]

Yellow Daffodil Narcissus Closeup 3008px.JPG

  • Nomination Daffodil closeup. -- Ram-Man 00:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF and sharpness unfortunately insufficient. Lycaon 13:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose How is focus like that achieved? it is focused on the edges of the image which are the closest and farthest from the camera and it is soft in the middle which is in the middle plane as well? (I would like this to not be promoted and still be discussed, is that possible? -- carol 07:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I think I figured it out, the flower is on an angle so the end of the stamen and pistils and stuff is on the same plane as the edge of the outer petals -- but the crop makes this information unobvious. It is an interesting declined photograph to me. -- carol 07:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted -- carol 04:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Cicer arietinum[edit]

Ab food 16.jpg

  • Nomination Cicer arietinum --Butko 07:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Depth of field could be better. --Loadmaster 14:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's good enough for QI. I like this series of photos of food; keep up the good work, Butko. Arria Belli 20:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted -- carol 04:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Bubble coral[edit]

BubbleCoral.jpg

  • Nomination Plerogyra sinuosa (Bubble Coral). RevolverOcelot 22:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No flaws other than those inherent to all underwater photography. Adam Cuerden 10:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much flaws inherent at aquarium photography + unnatural light. Lycaon 06:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That 'unnatrual' lighting is called actinic, amigo. This wasn't photographed off the coast of Maui, nor did I claim it was. (your objections, however, are hardly surprising...) RevolverOcelot 18:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The lighting shows off the coral's contours and gives it a nice glow, and given the difficulties that go with aquarium photography I think it's an excellent shot. Arria Belli 19:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it's a beautiful picture, and the "unnatural light" is what makes it so pretty. Mattbuck 19:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Lycaon --B.navez 02:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> promoted -- carol 04:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Cynomorium coccineum[edit]

Cynomorium coccineum 2.jpg

  • Nomination Rare holoparasite on Chenopodiaceae, close to Torregrande, Sardinia, Italy. -- Lycaon 09:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see any problem there --LC-de 18:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't agree : overexposed background. --B.navez 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yep, overexposed --Dilaudid 19:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment tried a slight fix. Lycaon 20:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support BG os not overexposed, and what matters in a pic like this is the exposure of the main subject. --Dschwen 21:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It does look overexposed to me, but I agree with Dschwen. Great DOF, main subject "framed" perfectly Fvasconcellos 17:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The subject is OK and is worth attention but this is not one of the finest pictures of Lycaon (exposure, weak composition -the same we can we find easily googling on the web-) and for not a perfect picture I would have preferred the other one which shows that the flowers of these parasitic plants appear in groups and which shows the parasited plant too, probably Halimione portulacoides --B.navez 03:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Cynomorium coccineum (habitat).jpg
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Main subject is properly exposed and well photographed - Peripitus 12:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> promoted -- carol  04:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Savur3-pano cr[edit]

Savur3-pano cr.jpg

  • Nomination: Savur village, Mardin. --Nevit Dilmen 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Good stitching work, but I think it should be downsampled a bit to increase sharpness and reduce noise. --Chmehl 15:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Downsampling never actually improves an image. It may look better at 100% magnification, but for all other purposes you gain nothing and most likely loose information. --Stefan Vladuck 16:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, this is true for most images. But in this special case the image looks rather noisy and unsharp at 100% magnification. A noise reduction at full resolution and subsequent downsampling and sharpening would make the image look better. I think in this case you will not loose any information by downsampling by about a factor of two. If you don't belief me try to downsample the image and then upsample it again and compare it to the original. There shouldn't be a noticeable difference. --Chmehl 07:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely disagree! The Wikimedia Switzerland large print exhibition has proven that original size images are always to be preferred over resampled images. --Dschwen 12:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Indeed, It's very very large now. But considering what is in the future (base on QI and FP guideline), more is better. The other side, it needs to be added location and discription. And was it taken with lower aperture? sharpness is not as good as resolution. _Fukutaro 05:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Uploaded a new version. --Nevit 12:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's generally a good composition and I would love to support it. However there seems to be something wrong with the vertical lines. The buildings on the left and the right are heavily tilted. I'm shure this is correctable. --Ikiwaner 08:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Uploaded a new version. --Nevit 10:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This version of May 12 is even worse. You changed to a rectilinear projection which causes huge distortion. However I saw that there are older versions. I would actually support the first version but none of the edits. --Ikiwaner 22:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Reverted to first version. It is actually impossible to have an all-parallel lines projection on a curvy plane like this hill. All is a matter of viewer taste. --Nevit 07:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this version for the reasons mentioned above. The cylindrical perspective is a good standard for wide panoramics with buildings on it. --Ikiwaner 18:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Sorry, but I cannot come to a decision. On one side it is rather unsharp at 100% magnification. On the other side it has very high resolution so I can't really oppose because of lack of sharpness... Chmehl 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeOverall sharpness is not QI. Lycaon 07:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> Draw -- Lycaon 04:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Glörtalsperre[edit]

Glörtalsperre-IMG 2066.JPG

  • Nomination: Glörtalsperre --Mbdortmund 20:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilted 0.8° ccw. --Ikiwaner 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please have a look at the rotated version --Mbdortmund 20:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks. However I still have the impression something is wrong with the perspective. I have the impression it's leaning to the left although it should be correct from a physical point of view. An illusion? --Ikiwaner 21:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The perspective should be OK now, I adjusted it in relation to the water and the small building at the end of the sea. I took pictures of the same obejct directly from the front, but then the strucuture stays unclear. --Mbdortmund 00:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You used nikon editing software on a canon photograph? WTH? -- carol 23:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm a bit disappointed of the canon tools and sometimes don't like to start photoshop. *g* --Mbdortmund 10:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral This looks oversharpened to me, as if the "sharpen" feature was used. This would much rather have a smart sharpen or even an unsharp mask I think. Ram-Man 03:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> a draw -- carol 04:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Old Courthouse[edit]

STL Old courthouse.jpg

  • Nomination Old Courthouse, seen from the Arch, St. Louis, USA. --Dschwen 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice angle. --Nevit 20:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it's very nice, but looks very washed out, and I wouldn't promote it like this. Could the shadows be darkened to look more real? --Dilaudid 5:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is not washed out and there is no need to darken shadows. Maybe they can be darkened a tiny, tiny bit, so tiny, that no one would even notice, so no need to even bother with that. Barabas 18:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose Promoted --Berthold Werner 14:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Murnauer Moos Marsh[edit]

