Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 2009

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

File:BergiselInnsbruck1.JPG[edit]

BergiselInnsbruck1.JPG

  • Nomination View of Bergisel ski jumping hill in Innsbruck (Austria) from the South --Böhringer 20:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice composition, would be nice to have a picture of the changing colours during the night, too --Mbdortmund 20:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dull colors, main subject too small. Yann 10:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Colors are a bit blunt. Size of the subject is OK, puts the subject nicely into scale. --Siipikarja 20:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not bad --Pudelek 10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subject is not clearly visible --Pymouss44 21:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't like colors, composition nor the technical quality. --Spock lone wolf 10:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Thermocouple Multiplexer Agilent.jpg[edit]

Thermocouple Multiplexer Agilent.jpg

  • Nomination Thermocouple Multiplexer Card --Harke 20:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI. --Karora 05:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background needs cleaning up. Lycaon 07:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Background is neutral enough to be acceptable. --Eusebius 09:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 12:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:MilfordSoundStirlingFalls_gobeirne_EDIT.jpg[edit]

MilfordSoundStirlingFalls gobeirne EDIT.jpg

  • Nomination Stirling Falls, Milford Sound, New Zealand (new proposition after colour balance) --Sting 00:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support interesting enough, IMHO --Mbdortmund 22:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting but too noisy. Lycaon 08:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is taken from the front of a launch nosing into a 189 metre waterfall, so it's a very difficult shot. I've been there and there's a heck of a lot of water flying around in this place. My own photo is an unworthy comparison. On the other hand it does appear to have gained some noticeable noise, particularly on the right underneath the mossy patch, when compared against the original image, and a white balance adjustment should be able to do better than that. --Karora 12:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 12:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Seiffen_Kirche_01_(MK).jpg[edit]

Seiffen Kirche 01 (MK).jpg

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree this is an unfortunate crop. --Karora 13:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate crop (especially considering it being a composite image). Lycaon 09:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    Your right! I thought that this argument will come. Sadly even the originals have no more space to the ground. The church stands in a kind of ditch so you can´t see more of the church --Leviathan1983 09:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose However if you did left more space down there, it would be obvious in what position the church is and it wouldn't seem to be cut off by photographer. --Spock lone wolf 12:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 12:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Zwinger gardens.jpg[edit]

Zwinger gardens.jpg

  • Nomination the gardens behind the Zwinger palace, Dresden -- Adiel lo 16:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good framing and a nice shot, but perhaps it could benefit from some careful sharpening, and please geocode the image. --Karora 07:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've added the location and sharpened it a little bit (I hope it's ok, I'm no photoshop expert). Adiel lo 17:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just right --Karora 00:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks overexposed. --Eusebius 12:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks fine to me --Ianare 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 12:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas_Bresson_-_Cour-int_(by).jpg[edit]

Thomas Bresson - Cour-int (by).jpg

  • Nomination Courtyard of Roppe fortifications. --ComputerHotline 16:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fits the QI criteria. --Coyau 02:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I withdraw my assessment, per Eusebius. --Coyau 10:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm afraid the motion of the trees ruined the merge. --Eusebius 12:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice light and colours : it's all right for me. Pymouss44 21:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per eusebius, you can see false shadows on the tall trees on left --Ianare 23:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like the composition but the false trees are not good. Can you fix it? -- Pro2 20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Maremma panorama from buratta.jpg[edit]

Maremma panorama from buratta.jpg

  • Nomination 3-pics panorama of Maremma (Italy) --Alejo2083 12:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fix the black areas! -- Pro2 16:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC); did you mean the small dark area on top?
  • I cropped it away! and I added geotags --Alejo2083 13:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose edges severely Out Of Focus, image is not sharp --Ianare 07:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Also, I think there is something like a water drop on the lens. --Eusebius 08:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:San Francesco, Pisa, interno.jpg[edit]

San Francesco, Pisa, interno.jpg

  • Nomination Church San Francesco, Pisa, Italy --Lucarelli 23:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg NeutralNice image, but I think the effects of the light from the windows seems to give too much glare to the rest of the image a bit much for my taste. --Karora 07:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose blown windows, noisy --ianaré (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Bamberger Dom BW 6.JPG[edit]

Bamberger Dom BW 6.JPG

  • Nomination Bamberg Cathedral --Berthold Werner 12:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment perspektive should be corrected --Mbdortmund 19:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perspective seems good. A slight trim of the pink area at the top on the right-hand side is now needed, but I wonder if you could also go back to the original and apply the cumulative changes to that, as there seems to be a small loss of definition in the corners that may be avoidable --Karora 00:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose perspective is distorted, and the top of the tower is blurry --Ianare 07:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Assisi San Francesco BW 10.JPG[edit]

Assisi San Francesco BW 10.JPG

  • Nomination Assisi,Basilica di San Francesco, Portal of the lower church --Berthold Werner 10:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • I think that such things shoud be photographed in a way to show it's symmetry. Was it impossible here? --Sfu 09:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg QuestionHm? What exactly do you mean? --Berthold Werner 11:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    Framing is asymmetrical. I can see a part of the column on the right but not on the left. The same with sculpture. If croped I think it sould be to tight. --Sfu 05:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with sfu about symmetry --Ianare 07:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Monoski.JPG[edit]

Monoski.JPG

  • Nomination A monoski. --Eusebius 12:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Can you re-take in better lighting? --Karora 07:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Because of the reflection, or because you'd like it more exposed? --Eusebius 16:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The reflection isn't great, but mainly because the lighting is uneven, making the lower half very dim. --Karora 23:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've tried to make the lighting more even through postprocessing. The result is lighter (closer to the true aspect of the object), but the reflection is unchanged and the postprocessing induced some slight luma noise in the lower part. --Eusebius 20:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good enough --Ianare 07:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Apis mellifera Portrait.jpg[edit]

Apis mellifera Portrait.jpg

  • Nomination Common Honeybee. --High Contrast 08:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's got good drama, but when you get down to it only the eye is in focus, and not even all of that, and it still only barely makes the 2mp limit. --Karora 12:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is good enough to be QI. 2,5MP are enough, too -- Pro2 12:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF too shallow, sorry --Ianare 07:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Johan_Ludvig_Runeberg_statue.jpg[edit]

