Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 2007

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

Consensual Review[edit]

Dog sled road sign ilulissat 2007-08-23 retouched.jpg[edit]

Dog sled road sign ilulissat 2007-08-23 retouched.jpg

  • Nomination Dogsled roadsign in Ilulissat, Greenland. -- Slaunger 20:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Exchanged with a retouched version. -- Slaunger 15:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Might be better as an SVG. -- carol 12:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Having it as an SVG is valuable, as is the real world battered sign in a Greenlandic town and environment. As I don't think there are that many signs of this type available world-wide you may need this one to do the SVG... -- Slaunger 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    It can be discussed if you like -- the background, the community in which such a sign exists in is interesting and not part of this photograph which is the reason I suggested SVG. -- carol 06:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC
    Acknowledged and I accept the decline as is for reason mentioned. I just wanted to point out the value of the photo as it is a rare road sign. -- Slaunger 20:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While SVG may be useful I do also see a value in this road sign, and a photo ok for QI. -- Klaus with K 17:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm comfortable with the subject matter - we don't disqualify anything from QI just because another version of the image does or could exist. But I think it is cropped a little tightly at the top. And I wonder if it was shot straight on, or from underneath. Underneath, I suspect. Straight on would have been better for this subject. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose but try again if you can. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info You are right that it was not shot dead on as would have been optimal. I do not remember the detailed circumstances, but something hindered taking it dead on. However, the biggest distraction is perhaps the tilted background which is due to the fact that the road sign itself was tilted. I have chosen to rotate the photo CCW to align the sign thus sacrificing a horizontal BG. I basically agree with you also that the crop at the top is too tight. It is partially a side effect of cropping after rotating. I will not have a chance to retake the photo soon though....the subject is 3300 km (and $) away. -- Slaunger 11:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Why would road sign need to be SVG to have an informative value? Why wouldn't it be interesting to have it in its original background? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Although I fully agree with TwoWings, I only decline because of the too tight crop. Maybe you can clone a few hundreds of blue pixels on top? Lycaon 23:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    I have to agree with the too tight crop... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Due to composition, the crop is too tight but I don't think it can be remedied by cloning. Dori - Talk 23:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Well, I basically agree with the opposers, so there is not really a point in keeping it here. Thank you for the time you have spend reviewing it. At least you have now seen an unusual road sign. -- Slaunger 20:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Result: Withdrawn --Tony Wills 20:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I made all of those opposes in that one sweep that one day, I am being sorry about this as time marches on since that day. Before this image leaves the QI candidate page, something nice should be said about the editing of the image. No blue swirls and not too much information was removed. It was also originally opposed by someone in such a mood to oppose the thumbnail without looking at the image. I really thought that the top of the sign was cut off. -- in opposition to the opposer, carol 03:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

TentAlignmentFun.jpg[edit]

TentAlignmentFun.jpg

  • Nomination Camping event by Dansplat . -- carol 05:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Smaller-than-2MPix with no mitigating reasons, partially overexposed --JDrewes 18:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the over exposure you are speaking of is from sunlight. The photograph captures areas of shade and sunlight and seems to do so in a fairly balanced way, given the conditions. The size suggestion is a suggestion. -- carol 05:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As nominator can I request a discussion? -- carol 23:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, typically it is the nominator that moves it to CR. Dori - Talk 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition and quality. I disagree with JDrewes for the overexposed argument. When a big part of a picture is oversexposed there's clearly a problem of quality but when it concerns little parts of it, it can be eligible. When a professional cameraman uses the "zebra tool", his purpose is not to have 0% of overexposition but not to reach a "over-overexposition"! IMO it's too strict to decline for a small overexposition. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose size Lycaon 12:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, based on size. This kind of shot could have easily been taken at a higher resolution.-- Relic38 12:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks as if it was cropped from a 1600x1200 image. There are cameras that take good photographs but at only that size, in case you did not know that. -- carol 04:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 20:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Male mallard duck 2.jpg[edit]