Murnauer Moos Marsh 4.jpg

  • Nomination The Murnauer Moos forms with 32 km² the biggest connected marsh of Central Europe --Richard Bartz 13:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Murky grayish, and the leaves on top are a disturbance. --Dilaudid 08:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one is the most typical and upper Betula pubescens leaves do not disturb because they make a light frame with the right part. --B.navez 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice view --Mbdortmund 02:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose Promoted --Berthold Werner 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Formica Leo[edit]

FormicaLeo.jpg

  • Nomination Formica Leo (will these human ants be trapped by the giant antlion ?) --B.navez 14:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great angle of view. Unfortunately I am verry sorry for the lost human ants!--Manco Capac 09:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, sharpness does not seem sufficient for me. More opinions? Lycaon 09:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've slightly corrected the picture --B.navez 10:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support At this resolution I'm not gonna fault the sharpness. --Calibas 03:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Support--Nevit 08:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent IMHO. Striking image, encyclopedic value to boot :) Fvasconcellos 17:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted -- carol 20:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Red Sea beach[edit]

Marsa Alam R05.jpg

  • Nomination Red Sea beach near Port Ghalib (Marsa Alam, Egypt) -- MJJR 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A bit better than the other one. But still an empty picture. --Ikiwaner 22:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ?? Are you blind? There are 100s of dead Civil War Generals and several of them have (if you please) "for lease signs" stuck on them. -- carol 22:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nothing wrong with this picture, unless that it is a little too dark, but the content is perfectly fine. Ram-Man 03:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough! --Manco Capac 07:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good -Pudelek 18:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> promoted -- carol 20:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Sea lions in a zoo[edit]

Seals-SeaWorld-SanAntonio-5292.jpg

  • Nomination Sea lions at San Antonio Sea World. --Loadmaster 21:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThis one is sharp too. But why a zoo picture of sea lions? Those are easy to catch in wild. It's not that a natural zoo. --Ikiwaner 20:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is there a technical reason not to consider this a QI? --Loadmaster 18:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Adequate resolution & sharpness. No misleading claims. --Nevit 20:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If one were extremely picky, you could worry about slight overexposure, but this is about the seals, and those are technically fine. Ram-Man 03:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted -- carol 20:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Train[edit]

GM43 train.JPG

  • Nomination G Series diesel train - Peripitus 11:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't like the reflections on the train, but composition is good and general quality is certainly acceptable for QI -- MJJR 20:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavy overexposure. That's why the colours of the sky and the nose of the train are washed out. --Ikiwaner 10:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSymbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for reasons of exposure. The direct sunlight does not do good things for this picture. Ram-Man 02:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The change in contrast really helps, but I'm not convinced that it's enough to save this picture from the lighting inherent in the photo. Ram-Man 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I see Derek and Ikiwaner's point here. I've played with the levels ... any opinions on the outcome ? - Peripitus 08:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The contrast of the new image is much better. --Loadmaster 03:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose contrast is ok, but the colour changes across the front of the train due to the overexposure. --Stefan Vladuck 09:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund 01:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> Promotion --Berthold Werner 14:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Saarburg Wasserfall[edit]

Saarburg Wasserfall.jpg

  • Nomination Saarburg, Germany --Berthold Werner 08:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for QI. --Sfu 17:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, don't agree: it is not sharp at all. Lycaon 21:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in my opinion sharping is enough --Pudelek 14:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - not bad, but it lacks detail (maybe due to overzealous noise reduction), purple fringing is quite prominent on the building at the top right, and lighting is problematic. --Stefan Vladuck 16:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not perfect, but good enough for QI --Mbdortmund 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1.5 oppose Promotion --Berthold Werner 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Venus in mirrors[edit]

Venus in Mirrors.jpg

  • Nomination Venus (Aphrodite), the Roman goddess of love.--Nevit 07:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe model is too jagged, no feel of material, light is awkward and the background is too much. --Dilaudid 14:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this deserves at least a discussion... MJJR 20:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree with Dilaudid. The model is very jagged - not a good render - Peripitus 10:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose Decline --Berthold Werner 14:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Buddha statue Patan[edit]

Buddha statue Patan.jpg

  • Nomination A statue of Buddha in Patan, Nepal. –Dilaudid 19:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn

It looks more like a Shiva icone : could you check and if so rename before ? --B.navez 17:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You're right, I'll withdraw this for now and double-check. --Dilaudid 19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Leucorrhinia rubicunda[edit]

XN Leucorrhinia rubicunda 737.jpg

  • Nomination Leucorrhinia rubicunda, male --XN 10:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sufficient sharpness and resolution--Nevit 10:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strongly disagree. Heavy artifacts eveywhere! -- Alvesgaspar 11:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good subject well framed but strong noise and artifacts. - Peripitus 12:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per above. --Dilaudid 12:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above, sorry. The "unbalanced" crop also bothers me a bit. Fvasconcellos 17:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose -> more vote? -- carol 20:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Tree (beech) in Riesengebirge[edit]

Tree in Riesengebirge.JPG

  • Nomination Tree in Riesengebirge (Karkonosze) -- Pudelek 13:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of sharpness on the main subject. --B.navez 17:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In my opinion tree is enough sharp -Pudelek 07:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> not promoted -- carol 20:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

El Médano[edit]

El Médano BW 4.JPG El Médano BW 4 edit.jpg

  • Nomination Beach of El Medano, Teneriffe, Spain (I used a polarizer to get the sky a little more blue) --Berthold Werner 14:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeTilted horizon --Base64 15:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image isn't tilted, the landscape in the background is lower on the right site, for comparison please take a close look at the hotel on the right --Berthold Werner 15:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is tilted bigtime. The verticals on the right are meaningless, as they are affected by perspective distortion. The horizon on the left is clearly slanted. If the landscape on the right were that much lower, the ocean would spill over and flood the island ;-) --Dschwen 16:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please look again here [3] at the horizontal lines. I know, the landscape looks like tilted clockwise. --Berthold Werner 17:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think Dschwen is right here. The façade of the building is not parallel to the image plane and thus perspective distorted, so you can't use it as a reference. The horizon visible on the left is clearly tilted. --Stefan Vladuck 20:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you, that is my error. The building is near at 90° to the wooden way on the right site, but the camera was turned to the left. (auf deutsch könnte man sagen: ich war auf dem Holzweg). --Berthold Werner 08:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have uploaded a perspective corrected version (pitch ~3°, roll ~1°). Now the horizon is horizontal and the verticals are vertical... --Stefan Vladuck 20:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Polarizer on a wide angle lens is not a very good idea... the sky is very dark on the right and much lighter on the left. --Stefan Vladuck 20:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for your comments and help. --Berthold Werner 08:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Cheetahs at Zoo-Cologne.[edit]