Johan Ludvig Runeberg statue.jpg

  • Nomination Statue of J.L. Runeberg. --P7r7 18:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Wow. Guess I don't need to visit in person now :-) --Karora 06:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed and tight crop. Lycaon 07:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like that very tight crop on the top. I like it better now. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Just for the record, while I agree the tight crop doesn't look so good in a thumbnail, viewed larger it looks fine. Bearing in mind that this is a vertical panorama I think it's not reasonable to expect a photo of the sky to be added on to the stack. --Karora 10:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I recreated the panorama. It's now not so strictly cropped. Brightness was also adjusted. P7r7 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Light and crop are much better, but there remains the stitching errors on the lower legs/feet of the statue. Lycaon 18:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Actually I think that stitching error was not there before, anyhow I fixed it. Thanks for all the constructive criticism. P7r7 (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine now. Lycaon 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done! --Siipikarja 10:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Musiksaal von 1896 Villa Grünau .jpg[edit]

Musiksaal von 1896 Villa Grünau .jpg

  • Nomination music hall in 1896 in neo-renaissance --Böhringer 20:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tolles Bild, brauchte man da keine Fotoerlaubnis? --Mbdortmund 23:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC) * nein, heute ist das Gemeindehaus in der Villa untergebracht. Der Bürgermeister hat mich pesönlich eingelassen und freut sich über den Artikel, der in nächster Zeit noch geschrieben und bebildert wird. l.g. --Böhringer 10:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dann klar QI --Mbdortmund 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Most of it is unsharp, significant overexposure. --Eusebius 11:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral From an encyclopedic point of view, this is ein tolles Bild indeed. The overexposed parts are almost unavoidable IMO, due to the (too big) contrasts between dark & light in the room. For a pano of 16 images, the sharpness is insufficient. -- MJJR 20:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose should be sharper, blown highlights --Ianare 07:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Haliaeetus albicilla LC0194.jpg[edit]

Haliaeetus albicilla LC0194.jpg

  • Nomination White-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) --LC-de 22:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportCorrect exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 10:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The feet are cut off. Good otherwise, sorry. --Ianare 14:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ianare. --Eusebius 09:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Ibis rouge (by).jpg[edit]

Thomas Bresson - Ibis rouge (by).jpg

  • Nomination Eudocimus ruber --ComputerHotline 07:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality looks good. I wouldn't have centred the composition though. --Eusebius 12:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs a thorough crop IMO. Lycaon 08:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd also support a cropped version. --Eusebius 11:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not bad, but would be better cropped. --ianaré (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose red channel on the main subject severely blown. Main subject takes up little space in the frame. --Dschwen 14:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Dschwen, loss of information on the red channel, which is significant here. --Eusebius 14:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Chartres - cathédrale - arcs-boutants de la nef.JPG[edit]

Chartres - cathédrale - arcs-boutants de la nef.JPG

  • Nomination Chartres cathedral: flying buttresses of the nave. --Eusebius 07:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think the perspective needs fixing, but there's good detail in there. Maybe a little sharpening would also help. --Karora 07:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • This picture has been taken with a deliberate angle, I really don't think perspective correction would be a good thing here. Feel free to propose a DW, though, if you have an idea about it. --Eusebius 13:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe you're right and work on the perspective wouldn't help (I admit I tried and couldn't make it work :-), but it just doesn't look like much of anything as-is. Perhaps you can persuade someone else to endorse it. --Karora 23:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good details, and i think the perspective adds to the interest of the picture in this case --Ianare 07:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sad pictures, common composition : everything but a quality image. Pymouss44 21:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Washed out details in the sky ruin the picture for me. --Siipikarja 21:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    OMG... I was sure I had checked that... I'm sorry to have wasted your time. --Eusebius 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination

File:A black pearl and a shell.jpg[edit]

A black pearl and a shell.jpg

  • Nomination Black pearl and its shell by Mbz1 --Anna reg 19:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion *Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral This is nicely composed, but I think it could be a little clearer, and with the whites less blown-out. -Karora 07:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support On further consideration :-) --Karora 10:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough, but lighting could be better. --ianaré (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A good enough image (my image :)) of a difficult subject that I am opposing to be ethical.--Mbz1 04:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC).You can't support your own images on QI. Lycaon 19:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC) You can't vote on your own images in QI. Now clear? And please stop playing the murdered innocence. Lycaon 14:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid it is not clear to me at all. This rule should be written somewhere, but of course, if it makes you feel better please do continue to cross out my support and my oppose votes :) --Mbz1 15:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Not that it is very important, but may I please ask you to point me out th this particular rule? Thanks--Mbz1 22:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
"The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. " -- Pro2 22:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Pro2. Yes I took this image, yet I was not the nominator of this image. User:Anna reg was. Does this mean that my vote could stay? --Mbz1 23:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Hm, I didn't found another rule which say that. At FPC you are allowed to support your own images, too. Maybe.. -- Pro2 10:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It is unethical. QI is based on a single review/promote system. Supporting (often = promoting) your own image could too easily lead to abuse (not the case here of course). The voting system is the same whether CR or not. This (unwritten) rule has been applied several times (check history of QI for examples) in the past. Lycaon 11:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, as I said earlier I really do not care much about the vote and/or promotion of the image. I supported it mostly for fun, but IMO FPC could also get promoted based on only one vote. If FPC gets 4 supports it is declined, if it gets 5 supports it is promoted. A single vote could make the difference, like for example in this situation, when you, Lycaon "forgot" to support your own FPC in the beginning, but did support it at exactly the right time, when it was missing a single vote to get promoted (and I could find more situations like this in your FPC history). IMO, if this is "unethical" to support your own image nominated by somebody else and supported already by somebody other than the nominator, and do not opposed by somebody else, this rule ought to be written somewhere. IMO it was unethical of you to strike out my support vote in this particular situarion, when my support did not equal promotion at all. Thanks.--Mbz1 12:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You've got some arguments, Mbz1, but I believe that the tradition not to vote on own pictures or even own edits is good for this part of our project. --Mbdortmund 23:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
You might be right, Mbdortmund. As I said earlier I voted just for fun for my own image that was passing without my vote just fine, yet, when I was told that my vote was "unethical" I decided to bring up some arguments. Even, if I could understand why I cannot support my own image in this particulsr situation (and I cannot), I am afraid I cannot understand at all why I cannot oppose my own image in this particular situation. Is this also "unethical"? In any case I believe that this rule should be written somewhere for me and for some other users to know and to follow. After all not everybody is so "ethical" as Lycaon is. Thanks.--Mbz1 22:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is good enough to be QI --Böhringer 20:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Pro2 11:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Adelaide Zoo Silver Gull - pelican enclosure.jpg[edit]