Male mallard duck 2.jpg

  • Nomination Male mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos). -- Acarpentier 04:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I'm not sure about the value of the centered or not critism, and it's not that I dont take them but it seem a non-sense argument because some like it centered, some will reject it cause it is... I only want to make realise to some people that comments like that are going no where and that we cannot learn or improve from them. Cordially, Acarpentier 15:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not centered. -- carol 12:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC) you are correct. -- carol 22:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Centered, not centered, either way I think this one is good. Dori - Talk 23:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Clear QI to me. A good picture doesn't have to be centered. A 2/3 - 1/3 composition can be good too. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 20:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

VillaFoscari 2007 07 10 04.jpg[edit]

VillaFoscari 2007 07 10 04.jpg

  • Nomination Villa Foscari, a villa near Venice by Andrea Palladio. --Kjetil r 11:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood perspective, a bit soft on details but still QI for me. ;) Acarpentier 00:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but there is lot of halos around objects. Looks like it's been oversharpened. Dori - Talk 00:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversharpened by camera or postprocessing. -- Klaus with K 18:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 20:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Gherkin from below.JPG[edit]

The Gherkin from below.JPG

  • Nomination The Gherkin from below (London) --TwoWings * Wanna talk? ;-) 08:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    NB: I moved it here since I didn't have any reply to my question before the bot deleted it from the nominations...
  • Decline
  • I prefer calling it The Towering Innuendo : ). Calibas 01:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted --Lestat 21:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry but I can't see why "tilted" is a problem on such a shot! (is it that tilted actually?) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor composition Pudelek 22:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have a point and shoot camera (read: not a great lens). I take photographs like this because they are comical and because of the limitations of my equipment. TwoWings: would you like to trade camera so that I can take good photographs and you can get as many of these beautiful images as you would like naturally? -- carol 02:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    Do you mind rephrasing because I'm not sure to understand what you want to tell me?... Are you mocking me? Here's what I understant: "I have a crap camera but I take good pictures and you're the contrary"! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope. I have a little camera with a built in all-purpose lens. To get a good photograph of a tower, I would have to be such a distance away from the subject that after cropping, the image itself would be small. I am suggesting that you have a camera with different sizes of lens or the ability to use different lens or perhaps one better all purpose lens and you are making it work as if it is as limited as mine. If laughing is 'mocking' then I am mocking at your image. -- carol 20:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
OK I understand... except that I can assure you that my camera is not that good! This was the best wide-angle lens of my zoom! But anyway I didn't want to have a full shot since my double purpose was to give the real feeling one can get when he's at the bottom with a low angle shot plus to show the details (but I guess I should have zoomed more for the second purpose!) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Google maps can lower the quality of this image even further if they have its location in their collection yet. -- carol 11:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Beyond silence 22.5px 18:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Montreal s-w downtown[edit]

Montreal s-w downtown.jpg

  • Nomination A panoramic view (6x2) of Montreal S-W Downtown. --Acarpentier 01:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful, thank you. -- carol 17:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry I find it too dark, little detail is left of the cityscape. Lycaon 23:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral beautiful but maybe too dark... but on the other hand, why should darkness be a problem for a night picture?! --TwoWings (jraf) * Wanna talk? ;-) 13:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support detail, night photo --Beyond silence 22.5px 20:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nighttime photos should be dark, but when over a third of the image is blown black... Thegreenj 02:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Agree with TwoWings.-- Slaunger 21:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rollopack 07:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -Lestat 12:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose,  2 neutral -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Equus burchelli[edit]