Gepard2.jpg

  • Nomination Cheetahs at Zoo-Cologne. --Stulli 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A rare case of a good zoo picture. It looks like in nature. --Ikiwaner 21:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very little stuff focussed, unfortunate light (and wrong grass species for in nature ;)). Lycaon 10:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • the wrong grass comment was kind of meant as a joke of course, but the other problems still stand. Lycaon 14:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In my opinion this picture meets QI requirements. Agree with Ikiwaner. --Tobi 87 16:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I hate to be a spoiler, but I agree with Lycaon. The sharpness is lacking, not to mention there are blades of grass in the way that hurts the composition some. Ram-Man 03:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness --Nevit 08:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted -- carol 20:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


WoodDeck-9912[edit]

WoodDeck-9912.jpg

  • Nomination Wooden deck close-up. --Loadmaster 22:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In the end, this is a bit boring of an image, but that's not the point - it's useful for building encyclopaedias, and the technical quality is good. Adam Cuerden 01:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks, and yes, I was going for the raw texture rather than the excitement of the subject (I also added it to Category:Textures). --Loadmaster 01:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • However the picture would be better if the screw would be placed according to the rule of thirds or in the golden ratio --Ikiwaner 17:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much artefacts to see the real structure of the wood. Lycaon 05:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - For such a common subject the picture should be perfect. I recommend a tighter crop on the screw -- Alvesgaspar 14:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per others. --Nevit 10:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not to pile on, but I would suggest a bit stronger lighting so that the shutter speed could be increased. Some of the "artifacts" mentioned may be from slight blur or maybe higher ISO @ 320? This should be easy enough to reproduce in higher quality. -- Ram-Man 03:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, it was shot hand-held in the shade with default camera settings. I should be able to do better next time around. --Loadmaster 03:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), not promoted -- carol 20:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Menton Val Rameh[edit]

Menton Val Rameh BW 0.JPG

  • Nomination Val Rameh, Menton, France --Berthold Werner 11:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow effect due to intense colours. --Ikiwaner 16:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wow alone is not making a QI: the image severely lacks in details and sports quite a few artefacts. Lycaon 05:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me - nice colours and composition --Pudelek 14:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of detail. --Dilaudid 17:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of detail. --Beyond silence 15:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> Decline --Berthold Werner 13:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cloitre grand moutier[edit]

Cloitre grand moutier.jpg

  • Nomination Grand moutier cloister in Fontevraud abbey --Berrucomons 21:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This image is uploaded at much too high resolution for its sharpness. However when wiewed ad reduced size it is sharp and well composed. --Ikiwaner 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's noisy and the curved perspective is not appropriate here. Lycaon 05:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for your comments. I will soon upload a smaller image, this will probably remove the noise and sharpness problems. Why is curved perspective is not appropriate here and appropriate there?--Berru 20:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I may overlook the perspective but the quality is not (yet) there. Also have look at the dark lines around the left clouds... Lycaon 22:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose shadowy --Beyond silence 15:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted -- carol 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Daffodils fields on Golica slopes[edit]

Narcise-Golica1.jpg

  • Nomination Daffodils at Golica near Jesenice, Slovenia (by Sl-Ziga) --Yerpo 10:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --Mihael Simonic 16:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very pretty indeed, but would need id of the daffodils as they are the main topic. Lycaon 17:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Don't see what else than Narcissus poeticus it could be.--B.navez 19:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Id done : these are Narcissus poeticus. --B.navez 14:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Real perspective flaw : trees in the background do not grow vertically (spruce on the left lean to the right and larches on the right lean to the left. Needs some correction (I am not skilled enough to make it properly, if someone could do it, the picture's worth it--B.navez 14:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Lycaon 14:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks.--B.navez 16:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Callistemon pachyphyllus[edit]

Ruhr-Uni-Bochum-0055.JPG

  • Nomination Callistemon pachyphyllus CHEEL, O-Australien: Neusüdwales, Queensland --Mbdortmund 20:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Background is a little distracting, but, hey, that's reality for you. Otherwise excellent. Adam Cuerden 10 May 2008
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality: unfortunate lighting, noisy background. Lycaon 11:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Lycaon about lighting. --Stefan Vladuck 09:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Cestrum tomentosum[edit]

Ruhr-Uni-Bochum-0024.JPG

  • Nomination Cestrum tomentosum, Hammerstrauch, Südamerika, Solanaceae --Mbdortmund 20:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unambiguously excellent, one of the best plant shots I've seen. Go for FP with this one. Adam Cuerden 10 May 2008
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate light (backlit) and oversharpening haloes on the berries. Lycaon 11:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Lycaon about lighting. (Backlighting is not not wrong per se, but here it doesn't work, the background is overexposed.) --Stefan Vladuck 09:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps we have to send a message to the plant, that it should grow in the ohter direction ;-( --Mbdortmund 00:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Marsa_Alam_R01[edit]

Marsa Alam R01.jpg

  • Nomination: Red Sea coast near Port Ghalib (Egypt) -- MJJR 20:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • The water and reflection seem noisy but the image is interesting, well composed, etc. -- carol 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support enough --Beyond silence 15:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  unassessed -- Lycaon 07:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Schloss Nymphenburg[edit]

Schloss Nymphenburg Munich.jpg

  • Nomination Schloss Nymphenburg Munich --Richard Bartz 16:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support gekauft --Mbdortmund 19:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think we should promote the colour corrected version (see FP) rather than this one. --Stefan Vladuck 22:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the name. -- carol 08:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the photographer's haircut. (No, I haven't seen it, I just know.) --Stefan Vladuck 13:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I also don't like that the German run flora database doesn't recognize the word "Brassica" -- yet, I am unable to decline the image of one of these mustard that appeared today.... I think the photographer doesn't know about haircuts and probably shouldn't bother. -- carol 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Molino El Romeral[edit]

Molino El Romeral.JPG

  • Nomination molino El Romeral Toledo by Galarcos --Mbdortmund 10:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well exposed image of a subject that is difficult to expose well --Thermos 14:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs proper categorization first (proper description and geocoding woul also be helpful). Lycaon 16:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are many things about this image that are nice; I personally did not like the crop -- but the little bit of the blades might not be so important. Then, at full size the distortion of the windmill and things on the left seemed too much. -- carol 23:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Any proper description (and location) are also problem though, it's a slight hard understand, and but there is serious perspective distortion. It's pity because a fine viewing. _Fukutaro 08:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I-24 bridge across the Ohio river[edit]