Adelaide Zoo Silver Gull - pelican enclosure.jpg

  • Nomination Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae (Silver Gull) - Peripitus 13:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice image -- Pro2 15:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Isn't the head overexposed? --Eusebius 11:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lighting is definitely not optimal but I think the photo makes a good enough compromise between light and dark areas. --Ianare 17:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment here I was trying to get the subject to pop out from the background while keeping as much feather detail as possible. It looks much better printed than on my LCD screen - Peripitus 04:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ophrys bombyliflora (flower).jpg[edit]

Ophrys bombyliflora (flower).jpg

  • Nomination Ophrys bombyliflora in Mallorca --Lycaon 22:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sharp part could be cropped tighter imo --Berthold Werner 06:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI don't mind the crop; I do think that all of the sepals should all be in focus. -- carol 18:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Request second opinion. The flower is about 5 mm across. Lycaon 10:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The smallness in width of the flower makes the depth of field too small for the whole upper part of the plant to be in focus? There are other images of this flower which have all of those parts in focus.... -- carol (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see anything wrong with the focus, the sepals are behind/lower than the labellum --Ianare 17:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Focus OK. Yann 08:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Hôtel des Bergues.jpg[edit]

Hôtel des Bergues.jpg

  • Nomination Hôtel des Bergues, Geneva. Yann 12:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposePoor composition : the flag is in the way --Ianare 18:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That was on purpose... Yann 20:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes I assumed it was, but it hides too much of the building IMO --Ianare 22:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMHO technically OK, composition following acceptable idea --Mbdortmund 23:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the composition with the flag but I think it is not so good for Wikipedia. (And two are too much.) --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice photo, for me composition is OK --Pudelek 09:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is QI, not FP. Technical quality is OK. Lycaon 10:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good Quality, flag is ok. -- Pro2 19:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Menden-20070426 103-DSC 6794-Fachwerk.jpg[edit]

Menden-20070426 103-DSC 6794-Fachwerk.jpg

  • Nomination Timber framing in Menden, Germany --Mbdortmund 00:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral doorway is tilted, good otherwise --Ianare 04:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC) uploaded new version (see below)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The whole building is tilted ;-) --Berthold Werner 16:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's why I used the doorway as a reference point. It would be a very easy fix --Ianare 18:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Would you be so nice to post a proposal, Ianare, even the road was not straight but leaded down to the right...

--Mbdortmund 23:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done I really like this image BTW. My initial vote was only to encourage it to be even better ;-) --Ianare 08:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
But now is the left part of the door tilted ;-) --Berthold Werner 06:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If my modification is undone I will change my vote to support --Ianare 14:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Until now there is no vote from you. --Berthold Werner 07:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't vote on my own edit --Ianare 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK. Yann 08:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 09:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Krnov castle - entrance.jp[edit]

Krnov castle - entrance.jpg

  • Nomination Castle in Krnov, Czech Silesia - entrance --Pudelek 07:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral it's a little noisy, but otherwise good. Let's see what others have to say --Ianare 18:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Noise level is ok for me, but I think I see some kind of "aliasing" on the border of the window/doors arches. I'm not sure about it, though. --Eusebius 07:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 08:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Image:Thomas Bresson - Pyrrhosoma nymphula-1 (by).jpg[edit]

Thomas Bresson - Pyrrhosoma nymphula-1 (by).jpg

  • Nomination Pyrrhosoma nymphula --ComputerHotline 16:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok imo -- Pro2 11:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Flat light and insufficient sharpness Compare with current VI. Lycaon 22:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Would not support for VI or FP but I think it's good enough for QI. --Ianare 18:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral not bad, but DOF a bit shallow and there is gras or something else between camera and object. --Mbdortmund 23:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting straw in the foreground. --Slaunger 18:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for QI. Yann 08:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Allium triquetrum (inflorescense).jpg[edit]

File:Allium triquetrum (inflorescense).jpg Allium triquetrum (inflorescense).jpg

The original has subsequently been over-written with a copy of the cropped version
  • Nomination Allium triquetrum in Mallorca. Lycaon 19:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
Original version
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Is an onion by any other name still as beautiful.... I marked this for discussion because while looking at the thumbnail, there was a scroll condition that made this image appear as if it had been cropped at the "fading away" part of the stem. I might have been disappointed to find it was not cropped there and would like to discuss it.... -- carol 11:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I really am unsure if the crop improved the image or not. -- carol (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It may have. I didn't consider that crop. Thanks. Lycaon 14:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Edited version
I have stricken my vote. If I remember correctly, much of the integrity of the reviews here was achieved by not voting for your own image, nomination or edited version and relying (confidently) on the opinions of others. Such behavior is a given for some of those with a certain kind of upbreeding in our species, perhaps (obviously) not a guarrentee of the whole group though. 'Tis easy and it also feels good, please feel free to experiment with this type of good conduct on yourself. -- carol (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, fully agree. Lycaon 20:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support (the new crop). The crop at the fade point really makes it stronger. --Karora 09:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support cropped version --Ianare 14:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • weakSymbol support vote.svg Support cropped version. Very dreamy, still, the right side is too tight. _Fukutaro 15:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Very articulate review and you are correct. I had some serious problems with the "professional looking" software I use while making this crop. Perhaps maintaining the aspect ratio was not so important. (I have heard that learning English is easy, you make it appear that this is true.) -- carol (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 09:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Canadian geese and goslings in GGP.jpg[edit]

Canadian geese and goslings in GGP.jpg

  • Nomination Canadian geese. --Mbz1 23:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Way too overprocessed, oversharpening creating artifacts (see grass) --Spock lone wolf 07:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    New version was uploaded. Please notice the small white particles in the chicks feather and at the ground is bread that somebody was feeding the birds. --Mbz1 18:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it's still too oversharpened (although improved). Can you fix ? --Ianare 18:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oversharpened where? Thank you.--Mbz1 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Over the entire image it seems, but it's most noticeable on the chicks and the grass --Ianare 22:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, the grass was not sharpened at all. I cannot remember about chicks, maybe I sharpened them a little bit. I did make the image darker. Anyway thank you for taking your time to review the image.--Mbz1 04:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • maybe contrast adjustment ? --Ianare 05:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Sinaia steam engine 230039 cropped.jpg[edit]