Equus burchelli 5.jpg Equus burchelli 5 pano.jpg

  • Nomination Group of Damara Zebras (Equus quagga burchellii) at the waterhole of Okaukuejo, Etosha, Namibia. -- Lycaon 21:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition but poor lighting, with too strong contrasts. The heads of the zebras are in the shadow, affecting the detail - Alvesgaspar 12:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I beg to differ. Maybe every harsh lighted picture needs a backing story? This waterhole is accessible only from one side. Zebras come drinking during the brighter parts of the day, when not stalked by lions. And of course they are wild, so they are not posing, even if asked nicely ;-)). Lycaon 07:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, I forgot to mention that it is 7881.52 km from where I live to Okaukuejo :)). Lycaon 20:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The image is in a gallery, isn't that sufficient? Lycaon 00:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
No :-) (Oh, no, not *that* argument again! ;-) --Tony Wills 01:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Why not? Lycaon 01:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well the guidelines say it should be correctly 'categorized' which implies adding categories ... (or do you want the whole gallery vs category argument too? ;-) --Tony Wills 10:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think the guideline should be elaborated a little on this point. I'd say it should be properly categorized and/or added to a relevant specific gallery/galleries. This would embrace both the category and the gallery followers as both practises are accepted. For plants for instance, the convention used mostly there is to add the image to a species gallery, other places the predominant convention is to use a specific category. I usually just adopt to commons practise for related subjects without enforcing my own view on this. -- Slaunger 10:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think the lighting could be better, but I understand the difficulty of the subject. I would support a crop of ~230 pixels off the top, giving a more widescreen feel that emphasizes the subjects. - Relic38 00:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done voldaan aan de verzuchtingen ;-). Lycaon 01:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was ready to support based on the crop, but I don't much like the loss of contrast in the new version. I would have preferred the lighting to stay the same as in the original. I hope I'm not complaining too much ;) - Relic38 02:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No you are not, but I'm getting lost... Lycaon 09:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the first version and also the unmentioned danger that the photographer was in makes up for the noisy water, in my humble opinion. Nambia is quite away, I think. -- carol 18:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Lycaon, did you take this photograph or fund it or both? -- carol 18:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I only post self taken photographs (apart from the odd retouch) and Namibia is quite safe, thank you. Lycaon 19:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I asked because when I took photographs for a professional photographer, they were hers. About Namibia... (thanks for the hint!) -- carol 20:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There may be better photos of zebras but I find this one is sufficiently good for QI. -- Slaunger 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tony Wills asked we to clarify which version I preferred here after the vote closed: I prefer the edited version. -- Slaunger 20:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for the edit, if that is possible without it being moved to its own review section? - Relic38 00:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral (but more Support than Oppose...) I don't really like the background. --TwoWings (jraf) * Wanna talk? ;-) 21:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 22:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Cygnus olor juvenile flight2.jpg[edit]

Cygnus olor juvenile flight2.jpg

  • Nomination Juvenile mute swan in flight over wetlands --Thermos 14:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great action shot. Acarpentier 16:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image should be cropped, bird is not in center. --Hsuepfle 21:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    You're kidding, eh? --XN 19:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the composition is just fine as it is. I would not like to see it with a centered crop. Overall a great shot. The lightning on the head is a little unfortunate. I would perhaps consider to selectively blur the background a little to emphasize the subject even more and remove some of the noise at the same time. It is at a near-distracting level - at least on-screen. -- Slaunger 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
edit with blurred bg
edit with slightly blurred bg
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment so see this ad hoc editing underlining your comment. I think, it's more an issue of background, but this is more likely a problem of natural camouflage. --XN 21:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    I had a more subtle and delicate blurring in mind (a 2 pixel blur radius or so). This one is too much for my taste, there are clear artifacts of the blurring process around the flying bird. -- Slaunger 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • My purpose was to show the effect of blurring, not to enhance the image. --XN 22:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    OK, my suggestion of adding slight bg blur is also just a suggestion. I also find the current bg noise level acceptable. -- Slaunger 11:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me it is a QI. It is not an easy shot, which mitigates the noise. Lycaon 20:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The edit has a halo effect around the subject which ruins it for me. I don't have a problem with the noise in the original, and I know how hard it is to catch these types of action shots. --Relic38 00:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I add another edit with noise reduction (.75 gaussian blur on background only). Lycaon 11:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support version with slightly blurred bg or the original. Yes, it was something like this I had in mind. Close to the original, but slightly improved BG without ruining the subject. -- Slaunger 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support original. Dori - Talk 14:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the original. Even if there's some little noise on the blurry background. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 6 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 09:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Passer domesticus img 2344[edit]