I24 bridge.jpg

  • Nomination I-24 bridge across the Ohio river. --Dschwen 14:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness and detail is substandard and I don't like panoramics that are so wide I have to scroll a lot. --Ikiwaner 17:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • What?!!? Sharpness is substandard? It certainly isn't! And a personal dislike of wideness is a pretty weak reason for a decline, especially when it fits the subject. --Dschwen 19:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sharpness seems actually fine. The image is a bit hazy however. If you want, you could try to enhance it using the curves tool. My suggestion: Shift the left control point to the right (not up) to where the histogram actually begins, add a control point at maybe 1/5 from the left and pull it a bit down, then add another control point at maybe 1/4 from the right and pull it up until the overall brightness looks fine. With this little trick you can get rid quite well of the haze... --Stefan Vladuck 20:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To make my argument about wideness clearer: If you look at the image at a size like the thumbnail above this text you hardly see the subject because it's so wide and it disappears in the horizon. If you make the image so wide that the bridge has an acceptable hight you won't see much detail. I think for such a wide bridge a frontal view is not a good composition. --Ikiwaner 21:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps there needs to be a discussion somewhere about how panoramas are too wide and the need to put ratio restrictions upon them. Where would such a discussion be held? Dschwen, you are a longtimer here -- where would a redefinition of panorama discussion be best held? -- carol 19:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well I fundamentally disagree about the need of such a discussion. The panoramic format should be appropriate for the subject. In this case I wanted to illustrate a long bridge over a wide river. A change of perspective would compromise the intention of the picture. I also disagree about the haze removal, and while I always welcome editing tips, I'd also like the pictures to stay as true to reality. If I'm the only one here who thinks the picture meets the technical criteria, then well, so be it. --Dschwen 21:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If anyone wants to find stitching errors and circle them for me I might change my vote. In the midwest, haze is what is there, it gets blamed on the humidity. The same atmospheric phenomena in California is called 'smog' and they blame it on mostly automobiles and lawnmowers (I think). -- carol 22:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, you could still shoot the image after a thunderstorm or something when the air is clearer. It would make the bridge stand out better, which I believe is the subject of this image. That said, I was and am not opposing it. --Stefan Vladuck 12:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Far more interesting, perhaps, would be to track the mood of the German photgrapher who is suffering the cruel and unusual punishment of being stuck in the midwest (which is hardly 'mid' and definately not 'west'). If I have been following it correctly, January was the month to be mean to the new QIBot with clone marks on images and stuff. Then February and March (March is the worst there, btw) drab and dreary small town photographs, barely with color and definately no life. Now it is May! Towns and cities are still drab, lifeless and almost unbearable but there are signs of life in the woods -- budding trees, weird lilies, etc. I think that this image is the photographer, a long bridge on a yet another dreary day in the godforsaken midwest. It took me approximately 35 years to learn to enjoy things there -- Dschwen has (I think) 33 years to go.... -- carol 08:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The objection to panoramas seems personal and not among the QI criteria. The height of 1,540 exceeds the 800 pixel minimum. --Wsiegmund 14:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - nicely done panorama. Bridge, viewpoint and river work together well. Peripitus 11:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted to QI --LC-de 14:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

White Deadnettle[edit]

Lamium album LC0137.jpg

  • Nomination White Deadnettle (Lamium album) --LC-de 09:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Reveals the true beauty of an ordinary plant. --B.navez 19:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Slightly overexposed, and should be converted to sRGB for web use. --Stefan Vladuck 07:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You're right. I will rework the pic if a have the time to do so... --LC-de 05:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  withdrawn -- Lycaon 07:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan[edit]

Thespis2.png

  • Nomination Illustration of a scene from Gilbert and Sullivan's Thespis --Adam Cuerden 12:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposea gag? --Mbdortmund 20:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ...Yeah, because artwork that I spent several days making is obviously a gag. Thanks. Adam Cuerden 23:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support..an interesting way to present material which doesnt normally get illistrated, suggest candidate for m:Philip Greenspun illustration project? Gnangarra 01:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Where is the quality? ... PNG is unsuitable for this image. --Euku 12:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • How is PNG unsuitable? Also, the original is ~ 8" by 12", so full view is about 4x magnification of a coloured pencil and watercolour drawing, and will not look very good. Adam Cuerden 14:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose without sufficient quality --Rohan 11:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for me and all the lego snobs, I can't stand these dioramas unless they are made with legos! -- carol 08:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose ->  not promoted to QI --LC-de 14:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Child portrait[edit]

Child-9685.jpg

  • Nomination Child. --Loadmaster 21:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ISn't there a problem with personal rights? --Mbdortmund 22:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How is this different from PortraitGirl2005-1a.jpg (FP) or PortraitGirl2005-1.jpg (QI)? --Loadmaster 00:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs clear permission from parents (which is definitely the case in two mentioned images). Lycaon 18:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment First: Where is the clear permission from the parents in the mentioned images? I can't find them. Second: Why is the lack of a permission of the parents a reason to oppose a QI? Either it's a Free image or not. --Ikiwaner 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Without permission it is not, IMHO. --Mbdortmund 12:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not that clear worldwide. While in Germany there ist a law for personality rights in most other countries there is none. I doubt that there is a worldwide consensus on personality rights. Most of the FP with minors here on commons don't have a contract with the parents. --Ikiwaner 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • So assuming that I get the appropriate permissions (is there a template for this?), is the photo still worthy of QI consideration? --Loadmaster 14:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid that even with permission it would be a no. Look at all that chroma noise in the darker parts. Lycaon 13:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I can agree with this. The child is not looking in the camera and you can see reclections of people standing on steps in the child's eyes. --Ikiwaner 20:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  not promoted to QI --LC-de 14:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Herne-Europaplatz[edit]

Herne-Europaplatz-IMG 2288 Kopie.jpg Kirchturm Herne perspectives.jpg Herne-IMG 2312.JPG