Sinaia steam engine 230039 cropped.jpg

  • Nomination A steam engine exhibited in Sinaia railway station, Romania. Andrei Stroe 17:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What is the greyish gradient on the barrier in the bottom right of the picture? --Coyau 21:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure. It could be the edge of the train window, through which I took the picture.Andrei S. 17:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I made a crop, so it's not visible. --Andrei Stroe 23:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like it better without the gradiant, even if it makes the crop tight. --Coyau (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good, but just. Could be sharper --Ianare 07:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Image is tilted to the right. Now it's ok for me. --Afrank99 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I fixed the tilt.--Andrei Stroe 10:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think you corrected it too much: see File:Sinaia steam engine 230039 cropped untilted.jpg Yann 09:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Mamila area by night.JPG[edit]

Mamila area by night.JPG

  • Nomination Nightshot of Mamilla area in Jerusalem. --Adiel lo 06:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral looks like the exposure time was maybe too long, but hard to tell --ianaré (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good enough for QI. --Afrank99 08:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Image:Dougga 05.jpg[edit]

Dougga 05.jpg

  • Nomination Temple of Saturn, Dougga --Bgag 12:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What is the green line on the crowd of the upper left? _Fukutaro 15:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't know, probably trees. --Bgag 16:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral looks OK for the most part, but I'm seeing some artefacts at the top of the columns --Ianare 13:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have imported a new version. --Bgag 21:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support better now --Ianare 05:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Contaflex BW 1.JPG[edit]

Contaflex BW 1.JPG

  • Nomination Contaflex III with Pro-Tessar 1:4 115mm --Berthold Werner 19:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice setup (pleasant background and lighting), good image quality. --Dschwen 20:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Does the tilt of the image serve any purpose? Except the tilt very good. --Afrank99 08:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It makes the composition look more dynamic and visually balances off the big lens barrel
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support obvious QI --Ianare 19:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Illinois_State_Senate.jpg[edit]

Illinois State Senate.jpg

  • Nomination Illinois State Senate. same here. --Dschwen 21:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Difficult shooting situation but it's too blurry, sorry --Ianare 05:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Given the 12MP resolution I do not think it is too blurry at all, you can even read the little "Minority" brass plaque. --Dschwen 12:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It doesn't get much better than that. QI for me (easily).--Afrank99 20:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks amply sharp enough - Peripitus 04:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Cividale 0904 View from Ponte del Diavolo.jpg[edit]

Cividale 0904 View from Ponte del Diavolo.jpg

  • Nomination Cividale del Friuli, view from Ponte del Diavolo --Aconcagua 09:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok. --Berthold Werner 11:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Brilliant composition and nice colors. However, appears to be a bit blurry in full size. --Siipikarja 20:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Yann 08:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautifully done. --Karora 10:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. --High Contrast 19:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Volvox.svg[edit]

Volvox.svg

  • Nomination Volvox --MichaelFrey 22:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done -- Pro2 17:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Doesn't show depth properly. Lycaon 08:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice! --Gummitierchen 17:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Supertalent USB-Stick.jpg[edit]

Supertalent USB-Stick.jpg

  • Nomination USB flash drive --Afrank99 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Although the chain isn't the subject, it is distracting, because some of it is cropped out. Either take the chain off or take a picture with all of the chain included. --Jolly Janner 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I cannot agree on that, please discuss. --Afrank99 06:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, in my opinion you need everything in the picture, because it is all important. There's no point in taking a photo of a building if you can only see half of its face. I hope that you understand my opinion more now. --Jolly Janner 22:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand why the chain of a USB stick could be important. Actually, the attention of the viewer should be directed to the stick, and not to the chain, so the stick must be the prominent part of the picture. I like it that way - I don't necessarily need a QI tag. --Afrank99 08:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
That is exactly the point. The chain is not important, but the way it is cropped it distracts the eye, which wonders where it ends thus taking focus away from the actual subject. With a tighter crop, where the chain only intersects the image edge once it would be less prominent and the actual subject would get more focus for the viewer as it deserves. --Slaunger 09:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Take another picture without the chain. The chain is attached to it, so it is all one object. --Jolly Janner 15:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I also find that the cropped chain is too distracting to pass my QI bar. --Slaunger 21:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think simply editing out the loop of chain in the top-right corner will improve things: with the chain leading cleanly out of the picture, it should look acceptable. --Carnildo 23:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree. --Slaunger 18:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • better now? --Afrank99 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yes, it's better --Ianare 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good quality photograph. Chain is no longer distracting, but it's a shame it's not all visible. --Jolly Janner 18:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good now for me. --Slaunger 21:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Vergleich_zwischen_Manga_und_Foto.jpg[edit]

Vergleich zwischen Manga und Foto.jpg

  • Nomination Comparison between photo and drawing in anime/manga style --Niabot 21:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Clean drawing, good photo (like the lighting of the face). --Dschwen 21:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the drawing looks a little bit distorted to me. I would like to discuss it. --LC-de 09:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can you define, what exactly looks wrong? Your explanation let's me in the dark. --Niabot 17:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
      • As I wrote you in the german WP: Keeping the original proportions and symmetrie of the face, just lowering the eyes gives me the impression of a somewhat deformed face. --LC-de 22:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 11:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Petrified tree in Curio Bay.jpg[edit]

Petrified tree in Curio Bay.jpg

  • Nomination Petrified tree log at low tide --Karora 10:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok. --Berthold Werner 12:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, I think we can afford to take some time on this one and talk about the low depth of field. --Dschwen 15:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm even less happy with the weird waviness of the horizon. Lycaon 17:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above --Ianare 22:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can probably fix the horizon, which is distortion from my lens, but DoF fix will have to wait another 20 years for my next visit... :-)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Passerculus sandwichensis CT2.jpg[edit]

Passerculus sandwichensis CT2.jpg

  • Nomination Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area, Quebec, Canada --Cephas 16:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overprocessed --Ianare 18:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Can you upload the original image ? --Ianare 05:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What a difference ! Very nice now. --Ianare 01:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 11:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Cygnus olor LC0201.jpg[edit]