Passer domesticus img 2344.jpg

  • Nomination A female house sparrow. Dori - Talk 19:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeCrop, DOF and also a bit the pinkish (?!?) background. Lycaon 14:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What's wrong with the crop? Dori - Talk 15:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoOn further examination, I adjusted the colors (thanks for pointing that out) and the crop. I don't know if just DOF was enough for you to oppose, so moved it to CR. Dori - Talk 17:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Still not convinced. The sparrow's head is unsharp and concerning the crop, I would've preferred some more foreground. Lycaon 23:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, regarding foreground, it's a matter of personal preference on my part. I don't like to have too much unfocussed foreground showing (background is fine). Dori - Talk 01:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • A 'wildlife rule' says that you should show as much foreground, when an animal's legs are hidden in it, as if you would see the legs without obstruction. Here it is a bit on the limit, as if you would have cut the poor bird's toenails ;-). Lycaon 01:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not thaat sharp/somewhat shallow DOF. Suggestion: How about adding some location info? It looks as though the bird is on a moved lawn (cut grass). Is that correct? -- Slaunger 21:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It's on top of a cut hedgerow. Added location (though these guys are so common that it might as well be anywhere...) Dori - Talk 00:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful in tiny version but the full shot shows it's unfortunately not sharp on the head. --TwoWings * Wanna talk? ;-) 09:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 09:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Pontiac Pathfinder 1953 Hood Ornaments[edit]

Pontiac Pathfinder 1953 Hood.jpg

  • Nomination Pontiac Pathfinder 1953 Hood Ornaments. --Acarpentier 04:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Is it already declined here? #!George Shuklin 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well spotted. Lycaon 08:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, just wanted a second opinion, is it allowed? Acarpentier 14:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Try consensual review. Lycaon 14:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition not good enough, can't see much of the hood. Dori - Talk 22:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the composition at all! --TwoWings (jraf) * Wanna talk? ;-) 13:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> Not promoted to QI. --Slaunger 21:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Avondale stables[edit]

Avondale ag rs gnangarra 01.JPG

  • Nomination Avondale stables built 1890 Gnangarra 15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Levels need adjustment, lighting on roof is harsh, it's a bit unsharp, and should be Geocoded. - Relic38 23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • according to Commons:Image guidelines Commons:Geocoding isnt a requirement its not even mentioned there is a current dicussion on the talk page. As yet there isnt resolution as to the issues. Gnangarra 05:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Here mainly for exposure. Geocoding not (yet) being a requirement, doesn't mean assessors can't use it to decline an image. I wouldn't decline just on that but it is factor in my total assessment anyway. Lycaon 08:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • probably should be on the talk but it can move there if it continues in any length, Why have a criteria/guideline if images can be decline for reasons that arent part of the criteria. Gnangarra 13:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I declined on the technical flaws, the geocoding is simply a request. Sorry for the confusion. - Relic38 00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 22:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mirów Castle - 24[edit]

Mirów Castle - 24.JPG

  • Nomination Castle at Mirów, Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the composition, a bit blurry close up but at this high a resolution I'm not gonna fault it. Calibas 07:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp. --Lestat 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not thaaat sharp, but the DOF is good. Composition OK, a pity with the visually unattractive yellow tube. I recommend adding geodata including heading and there are some strange braces in the image description. Please fix. -- Slaunger 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful but not sharp enough to me. --TwoWings (jraf) * Wanna talk? ;-) 21:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful but not sharp enough --Beyond silence 22.5px 20:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Lantana buds[edit]