  • Nomination: Germany, Herne, Europaplatz, church tower --Mbdortmund 21:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • How did you do the perspective correction? For a correct rectilinear projection, the clock should appear round (I'm assuming that it is actually round). (I'm never quite sure if it is even a good idea to correct for perspective distortion at such extreme angles; maybe the uncorrected image would give a more natural "upward looking" impression? --Stefan Vladuck 06:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You are right, but if I wouldn't had corrected the perspective, someone else would have written: "Image is tilt, needs correction" *g* --Mbdortmund 10:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, there are at least four Featured pictures with an "uncorrected" upward perspective... would you care to upload also the uncorrected version for comparison? --Stefan Vladuck 11:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • you can see the raw version here; perspective correction should not stay against QI-rules --Mbdortmund 22:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • One does have leaning lines if shooting non-horizontal. If one does a perspective correction, then I would advocate using a program (like w:Hugin) that uses a proper geometrical model. -- Klaus with K 11:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I have uploaded an image with four different perspective corrections made with Hugin:
    • Top left: Just rotated by about 2.5 degrees to have the vertical through the center actually vertical in the image. Natural "upward looking" perspective.
    • Top right: Corrected for yaw and roll using only horizontal control points. Probably rather pointless.
    • Bottom left: Corrected for pitch and roll using only vertical control points. Gives nice results in some cases, in this case maybe rather awkward.
    • Bottom right: Full correction. Camera was pointing upwards at about 43 degrees. Interesting from an architectural point of view, as the actual proportions of the facade facing the camera are accurately reproduced.
  • (Let me know if you want any of the above in full resolution.) --Stefan Vladuck 14:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Stefan, thx for your work, perhaps you can have a look on the different images of the church on Herne, Europaplatz, I'm not shure about the correct construction, but for me my version gives an impression of what I believed to see. Concerning your examples, I have the impression that the upper ones lean to the left/right and the lower ones are a bit to small. What do you think? --Mbdortmund 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Depends on what you mean by "correct construction". The last image (bottom right) is "correct" in the sense that the relative dimensions of the visible side of the tower match the real-world dimensions (clock is round rather than shaped like a rugby ball), i.e. you could use it as a blueprint to build a scaled model of the tower, so it's arguably the most "correct" representation. You would get the same result by taking the photograph with a perspective correction lens.
      I won't argue the fact that your version may give you the impression of what you actually saw. To me however it feels unnatural to correct the convergence of the vertical lines but not the foreshortening. If the aim is to reproduce the visual impression as seen from the camera location, I would prefer to keep the convergence of the lines, as in the first (top left) image. The fact that it appears to be "leaning" to the left is due to the camera position being a bit to the right of the center of the tower, so the horizontal lines converge to a vanishing point at the left (below the lower edge of the image). You could try rotating it a bit more to compensate for this effect. --Stefan Vladuck 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that top left, bottom right, and with some reserve bottom left, are viable views. Top left is the camera axis pointing to the middle of the motiv. The bottom views you could crop from an image taken with a real wide angle lense. Bottom left is pointing the camera axis towards the image except keeping it horizontal. Bottom right is having the camera axis perpendicular to the facade, with the tower part located in the top left corner. -- Klaus with K 11:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe this is all perfectly calculated, but the lower images look as if the massive church has been on diat with the weightwatchers. I accept the position of Stephan, that it's no idea good idea to correct for perspective distortion, but I don't share it. --Mbdortmund 12:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have posted a proposal for a guideline to require that information about the perspective correction method be added to the image description, so that people know what they are looking at. Those who are interested in architecture photography, please comment. --Stefan Vladuck 16:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I loaded another uncorrected version. I don't no what is wrong with your calculation , but the pictures you produced do not show the impression of the massive tower, IMHO. --Mbdortmund 10:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • There is nothing "wrong" with it, it simply reflects the actual geometry of the tower. And you don't need any calculations in this case, you simply adjust the aspect ratio (in GIMP or Photoshop or whatever) until the clock looks round. But if you don't believe that in reality the clock is round, or if you don't believe that any building looks quite different when viewed at an angle of 45° rather than horizontally, then so be it.
      And let me reiterate that I'm not opposing the idea of showing the tower as seen from below. But when I'm looking up at a tower, it appears to get narrower towards the top, and this is why your half-corrected image looks unnatural to me. --Stefan Vladuck 19:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If it is so simple: Why do you present versions, which seem to show so bg differences? --Mbdortmund 00:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Please read the comment by Klaus with K above, he has explained everything at length and I don't wish to repeat that. The fully corrected architectural projection is the bottom right one. If you correct the perspective in such a manner to make the clock exactly round, you will always end up with an image like that, no matter if you compute it or if you just do it visually in GIMP or Photoshop. You can try this for yourself. --Stefan Vladuck 08:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  dropped after 8 days without vote --LC-de 14:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dragon fly[edit]

Dragonfly-Brown-070624.jpg

  • Nomination Brown dragonfly (Anisoptera). --Loadmaster 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good composition and DOF --Ianare 19:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - "Anisoptera" is not good enough as an identification, all true dragonflies are of that sub-order. It belongs to the Libellulidae family, that is certain. Might be a female Sympetrum fonscolombei but I'm not sure. -- Alvesgaspar 20:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - per Alvesgaspar. Lycaon 20:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Try to renominate when you find out the species. Lycaon 21:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fontevraud Abbey[edit]

Fontevraud vu des jardins.jpg

  • Nomination Fontevraud abbey seen from the gardens --Berrucomons 21:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment very pleasant composition but a bit tilted, could it be corrected ? --B.navez 09:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC))
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Are you sure it is tilted? in what direction? --Berrucomons 19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Leaning to the left, I've edited a +0,90 rotated version--B.navez 06:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice light and good composition but too much oversharpening haloes on an originally probably insufficiently focussed image. A pity. Lycaon 10:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Doesn't look oversharpened to me. I see some slight TCA, but nothing that would disqualify it as a QI. --Stefan Vladuck 06:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Buildings look distorted, especially the one on the left side --Mbdortmund 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted to QI --LC-de 20:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Air traffic controller[edit]

Air traffic controller schiphol tower.jpg

  • Nomination Air traffic controller in Amsterdam Airport Schiphol – Ilse@ 13:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Decline, but only until version without software sharpening is provided --Leafnode 05:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Symbol support vote.svg Support there's no better version and sharpening is not that bad --Leafnode 11:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This image is authentic. Please see my talk page --Ma.rkus.nl 19:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't see the point of this discussion (here and there): either sharpening is excessive, or it is not. Why would it matter whether it was applied in-camera or afterwards? --Stefan Vladuck 09:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It would matter if it was made using computer software - so probably unsharpened original could be provided. But it was sharpened by camera and there's no other version - and this is why I've changed my vote - because it's not that oversharpened. --Leafnode 11:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a good composition no question. However it's technically bad. Colouor aberrations on the vertical bars are visible even at reduced size. --Ikiwaner 21:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  not promoted to QI --LC-de 20:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wasp building nest[edit]