Cygnus olor LC0201.jpg

  • Nomination Mute swan (Cygnus olor), head details --LC-de 15:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perfect exposure and background. --Afrank99 19:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Leaving playing card icons after the support of this image...? -- carol 19:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund 23:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 11:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Clematis montana "rubens" flower.JPG[edit]

Clematis montana "rubens" flower.JPG

  • Nomination Clematis montana flower. --Jolly Janner 21:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice colors, but main flower out of focus. Yann 07:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but overexposed. Yann 20:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good & crisp to me --Herbythyme 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose like Yann --Mbdortmund 23:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Asparagus stipularis (detail).jpg[edit]

Asparagus stipularis (detail).jpg

  • Nomination Grey asparagus (Asparagus stipularis) in Mallorca, Spain. Lycaon 16:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good DOF but because of the angle many of the flowers/buds are OOF --Ianare 15:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That was on purpose. Lycaon 15:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Coccoloba uvifera flower.jpg[edit]

Coccoloba uvifera flower.jpg

  • Nomination Seagrape flowers --Ianare 10:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request please review --Ianare 15:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. Lycaon 15:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Bombycilla garrulus CT2.jpg[edit]

Bombycilla garrulus CT2.jpg

  • Nomination Bohemian Waxwing (Bombycilla garrulus) Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area, Quebec, Canada. --Cephas 01:49, 9 May 2009 (CEST)
  • Promotion
  • Better, but still overprocessed. Can you upload the original image ? --Ianare 05:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good now --Ianare 20:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Original is very good already --G.Hagedorn 16:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good shot indeed, but the shadows are too disturbing for me. The image as a whole is too dark. --Eusebius 11:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

File:HomePlace.jpg[edit]

HomePlace.jpg

  • Nomination "The Homeplace", a recreation of an 1850-style farm, at the Land between the Lakes National Recreation Area. --JMSchneid 14:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good composition, sharp --Ianare 05:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At least one dust spot in the sky. --Eusebius 10:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Removed two spots, one dust the other unknown.--JMSchneid 16:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK. --Eusebius 18:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

File:PairOfMules.jpg[edit]

PairOfMules.jpg

  • Nomination A pair of mules. --JMSchneid 12:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support interesting black and white composition, good details and atmosphere --Mbdortmund 12:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No reason for desaturation. Also blown sky and highlights. Lycaon 09:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really nice atmosphere and composition. Pymouss44 21:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Lycaon --Karora 09:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Though I'm still curious about the desaturation. --Karora 10:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose OK, now I've seen the actual colour version (via private e-mail - thanks) I would far prefer that. I think the B&W presentation is cute, but that kind of post-processing is possible for anyone, and what we should have here is the colour version, with the B&W as an 'other versions available'. --Karora 08:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I should have done this earlier. I looked up the original and found that I had a RAW file as well as the JPG. I processed a new image from RAW and replaced the blown version. JMSchneid 15:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support much better --Ianare 07:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment now to dark for my taste, the main objects were much better in the first exposure, you could repare the blown out sky without making the whole picture darker.--Mbdortmund 12:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Under-saturated. --Jolly Janner 13:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A comment on the procedure here. This is a pain for determining supports and opposes. Support was given to a different version. Does that support apply to the new version? It is easier to determine the outcome of the consensual review if an altered version is uploaded and displayed with the original nomination. It is even easier to allow the first version to fail (if that is what is going to happen) and nominate the second version, but this might be too challenging to suggest.... -- carol (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Same applies for the World Health Org building, higher on the same page. --Eusebius 12:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support come on guys - this is not about wether you like b/w images or not, it is about the (technical) quality of the image, and this is an image of extraordinary quality in terms of sharpness, detail, composition. --Afrank99 16:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia and we should encourage colour photographs, because they are more educational. Jolly Janner 16:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I really do hope you're kidding. Color photographs are not very good in educating on black/white photography. By the way, this is not an encyclopedia, this is Wikimedia Commons, a media library. --Afrank99 20:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Black and white photographs are useful for educating about black and white photography, of course. This photograph was taken with a colour camera and there is absolutely no need to desaturate it. In doing so, you can't see the colours on the horse etc. Jolly Janner 20:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you may mean say "mule", rather than "horse". Wsiegmund 20:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I wonder if you might be willing to upload a color version, as well as this one? Interest has been expressed in that image. The "other_versions" field of the Information template may be used to link versions. Wsiegmund 20:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Done! Now everyone will know the color of his hat, shirt and pants! :) --JMSchneid 00:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann 08:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support B/W version is superior, in my opinion. The color version draws too much attention to the man's clothing. Wsiegmund 04:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote? Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

File:GIPE25 - Ardea cinerea (by-sa).jpg[edit]

GIPE25 - Ardea cinerea (by-sa).jpg

  • Nomination: Ardea cinerea --ComputerHotline 19:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support quality image --Ianare 17:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose weak composition. -- carol 19:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw Eusebius 09:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Illinois_House_of_Representatives_detail.jpg[edit]

Illinois House of Representatives detail.jpg

  • Nomination: Illinois House of Representatives. --Dschwen 21:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --Ianare 05:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough for me (pose a bit too long, no tripod?). --Eusebius 11:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Focus is on the bottom row of desks which is pretty much perfectly sharp. The image has 12MP so there would be plenty room to downsample if you enjoy looking at 1:1.--Dschwen 14:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's not so sharp and I don't think the focus should be there, I think it should be on the second row instead. --Eusebius 15:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Mh yeah, you do have a point there. Off to Springfield for a third time... --Dschwen 03:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw Eusebius 09:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

File:RubyThroatedHummingbird(Crop).jpg[edit]

RubyThroatedHummingbird(Crop).jpg

  • Nomination Archilochus colubris female--JMSchneid 00:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • My first reaction was wow. But the pic is pretty heavily denoised. Did your camera do that, or do you have a less processed version? --Dschwen 01:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The original is a jpg and the EXIF indicates that in camera noise reduction was off. A levels adjustment was made on the right of the histogram and possible a slight unsharp mask. This file is cropped from the file File: RubyThroated Hummingbird.jpg. The adjustments were made to that file. Except for brightness this image looks like the original when examined up to 100%.--JMSchneid 03:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment is that denoising, or an artifact of the flash? Looks technically QI to me, and an impressive shot, for sure. --Karora 11:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Flash was used. --JMSchneid 20:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support despite some apparent weirdness in the post processing. It's an impressive shot ! --Ianare 16:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Wildpferde Tripsdrill.jpg[edit]