Lantana October 2007-1.jpg

  • Nomination The buds of a Lantana camara inflorescence. Taken in a garden near my house, Lisbon, Portugal - Alvesgaspar 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't know if the focus is off or if it's the DOF, but in my opinion that precludes it from QI. Dori - Talk 04:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The subject is on focus and the DOF close to the best possible under these conditions. The slight blur is probably the result of diffraction due to the large f-number and the fine details on the hairs, not visible with a naked eye -- Alvesgaspar 08:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the sharpness and DOF are just acceptable. The center of the flower seems to have small overexposed areas, but not enough for me to decline. -- Slaunger 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness and DOF look good to me. - Relic38 00:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Focus seems good. Composition great. --TwoWings (jraf) * Wanna talk? ;-) 21:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good focus. But pinky thing behind the focus attracts my eyes.Hariadhi 12:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportAlthough I share Dori's concerns, Alvesgaspar's explanation seems logical, and the identified problems therefore not avoidable. I like the colours a lot, and the composition, while not very exciting, gives a very clear view of the flower. --Florian Prischl 16:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 09:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Silvereye hen[edit]

Silver eye hen on nest444.jpg

  • Nomination Silvereye hen Benjamint 12:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion :
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nest photography. Lycaon 13:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please cite a valid reason for opposing. Nest photography is not illeagal in Australia and I was a reasonable distance away from the nest. Benjamint 03:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I could see automatically opposing this if it were a top-down 30mm focal length picture of a next with eggs. But, judging by this picture, Benjamint isn't doing anything harmful. Calibas 23:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The picture was taken from "a few feet away with flash". The exif is identical to this image from which I quoted the author - comment diff. Lycaon 10:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That's irrevelant, the stone curlew was a tame bird sitting on the ground so I did get closer, The silvereye however was on a nest so I stayed well back, I basically did a hundred percent crop to this Benjamint 03:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If this is irrelevant, then why are both exifs almost identical? Lycaon 12:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Because with the camera on the same settings, the imaes being at the same res and me having picked the same exposure in shutter priority the only things I would expect to be different are a)date and b)F-number and any image taken on my camera with the same focal length and the flash on is going to be around the 3.6 - 3.7 - 4.5 mark, so thats what, a one in three chance of identicle EXIF? Honestly, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for reasons to annoy me.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks QI to me --Tony Wills 00:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> more votes? --Tony Wills 00:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Blue faced honeyeater[edit]