Wasp building nest.jpg

  • Nomination A paper wasp (Polistes Aurifer) building its nest. --Sanjay Acharya 23:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. -- Laitche 13:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no identification given. Lycaon 07:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have added the scientific name and identified the wasp. --Sanjay Acharya 15:38:00, 02 May 2008 (UTC)
    • All paper wasps belong to the subfamily Polistinae. A genus is necessary, and preferably also a species. Lycaon 12:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I wish I were an entomologist :). If anyone can identify the species/genus that would be helpful. Sanjay Acharya 20:31, 4 May 2008
    • I finally got the wasp species and have updated the image info. Sanjay Acharya 01:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Good attempt, but I had a check myself and your critter appears to be Mischocyttarus flavitarsis (see here). Lycaon 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks Lycaon for correctly identifying it. This is definitely not an easy task especially when there are so many varieties. Sanjay Acharya 03:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting image, sharp details --Mbdortmund 21:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ... now that it is identified... ;-) Lycaon 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good image --Euku 12:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  promoted to QI --LC-de 20:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Statue in winter[edit]

Lengede Seilbahnpark Bergmann.jpg

  • Nomination: Statue at a park in Lengede (Germany) in winter, by Clemensfranz. Arria Belli 13:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice colours. Unfortunately the subject is a little dark, and I don't like much the centered composition. -- Stephanemartin 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose License is O.K? Check this -> Commons:Licensing#Country-specific_laws. _Fukutaro 15:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Germany has freedom of panorama for permanently affixed objects in public area, so I don't that think there's a problem. Thegreenj 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for mention :) _Fukutaro 12:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  dropped out --LC-de 20:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Katowice - Urząd Marszałkowski Województwa Śląskiego.jpg[edit]

Katowice - Urząd Marszałkowski Województwa Śląskiego.jpg

  • Nomination: Marshal's department of Silesian Voivodeship. --Lestath 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support One of Jans best. Good composition, few people. Perspective slightly overcorrected however. --Ikiwaner 20:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unsharp with artificial sharpening (seen especially on tree branches on the right side), noisy, strange perspective (is it lens barrel disortion?) --Leafnode 07:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 10:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Curvature of the top of the building is disturbing, and the heavy black borders around the trees at the side are unsightly. --Stefan Vladuck 08:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose like Vladuck --Mbdortmund 14:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek 08:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose ->  draw after 8 days --LC-de 20:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hagley Park Autumn[edit]

HagleyPark01 gobeirne.jpg

  • Nomination Hagley Park in autumn, Christchurch NZ - Gobeirne 20:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blur on the left-center. --Lestath 20:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Really? - Gobeirne 02:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I dont see any blur on the tree only areas blur are normal DOF, . Gnangarra 05:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I see no blur and I like it --Manco Capac 08:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Same as Gnangarra and Manco Capac. I don't see any blur, just a lovely park. Good light. Arria Belli 23:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support with suficient quality --Rohan 11:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  Promoted to QI --LC-de 20:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Bust of Cellini[edit]

CelliniBust.jpg

  • Nomination Bust of Cellini--Thermos 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. It would be useful to have additional views as well. Adam Cuerden 22:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment bad lighting, background not so good --Mbdortmund 10:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite obviously. --Thermos 15:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You cannot vote as the nominator. Thegreenj 05:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. That said, lighting could be better (the fact that the eye is in shadow particularly disturbs me), and the focus is a little off (base is in focus, head is not). Thegreenj 05:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Indeed, it's a bit much shadow parts. But not crack/dark-out contrast of dark side, hence it could be corrected if you hope. Though I think it's not good composition for QI. _Fukutaro 05:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  promoted to QI -- Lycaon 11:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Phagnalon rupestre[edit]

Phagnalon rupestre.jpg

  • Nomination Phagnalon rupestre (L.) DC., close to el Perelló, Catalonia, Spain -- Lycaon 10:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Please assess. Lycaon 14:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The picture sharpness is Ok. There is something with light that disturbs me. Choose of backlighting had helped seperation of subject from BG but unfortunately the front side of flower is a bit underexposed. You could either use fill-flash while taking the picture or if you have got PS software, use Image > Adjust > Highlights & Shadows (Shadow %50) to lighten the shadow part. --Nevit 15:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Somewhat I like the dark mood. But the stem is not sharp. All together rather not QI. --Ikiwaner 16:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed, this subject seems darkness. Nevertheless, it's depicted 3D effect of the bud. And the best thing petals(?) is very nice encyclopedic detail. Lycaon, why is that background is striped? And please English name. _Fukutaro 15:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The only English name I could find is Rock Phagnalon. It is related to Helichrysum (pussy's-toes tribe - Gnaphalieae) and grows in big tufts, hence the striped background. Lycaon 22:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I meant horizon stripe, not that vertical stripe from blurred stems. I seemed to see a faint horizon stripe before. But now, it dose not seems so... oops. :-( _Fukutaro 05:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support This version is nice IMO. --Nevit 17:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted to QI -- Lycaon 11:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


Royal Ontario Museum[edit]

Royal Ontario Museum-Michael Lee-Chin Crystal.jpg

  • Nomination Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. --Staka 18:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • (why is this in CR?) Small (see guidelines), overexposed sky. --Stefan Vladuck 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Reuploaded larger version under same file name. --Staka 20:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed; there seems to be a part of the building at the top center that is almost invisible. --Stefan Vladuck 20:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 11:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wasserschloss[edit]

Wasserturm Pano.jpg

  • Nomination Watertower, by Myself --Stefan-Xp 14:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not so fond of the chosen projection, which makes the ground seem curved. --Stefan Vladuck 15:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In this case "the ground" is curved, the flower things are round, so it looks more curved... --Stefan-Xp 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • On your image, the houses on the left appear to be leaning to the right. Presumably in reality those houses are straight, so the ground does appear much more curved than it really is. --Stefan Vladuck 08:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Stefan Vladuck. However the composition and colours are very good. It looks like a spherical projection or a cylindrical projection without vertical control points. Can you try again with a cylindrical projection and some vertical cp? --Ikiwaner 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm I fear, that I can't match these two pictures :( do you wanna try? Images are Here! --Stefan-Xp 20:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll give it a try this weekend. --Ikiwaner 04:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The images are very hard to stitch due to parallax errors. At such close distances, you would probably need a tripod with a properly adjusted panorama head to get good results. --Stefan Vladuck 09:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed. No chance to get an acceptable control point distance with straight lines. Expoure is different too. Try again with a tripod and manual exposure. Sorry. --Ikiwaner 15:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Okay.. I will see when I get Time and such a nice weather ;) --Stefan-Xp 14:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • But one Question is Left: Why is the Topic called "Wasserschloss"? ;-) --Stefan-Xp 16:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose curved Earth would be OK, but the sattelite dish destroys the composition Masti 00:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose ->  not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 11:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Schloß Friedrichsfelde[edit]