Wildpferde Tripsdrill.jpg

  • Nomination nice picture --null 11:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is already a FP, what's the point of nominating it here? Yann 21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok IMHO --Berthold Werner 06:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose FP is not QI. Quality fails. Sharpness is insufficient and light is only so-so. Lycaon 06:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Lycaon -- Pro2 12:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Because of composition and atmosphere --Mbdortmund 21:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon --Ianare 22:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Thermohygrometer rotronic A1.jpg[edit]

Thermohygrometer rotronic A1.jpg

  • Nomination Hygrometer --Harke 18:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks ok. --Eusebius 18:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the blotchy background. Lycaon 19:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    I have no problem with the background. It could be removed quite easily I guess, but honestly I don't think it is worth the effort. It is rather clean, neutral, and shows a soft, natural shadow. --Eusebius 13:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support background doesn't bother me --Ianare 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Melospiza melodia CT.jpg[edit]

Melospiza melodia CT.jpg

  • Nomination Song Sparrow, Melospiza melodia Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area, Quebec, Canada --Cephas 22:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support cute --Mbdortmund 21:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unfortunate crop --Ianare 11:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop, bit overprosessed (noisy). --kallerna 11:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Camp celtique de la Bure - baraque 1.jpg[edit]

Camp celtique de la Bure - baraque 1.jpg

  • Nomination Archaeologists barrack in Camp celtique de la Bure. --Coyau 20:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Ianare 01:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lots of CA in the sky and noise in the shady parts are too disturbing for QI IMO. Lycaon 22:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral still not 100% but not bad enough to oppose ;-). Lycaon 08:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Denoised from RAW file. I don't know how to fix CA. --Coyau 19:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Image:Temple de Mînâkshî01.jpg[edit]

Temple de Mînâkshî01.jpg

  • Nomination Meenakshi Amman temple, Madurai --Bgag 23:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline a little tilted --Pudelek 14:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 'Dirty' (posterized?) sky. Also some CA. Lycaon 22:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Libellula quadrimaculata 04 (MK).JPG[edit]

Libellula quadrimaculata 04 (MK).JPG

  • Nomination a Four-spotted Chaser (Libellula quadrimaculata) --Leviathan1983 12:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 16:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Chaotic composition, very little on focus -- Alvesgaspar 19:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As Alvesgaspar. Lycaon 08:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Dijon - Palais des ducs - Minerve crop 1.jpg[edit]

Dijon - Palais des ducs - Minerve crop 1.jpg

  • Nomination Ducal palace in Dijon. --Eusebius 10:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop is too tight at the top. --Jolly Janner 19:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Why, you want one more story in frame?? --Eusebius 19:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    It is distracting that you can't see the whole of the gargoyl at the top.--Jolly Janner 21:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    I understand your POV. I'll nominate other crops, if it becomes clear that one gets more support, I'll withdraw the others. --Eusebius 21:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nominationEusebius 07:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Stalactite (by).JPG[edit]

Thomas Bresson - Stalactite (by).JPG

  • Nomination Stalactite in an old NATO station --ComputerHotline 08:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find the composition distrating, the stalactite is hanging out of nowhere. --Spock lone wolf 10:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I am not sure about the quality (noise?), but I like the composition. Yann 19:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 07:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Sankt Maximin BW 1.JPG[edit]

Sankt Maximin BW 1.JPG

  • Nomination Church of former St. Maximin's Abbey in Trier, Germany --Berthold Werner 13:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose soft focus --Ianare 01:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support still a little soft at the top of the building (maybe due to the lens?) but noticeably better now. --Ianare 19:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 07:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Image:Sayornis phoebe CT3.jpg[edit]

Sayornis phoebe CT3.jpg

  • Nomination Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area, Quebec, Canada --Cephas 10:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I removed the noise, should be okay now. -- Pro2 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice shot. --kallerna 13:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ianare 21:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 07:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Dendrocopos major on ripped pig kallerna.jpg[edit]

Dendrocopos major on ripped pig kallerna.jpg

  • Nomination: Great Spotted Woodpecker (Dendrocopos major) on ripped pig. kallerna 19:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support strange enough --Mbdortmund 12:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strange and special, yes, but quality (e.g. sharpness, light) is insufficient for a QI label. Lycaon 11:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw --Eusebius 07:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Fronton Cathédrale Saint-Pierre Genève.jpg[edit]

Fronton Cathédrale Saint-Pierre Genève.jpg

  • Nomination Lateral gate, Geneva cathedral. Yann 21:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeQuite dark, a bit noisy, not so sharp. --Eusebius 07:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment And now? Yann 15:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    I'm afraid you cannot make sharp a picture that was originally unsharp (or not so sharp). When denoising you have also removed fine details, and sharpening after denoising just make it more obvious. I don't think there's a way to make this picture pass my (own, maybe too high and not-so-straight) threshold. The strong shadow, primarily, is a problem that you cannot deal with in a simple manner. I think you should revert to the original version, which is better. --Eusebius 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ok, fine. I will try with another photo later. Yann 17:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Decline as Eusebius. Maedin 21:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination

File:2008-07-11 Chapel Hill bus passing South Building.jpg[edit]

2008-07-11 Chapel Hill bus passing South Building.jpg

  • Nomination Chapel Hill Transit --Specious 21:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNice picture (though unsharp), but where's the rest of the bus? --Afrank99 06:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Not the best crop, but good quality. This art of taking pictures is not easy but this is quite a good work -- Pro2 12:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As Pro2 already said: crop my not be optimal, nevertheless image quality is convincing. --High Contrast 13:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor crop, the bush is in the way, and not very sharp. For such a common subject I would expect a better image. --Ianare 01:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ianare. --Eusebius 07:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Wrist and hand deeper palmar dissection-numbers.svg[edit]

Wrist and hand deeper palmar dissection-numbers.svg

You can click on the English or Spanish version for the text depending on your language and it will show it. I nominated this, because it is the "master" version and doesn't show a preference between English or Spanish language. --Jolly Janner 16:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
To be useful it should include a key. It can be imported from the localized files, and possibly put inside a {{hidden}} in order to preserve a decent appearance of the image page. --Eusebius 16:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Jolly Janner 22:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw --Eusebius 10:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