Blue faced honeyeater feeding444.jpg

  • Nomination Blue faced Honeyeater feedingBenjamint 11:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice picture but the colors are bleeding in the background and there's tons of noise even though it's 100 ISO. I used to have the previous model of your camera and had similar problems, an upgrade to a Canon DSLR made a world of difference. Sucks paying $500 for a camera that gives you lower quality images than a $200 camera. Calibas 00:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not only that but about 2 months after I got this the FZ50 came out; twice as good, same price :(. I'll see if I can fix it.Benjamint✓ Done 09:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice job cleaning it up. Calibas 23:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Weird DOF probably due to selective unsharpening. The bird is more or less in focus while the prey which should be in the same focal plane, is not. Additionally the nape is OOF and the white on the breast is burned out. Lycaon 20:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this is good enough for QI. Dori - Talk 21:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It probably is, but I would love to hear some explanation on those issues ;). Lycaon 22:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Worm: It was wriggling like mad trying to escape causing what what we call motion blur, and you can see a slight ghosting on the top edge of the worm to confirm this. Overexposure is produced when too much light reaches the digital image sensor. A good example of this: Hampstead Beach from West (Dominica).jpg. Benjamint 09:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well if the image is (partially) overexposed by too much light reaching the digital image sensor, then it can't be a QI per guidelines. Or am I missing something? Lycaon 00:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Since when is an image automatically declined if it's partially overexposed? I can't find that rule anywhere. If the white was properly exposed, most of the picture would be underexposed, so in my opinion Benjamint set proper exposure. Calibas 02:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I give up :-((. This is getting to Orwellian for me. Lycaon 09:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and sorry if I was more equal than you. Benjamint 10:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The overexposed parts are white so it's reasonable to me. The DOF is Not too bad but could be better. - Relic38 18:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. Acarpentier 21:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Although the resolution is borderline, the photo itself is good enough for QI for me; but there is more to QI that that such as the image page:
    • The image page is over-categorized. Quote: The general rule is always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those. You have placed your image in three categories, where two of them are levels above.
    • Missing date field. (Yeah, I know it is in the EXIF, but when it is in the date field it gives better possibilities for searching for photos on date)
    • There does not exist a category or a species gallery for the bird - the links are dead. I would say it is good practise to create such a category or species gallery such that other users can find the photo again. Yes I know this is tedious and takes time. If you are unsure concerning how to do this, I suggest contacting one of these users, alternatively look at the history of related pages to get an indication of who can help you. I have used that several times with success.
    • Side-issue, which is not related to me declining: In my opinion it brings value to the image page to add geodata to the image page for a plant or an animal. For instance, all geocoded Commons photos can be activated as a layer in Google Earth. They popup up as a small icon you can click on to access the photo. I find it very useful. The exception is endangered species or species, which are rare on the given location. For such photos bio hunters should not be given too much guidance. -- Slaunger 20:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll find out how to create categories. I don't know how to geocode either though...? Benjamint 09:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If you follow the links embedded in my comments, you will see how. If you have further questions regarding it do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page.-- Slaunger 10:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Components of TIROS Spac0056-repair[edit]

Components of TIROS Spac0056-repair.png

  • Nomination A reconstruction of a 1960 era information card about a weather satellite that was launched around that time. --carol 08:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality of the old photo is not good enough: it is dark and shows little detail - Alvesgaspar 12:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    What is your problem? -- carol 12:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Strictly speaking Alves is perhaps correct in opposing. On the other hand I think this demonstrates what image restoration can do when you are really skilled at doing it. Considering the absolute lousy quality of the original on which the restored image is based I think it represents work done on a very high level and this should be acknowledged somehow. I am in doubt whether QI is the right place for that, but at least I think it should be discussed. -- Slaunger 14:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
because they did not take perfect photographs in 1960
The original print of this would have failed Alvegaspars taste in photography, it is an image done the way they did them then. He does not like the style nor the limitations of the circumstance. It is the best example of an encyclopedic image (informative and factual) from that time. So many of my text books looked like that and the quality of the photographs were perhaps not so perfect. It is what it was. -- carol 14:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - This place is about images, photographs and otherwise, not about Alvesgaspar's taste or his preferences on style. I evaluate all pictures in conscience in the light of my interpretation of the guidelines and of my little knowledge on Photography. It is just not true that all (or the generality of) old pictures have poor quality. We have plenty of contrary examples, both in Commons:FP and WP:FP. -- Alvesgaspar 16:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good work Dori - Talk 16:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor job. Most of the details are lost. Lycaon 16:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    "Most details are lost" could you elaborate a little on that? I find it is the other way around when comparing to the non-restored original, but as I have realized previously my observational skills are seldomly as top-tuned as yours... -- Slaunger 09:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Carol, I am curious to hear what kind of effort you have put into the restoration of this image and what kind of techniques you have used to get there. I have the impression by comparing the original with the restored photo, that it is a very tedious and non-trivial process?
The little photograph, the labels and the title were lifted from the background and I randomly chose a color of red that reminded me of the colors from back then. If the original background was a different color, it should be interesting to see how that dye responds to acid to change it in such a way. The photograph was returned to grayscale via decomposition into RGB components and I picked what I thought was the best one of the three. The whites of the labels were made white again and the fonts that were there are the ones that had to be used because there is not a font that I have rightful access to to replace them with properly. The lines from the labels were redrawn using stroked paths and they seemed to not be entirely perfect in the original image so neither were these. All this work was done using GIMP, I get mine from the developers versioning system making it difficult for me to tell you which version. I will happily provide the xcf. I don't think that I am the best person to do this work; I do think that I was the first one to look at it, know what it should look like and have the time, love and knowlege to do the work.
Everyone has access to the original image and the tools I used, greatly because of the license that this commons project and that software project try to share. An expensive artist with those expensive tools perhaps could do a much better job of restoration; I love this image and would enjoy seeing that just as much as I enjoyed my attempt. This is a part of the history of my country and species that I am very proud of. It is about the image and not me! -- carol 14:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support : I second Slaunger's requests. To my (admitedly untrained) eye Carol seems to have made fine digital restoration work indeed. Of course, many fine pieces of work do not qualify as QI for some reason or another. Luis Dantas 11:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The original jpeg had stroked paths that were equal in size from label to component.
eek! that should be fixed now. -- carol 16:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 3.5 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 08:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Butterfly on flower[edit]