Schloß Friedrichsfelde – East (2).JPG

  • Nomination: Schloß Friedrichsfelde in Berlin --Agadez 14:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice view, good composition, natural colours. --Mbdortmund 19:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose heavy artificial sharpening applied - especially seen on tree branches --Leafnode 07:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not shure on this one. Composition is good. However the lens is very bad in the corners (colour aberrations and sharpness). Sharpening is not too heavy but applied over the unsharpness of the lens it looks ugly. Technical quality or photographic quality? --Ikiwaner 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • In my opinion if sharpening looks ugly, it's too heavy ;-) --Leafnode 11:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The same amount of sharpening would be OK with a sharper lens. --Ikiwaner 19:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  Draw after 8 days --LC-de 20:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Gonepteriyx rhamni[edit]

Gonepteriyx rhamni.jpg

  • Nomination The Brimstone (Gonepteriyx rhamni) --Richard Bartz 14:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good details, good colours, interesting motive --Mbdortmund 06:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Needs some noise reduction. Lycaon 10:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent focus, I see no noise on the main subject, and I actually like the slightly noisy background. --Stefan Vladuck 17:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great details. DOF could be better though --Leafnode 08:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestath 20:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very nice detail from technical macro-shot, but unfortunately, I distract with a bit over saturation and noisy background. _Fukutaro 15:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted to QI -- Lycaon 12:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bee on flower[edit]

Beeatwork.jpg

  • Nomination: bumble bee while collecting nectar, by Stulli 14:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good; the colors are vivid. Arria Belli 13:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs proper id for both Muscari and bumble bee. Lycaon 14:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment all fixed... thanks for your helpful advice :-)Stulli 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  draw after 8 days -- carol 17:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Crocuta crocuta[edit]

Crocuta crocuta.jpg

  • Nomination Crocuta crocuta --Ikiwaner 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good portrait --Mbdortmund 20:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great portrait, but terribly noisy. Do you have an original (or RAW)? I was not able to reduce the noise substantially on this version myself. Lycaon 19:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp and detailed --Stefan Vladuck 08:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Stefan and Mbdortmund: great portrait with lovely colors as well. Arria Belli 11:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good composition & colors, but noisy and lacking DOF --Ianare 18:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise really is a problem here. --JDrewes 22:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support high res --Beyond silence 09:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's a feature not a bug. I sharpen with PhotoKit Sharpener which doesn't produce the ugly halos you get with automatic camera sharpening. It provides sharper results. The "downside" is that in big magnifications i.e. looking at it closely at 100% on a computer screen it looks like noise. By doing that on a 10 MP image you violate some basic rules of photography like viewig diatance eq. image diagonal. To judge sharpness look at the image at about 50% on screen or make a print. You'll see it's sharp. The focus point is on the eyes. I doubt you'll get the whole hyena within DOF at any aperture. --Ikiwaner 18:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The noise is acceptable, but no more. At 2MP, it is present, though not distracting. Ikiwaner, have you tried masking this image onto the original, unsharpened background to get rid of background noise? Thegreenj 23:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is what I did. The background is raw and unsharpened. If you have a very close look you can see the mask. --Ikiwaner 08:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> (promote?) -- carol 17:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Burhinus bistriatus[edit]

Burhinus bistriatus (1).jpg Burhinus bistriatus (1)bearbeitet.jpg

  • Nomination: en:Double-striped Thick-knee (Burhinus bistriatus) by Philipp Weigell --Mbdortmund 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not the best light for QI. --Nevit 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It has some borderline-matters on image : lighting, jpg artifact on background. And I guess, it should has had some opinions. _Fukutaro 08:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How about the second version? --Mbdortmund 20:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  (drop out after 8 days) -- carol 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support second. The adjustment for shadows works. Adam Cuerden 10:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Torch Relay, London[edit]

2008 Olympic Torch Relay, London AB1.JPG

  • Nomination Photo from the Olympic Torch Relay as it passed through London illustrating the level of security which was judged necessary. --Adambro 20:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gives an idea of the atmosphere, sharp, natural colours --Mbdortmund 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Mbdortmund but the man at right is cut in middle of the face. --Nevit 23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High res. --Beyond silence 10:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportAgree with Mbdortmund --AngMoKio 10:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see nothing special. --Manco Capac 07:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Manco Capac: I think what is special is the faces'tension. Yet I agree with Mbdortmund -- Stephanemartin 20:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, may be. But the special faces are not complete, only 1.5 specilaity is seen. --Manco Capac 10:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this composition --Pudelek 08:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the security person in blue(from China) needs to be complete as that is a significant part of the subject. Gnangarra 05:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose completely wrong composition. Could be OK for tbloid photo but not Quality Image. Masti 00:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose ->  not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 12:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Observation tower in Kościelec[edit]

Obserwation tower in Kościelec.jpg Observation tower in GWS.JPG

  • Nomination: Observation tower in Sudetes --Pudelek 21:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice shot --Ianare 16:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think I discern a slight CW tilt. Lycaon 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I uploaded a second version, but i think that my first photo is ok -- Pudelek 13:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree with Pudelek here, second version is clearly CCW tilted. I don't see anything in the image from which to accurately determine camera roll. The only straight lines I can find are the gate at the bottom and the pole at the top, but a) they are convergent due to camera pitch (which could easily cause an erroneous perception of a CW tilt of the off-center tower) and b) I would not rely on them to be exactly vertical. There are some spots in the sky that should be cloned out, and I think the image might benefit from a slight contrast enhancement (probably best done with the curves tool), but other than that I think the photograph is OK. --Stefan Vladuck 14:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  (a draw after 8 days ) -- carol 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Original. Adam Cuerden 07:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Museum Fridericianum[edit]

Museum Fridericianum Kassel.jpg

  • Nomination: Museum Fridericianum in Kassel, Germany. --Leafnode 13:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lighting is not very good, but i like this composition --Pudelek 17:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lighting and focus are insufficient for QI. Lycaon 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Well, about focus, it's probably true. I was too hasten to put that photo here. But lightning - I regarded this as a feature of that picture, showing evening atmosphere. But I probably shall withdraw this nomination. --Leafnode 07:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of focus. But I like the composition and agree with Leafnode about the lightning -- Stephanemartin 09:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support enough sharp at high resol. --Beyond silence 07:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  draw after 8 days  -- Lycaon 12:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Immortal Bridge - Mt Tai[edit]

Immortal Bridge - Mt Tai.JPG

  • Nomination: A natural arch called "the Immortal Bridge" at Mount Tai (Shandong, China), by Pfctdayelise. Arria Belli 12:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautilful site, good composition -- Stephanemartin 14:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sky is blown to pure white, so fails on technical issues. Lycaon 12:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment personnally I like the blown sky. I think it serves the topic -- Stephanemartin 10:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  (a draw after 8 days) -- carol 20:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There's a heavy mist behind the rocks, so the sky *SHOULD be fairly white. Adam Cuerden 10:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful indeed – but to me the photo looks washed and heavily packed (lacking detail). Also please add coordinates. –Dilaudid 12:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose serious overexposed on the sky, and the rock wall of the both sides are a bit noisy. _Fukutaro 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Skyline of downtown Boston[edit]