File:World Health Organisation building south face.jpg[edit]

World Health Organisation building south face.jpg World Health Organisation building south face edit.jpg

  • Nomination World Health Organisation headquarters from south, Geneva. Yann 21:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
Original version (left)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good work. --Karora 01:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed clouds. --Eusebius 11:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tried to improve that. Yann 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'll simply retract my vote, I don't feel able to judge that kind of postprocessing, nor the quality of the result. --Eusebius 22:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. It's ok --High Contrast 13:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for the original exposure. The artificially darkened clouds got to be the most pointless editing I have seen in a while. No offense, but when people complain about something being blown they do not complain about the presence of #ffffff pixels but about the detail that is lost. Making the clouds a murky gray does not bring back detail and makes the image look crappy. --Dschwen 16:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Nevermind. --Dschwen 19:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Highlights are still blown (per Dschwen) and image looks generally over-processed (also over-sharpened yielding halos). Lycaon 21:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
To make these kinds of edits really work with the review system here, please revert to the original nomination and upload the edited version into a different namespace and display the edited version here. Not everyone is as mentally agile as Dschwen surely must be and can remember what the original looked like. Opinions of support or oppose can then be made for specific versions and the person who is doing the work of tallying the votes (not easy, btw, and this kind of reviewing does not help) will know for certain what has been supported or not. -- carol (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please nominate only one version. How can one vote when there are several versions to vote? Please withdraw this entry and renominate which ever version you think is better - as you have apparently done above. --Siipikarja 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think you can oppose because I have proposed an alternate version. You can vote for each of the version or none. Yann 22:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You think or know? If you think, you cannot revoke my vote as you have done. Please point where in QI rules it is said that I may not oppose based on duplicate nomination. See QI guidelines and QI rules. In guidelines it says: "Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is frowned upon." I'm not saying that it is forbidden to have multiple versions under one consensual review item (as nothing is said about this in the rules), but if you have the same image both in review section and consensual review section (as user Dschwen pointed out below), then either of them should be withdrawn in my opinion. Just for the sake of keeping the voting process simple. Perhaps I used the word "version" a little inconsiderably in my previous comment, I should have used word "entry". Sorry for the confusion. Anyhow, perhaps the QI rules should specify in more detail what is the policy with duplicate versions / entries. Especially, to which version does the QICtotal template apply when there are multiple versions of a single entry under on consensual review item? To avoid any further hassle, I revoke my vote. --Siipikarja 08:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
      • The edited version was declined. I didn't revoke your vote. And yes, your comment was not clear: I understood that you oppose that I proposed an alternate version below. Yann 21:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK, no problem then. My vote had disappeared from the QItotal template somewhere in the process of voting. --Siipikarja 08:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clouds are indeed not correct: or too white or too grey. --Estrilda 22:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination

Edited version (right)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. This is nominated above as well. --Dschwen 21:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please nominate only one version. How can one vote when there are several versions to vote? Please withdraw this entry and renominate which ever version you think is better - as you have apparently done above. --Siipikarja 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination

File:Thomas Bresson - Pres-de-entree (by).jpg[edit]

Thomas Bresson - Pres-de-entree (by).jpg

  • Nomination Near the main gate in the Bois d'Oye fortifications --ComputerHotline 07:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good --Pudelek 20:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)<
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Barrel distortion is disturbing. Lycaon 07:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose White balance. --Eusebius 10:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Dijon - Palais des ducs - Minerve crop 2.jpg[edit]

Dijon - Palais des ducs - Minerve crop 2.jpg

  • Nomination One out of three crops. If one gets more support, I'll withdraw the others. --Eusebius 21:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support celle-ci me plait le plus, mais à mon avis la meilleure prise de vue serait comme l'originale mais légèrement décalée : en haut montrant l'horloge en entier, en bas coupée entre la devise et les fenêtres. --Ianare 20:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Would be my choice as well, I think. I had even forgotten it was a clock... Now I remember that I had to crop it because of a bad reflection. I deliberately wanted to keep the "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité". --Eusebius 21:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It still has the purple/green chromatic aberrations that it had when you nominated it in January (mainly apparent on sides of downpipes, and flag poles). Maybe you could do a little bit of a clean-up before getting a QI medal :-) --Tony Wills 11:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    OK, now I remember why I have three versions of this picture... I had forgotten about the first nomination. I suggest you simply oppose, because I'm unable to remove the CA (mainly because I barely see it, and also because I just don't know how to do it). --Eusebius 11:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Dijon - Palais des ducs - Minerve crop 3.jpg[edit]

Dijon - Palais des ducs - Minerve crop 3.jpg

  • Nomination One out of three crops. If one gets more support, I'll withdraw the others. --Eusebius 21:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination--Eusebius 10:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Darkling beetle.jpg[edit]

Darkling beetle.jpg

  • Nomination Darkling beetle --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp. --Afrank99 09:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't agree. Sharpness, DOF and lighting insufficient for QI. Lycaon 12:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor lighting, sharpness could be better. Kaldari 18:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment At 4mm, sharpness can't be better without a better macro lens --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 06:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Musei capitolini - Colosso di Costantino.jpg[edit]

Musei capitolini - Colosso di Costantino.jpg

  • Nomination Parts of the Statue of Constantine in Rome --Alejo2083 09:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too soft focus --Ianare 02:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I improved it by a sharpening filter, is it better now? --Alejo2083 08:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Sharpening is mainly for bringing out details on a well focused image, it won't help as much if the focus has problems. --Ianare 10:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • well, out-of-focus images look blurred and sharpening can make them sharper. It can't add details that the original blurring effect removed, but in this case there are none (considering the high resolution of the pic, too). Just to know for the future: can you please explain me where you see there are focusing problems? I can't see any! Thanks a lot!! --Alejo2083 11:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Gentiana dinarica.jpg[edit]

Gentiana dinarica.jpg

  • Nomination Blooming Gentiana dinarica --Chrumps 18:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 09:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Part of the left side is missing. --Estrilda 22:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Estrilda. --Bgag 15:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Donna York.jpg[edit]