DowntownBoston.jpg

  • Nomination: Rich color, good composition. I thought it was a CGI render at first. --LtPowers 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support picture distorted by the wide angle lens; the rest looks superb. Edit: now ok for me -- Stephanemartin 14:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose neither do I see wide angle distortion, nor does the rest look superb. Lacks sharpness and detail, and the missing EXIF makes me wonder what was done to the image. --Dschwen 13:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info You don't see wide angle distortion because it has been corrected -- Stephanemartin 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think he used some kind of DRI or similiar methods. You can see some artifacts such as frames arround the buildings. Missing EXIF shouldn't be an criterion against QI. --LC-de 19:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Tried to correct... Lycaon 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice picture ! Absolutecars 11:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think unnatural to that sky is too much blue. And it is a little serious C/A on the buildings edge. _Fukutaro 06:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  (a draw) -- carol 20:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Knautia macedonica[edit]

Knautia macedonica1a.UME.jpg

  • Nomination: Knautia macedonica, by Epibase. Arria Belli 13:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't know if the species is accurate, but is a good photo of Knautia and includes the very cool seedheads! -- carol 02:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I really really don't like the background. Probably taking this shot from other angle wouldn't show building behind. Using lower f/number would also help. --Leafnode 07:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the background is good because if you only knew about plants by looking at all the QIs of plants, you'd think they live entirely separate from humans. Plants in their natural habitat is nice, but gardening and garden images are, too. At least to me. ^^ Arria Belli 12:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    Presence of building in the background is not an issue. The problem is (IMO) that it is too visible (could be more blurred) and is tilted. --Leafnode 07:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  (a draw) -- carol 20:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Transparency-tile[edit]

Transparency-tile.png

  • Nomination: Transparency tile -- carol 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This one is nice but I saw nothing special. I find your mathmap works very special. I you have one with high-res please nominate it.--Nevit 09:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have several but they are on my web site -- I was a fan of the photographers when I made them. I am still a fan of the photographers but I think that this transparency tile is a better image for this venue; unless there is a reason that the images are not freely available where they are? -- carol 14:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is already one transparency tile on server used when rendering png's, gif's and svg's with transparency. I can not locate the image but it is everywhere ie. look at this image or any other image with transparency. Maybe it is one of Apache's internal images, and not a commons file. --Nevit 22:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You should support this then, now all of the mathmap images are available and a transparency icon. Do tell what the interest in mathmap is and how it belongs in a discussion of a transparency icon. -- carol 05:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    1. to me (at this time and this location) it represented tropical berries
    2. mathmap is almost the last thing on my mind
    3. mathmap and its people are in the capable hands of 'the boingboing blogger' -- the purpose of this icon is too big and strong to have anything to do with that.
    4. my web site is a good place to be; better than here perhaps because all of the contributors there take it somewhat seriously and have fun as well. -- carol 06:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just for my information: what is it used for ? -- Stephanemartin 10:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Have you used any pixel manipulating software and made part (or all) of an image transparent? -- carol 17:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yep. I use Gimp. When I need transparency, I add an alpha channel, and I cut the parts I want to be transparent. So what ? Just being curious about the methods you use. -- Stephanemartin 13:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  (drop out) -- carol 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oiseau hein[edit]

Oiseau hein.jpg Oiseau hein edit.jpg

  • Nomination: Juvenile yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis) (Brijuni archipelago, Croatia), by Romanceor 11:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Colours are superb, but the picture seems noisy (look at the water). I think the upper part should be cropped, as it adds nothing to the picture. Update: edited picture is fine for me -- Stephanemartin 07:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alessandro Zangrilli 11:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have uploaded an edited version (cropped and noise filtered). --Stefan Vladuck 21:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Both images are colorful waterdrops. --Fukutaro 14:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I believe that this is a natural phenomenon due to dispersion of the sunlight in the water drops, and not a technical flaw of the photograph. --Stefan Vladuck 15:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image is oversharpened. Lycaon 15:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I'm not sure ; what does it mean ? And what can I do about it ? --Romanceor 16:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OT: I would have nominated some of your other pictures, e.g. Flore de Bercy 11.JPG, if you would provide a description. --Mbdortmund 17:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Stefan Vladuck, don't you support the new version of the picture ? Romanceor 12:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I certainly do (otherwise I wouldn't have submitted it), but as far as I know as a co-author I cannot be counted... --Stefan Vladuck 14:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      • What if I do the crop ? huhu... third time the picture has been declined. --Romanceor 12:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting how editing only disqualifies you as a voter -- at least it is to me. -- carol 13:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  (a draw) -- carol 20:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Crocuses[edit]

- Crocus -.jpg

  • Nomination: Bunch of crocuses, by Nino Barbieri. Arria Belli 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit too contrasted, but nicely sharp and does meet QI requirements for me. Lycaon 15:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Put on discuss until species is determined. Sorry, I have to be consequent. Lycaon 16:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info To me this looks most like Crocus vernus, probably the most common. But then again, I'm not a botanist. Arria Belli 12:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose ->  (it failed to get votes within two weeks of entering CR) -- carol 20:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • conditional Symbol support vote.svg Support - absolutely stunning photograph; does need species identified. Adam Cuerden 10:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Rotating above San Jose International Airport[edit]

Nightly Rotation above San Jose International Airport.jpg

  • Nomination View from a plane as it rotates in the air above San Jose International Airport at night, by Wing-Chi Poon. Arria Belli 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very noisy in the dark parts; the very bumpy lines are disturbing. --LC-de 17:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I must respectfully disagree. I see no noise in the dark parts, and as for the wobbly lines, I think the difficulty of this kind of shot should be taken into consideration. It's really not very wobbly at all given the movement involved. Arria Belli 11:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As for the QI, I do not know about this shot. However, what I am quite sure about, is that in some travel oriented photo contest this kind of artistic shot could place really well. The spirit it communicates would certainly be something that is often looked for in such contests. To sum it up, perhaps not something that is looked for in QIs, but something which could be highly appreciated in other circles. --Thermos 04:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The idea is very interesting, but looking at the thumbnail I see some orange, blurred spots, like very bad nightshot. --Leafnode 05:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted -- carol 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It does illistrate well the rotation, the ceoncern about a slight bump in the lights can be ignored as the wing it self is sharp. Gnangarra 05:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)