Donna York.jpg

  • Nomination Towboat Donna York pushing barges of coal.--JMSchneid 12:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great quality, exhaust looks cool. Crop is a bit tight and separation from the background would have been nice. But this is still above the cut for me. --Dschwen 12:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - It's too tilt for me --Pudelek 14:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • now is OK --Pudelek 15:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I uploaded a level version.--JMSchneid 18:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CCW tilt. Lycaon 09:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I hope this version is level. I could not see the tilt at first.--JMSchneid 13:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This version looks level ;-). Lycaon 15:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Maedin 08:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Wind turbine - C-Power (Thornton Bank).jpg[edit]

Wind turbine - C-Power (Thornton Bank).jpg

  • Nomination 5 MW wind turbine on the Thornton bank, Belgium. Lycaon 13:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad crop: the lower blade is cut. Yann 15:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It didn't fit. Seriously, the picture is about the largest turbine in the world, not the blades, I have other pictures for those. Lycaon 15:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If it's about the turbine only, maybe you should crop it even further to emphasize the subject. --Afrank99 09:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I must agree with Afrank99, composition (and designation of the subject) is unclear. --Eusebius 10:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Afrank99. - Till.niermann 05:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Maedin 08:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Papaver_dubium_a.jpg[edit]

Papaver dubium a.jpg

  • Nomination Long-headed Poppy --Spock lone wolf 19:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy. --Eusebius 07:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Can you point out the noise to me? Seems to me we're both looking on different picture. --Spock lone wolf 20:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Spock lone wolf, I don't see unacceptable noise. I think it can be promoted. Maedin 06:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I retract my opposition, obviously it was a bad review, sorry. Perhapas I was looking at some other picture, but my best guess is that at 7.40 in the morning, everything looked noisy to me. I want to point out, however, that there is significant CA on the edge of the topmost petal. --Eusebius 10:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise is prominent in the BG though. Lycaon 10:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Happy now? --Spock lone wolf 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 10:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Maedin 08:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Image:Haight Street, SF.jpg[edit]

Haight Street, SF.jpg

  • Nomination Haight Street, San Francisco --Bgag 15:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not seeing a lot of Value in this picture. Kaldari 18:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's Haight street in san fran. In any case, this is Quality image, not Valuable image. --Ianare 02:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support quality is OK --Ianare 02:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too much compressed -> Compression artifacts -- Pro2 11:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose But the framing is terrible. Way too much cut off, including the interesting detail on the fascia board. Think this could have been done much better in portrait, maybe a few steps back, or maybe stitched. Maedin\talk 09:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Maedin 08:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Andean Condor 065.jpg[edit]

Andean Condor 065.jpg

  • Nomination Andean Condor --Ltshears 19:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good enough for QI --Ianare 21:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Maybe there is not enough space over his/her head? --Estrilda 22:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportI don't think we need more (useless) background on this one. Maybe for FP, but good enough for QI. --Afrank99 07:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Maedin 08:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Libellula depressa (by).jpg[edit]

Thomas Bresson - Libellula depressa (by).jpg

  • Nomination Libellula depressa --ComputerHotline 16:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - good details --Mbdortmund 21:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Overall unsharpness, disturbing yellow background -- Alvesgaspar 16:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kallerna 15:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would have liked or the head, or the tail to be sharp, but both aren't. --Estrilda 22:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Several areas of the insect are out of focus, wings are dirty (looks like he just escaped from a spider web). Kaldari 18:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness is lacking, and the yellow plant is overexposed in parts. Maedin 08:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? Maedin 08:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Zampieri - Adam et Ève (détail).jpg[edit]

Zampieri - Adam et Ève (détail).jpg

  • Nomination It's her fault, it's always been. --Eusebius 07:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose According to QI guidelines, copyright holder must be a Wikipedian. --Afrank99 09:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    No. It says "Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian". This is a self-made picture of a PD work of art, like many QIs we already have. --Eusebius 09:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good quality. Yann 10:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Read again: Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons by the copyright holder under a suitable license.. It's probably time to rethink this guideline (which tells different things at different positions/translations in the text) and exclude PD (expired) artwork from this restriction. --Afrank99 11:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, I think it is worth clarifying the state of PD-art pictures, specifically. I start that in the talk page. --Eusebius 11:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination until the situtation is clarified. --Eusebius 13:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Sea Turtle Nest Boca Raton FL.jpg[edit]

Sea Turtle Nest Boca Raton FL.jpg

  • Nomination Sea turtle nest --Ianare 12:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed sky. Striking my comment. Maedin 07:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • would like a second opinion. I agree parts of the clouds are very white (sun was directly behind me), but there is still detail imho --Ianare 09:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If the image is about the Turtle Nest, the warning is not readable, if it is about the whole place, the hut is out of focus. Yann 09:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting picture, very good composition, and the sky is not overexposed! But I agree with Yann about the sharpness and DOF. -- MJJR 20:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The intention was to show both together as well as possible. The sign was identical to this one, and there are plenty pictures of lifeguard tower images on commons. The sign does have enough resolution to show the date the eggs were laid, which is more important than the fine print. --Ianare 02:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Dendroica caerulescens CT.jpg[edit]

Dendroica caerulescens CT.jpg

  • Nomination Black-throated Blue Warbler, Dendroica caerulescens Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area, Quebec, Canada. --Cephas 09:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much noise, both on the background and the bird. --Eusebius 07:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Edit uploaded. Hopefully it's ok now. Maedin 06:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm sorry, but it is now obvious that the bird has been digitally processed, so I won't remove my opposition. I'm not sure which version of the pic is the best. --Eusebius 10:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose both versions are overprocessed. Given your camera, lens, and abilities, you shouldn't need to do much correction if at all. --Ianare 21:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • also, if you must, look into photoshop's 'unsharp mask' rather than normal sharpening. --Ianare 22:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Gulmohar leaves closeup.JPG[edit]

Gulmohar leaves closeup.JPG

  • Nomination: Gulmohar tree leaves closeup. --Kprateek88 13:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 09:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice idea but the result is a bit too soft for QI. Lycaon 07:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw --Eusebius 11:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Campus TU München, Garching.jpg[edit]

Campus TU München, Garching.jpg

  • Nomination Campus of the Technical University of Munich. --High Contrast 12:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Black spots in the sky. Please clean. Maedin 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Stitching error in the crane. --Berthold Werner 05:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose like Berthold. --Mbdortmund 13:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)