Butterfly October 2007-2.jpg

  • Nomination A butterfly of the Lycaenidae family (Cacyreus marshalli) on a Hebe x franciscana flower. Taken in Lisboa, Portugal. - Alvesgaspar 22:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the focus is off on this one as well, additionally not the best composition on the butterfly. Dori - Talk 04:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Regarding the main subject: flower and butterfly, its unbalanced in some aspects F, Comp, Dof --Richard Bartz 18:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 08:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yellow fungus[edit]

Calocera viscosa LC0123.jpg

  • Nomination Yellow stagshorn fungus (Calocera viscosa) --LC-de 23:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sublime. Calibas 02:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Yes, the composition and colours are nice but the main subject is out of focus - Alvesgaspar 12:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The ones in the front are in focus -- if all the little fungi had been in focus, it would qualify as FP. As it is, the ones in front represent the fungus just fine. Unless there are many such images in the QI collection right now? Subject is out of focus should it be removed? -- carol 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ack Alvesgaspar. BTW, FP and QI should not be confused. Lycaon 16:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
If it had the focus that is being asked for here, it should do well in a Featured Picture assessment? Where is the confusion except me about where the confusion is? -- carol 15:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fungis are slight Oof blurry, maybe caused by camera/sensor-shake --Richard Bartz 18:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 01:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The windows of the main library at UIUC[edit]

UIUC 20071006 img 2289.jpg   UIUC 20071006 img 2289 ShiftN.jpg

  • Nomination The windows of the main library at UIUC, one of the largest libraries in the US. Dori - Talk 02:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I believe you that it is one of the largest libraries, but because of the framing, I have to believe you. -- carol 06:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no way to frame it such that you would believe it (would any big building qualify? there are bigger buildings than that one that are not even libraries). This framing was just for composition. Dori - Talk 14:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I like the composition. Can it be straightened? Lycaon 23:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I couldn't do it, it's distorted by the lens. Dori - Talk 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But you should rename to a more descriptive name. Lycaon 13:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The (perspective?) distortion leading to non-parallel lines at the left and right image boundaries distract me. (Are you sure this cannot be fixed?) I also find the tubes distracting in the composition. -- Slaunger 21:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know if it can or cannot, I just know that I {can't/don't know how to} do it. If someone thinks it's worth it and wants to take a crack at it, I can upload the original image. Dori - Talk 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Google for a program named "ShiftN". It worked fine for me. Luis Dantas 01:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the suggestion but I don't use Windows. I tried fumbling my way in Gimp but it's too big a pain and windows end up crooked in a non-uniform way (as opposed to this which has come out crooked in some uniform way :). I hear Gimp 2.4 has improved in this function, but I don't have it yet. Dori - Talk 01:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Did the original ever get uploaded? -- carol 13:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Far from me to disencourage a non-Windows user :) - so, have you tried Hugin? ([1]) Luis Dantas 02:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that's a handy link, but Hugin (v0.6.1) crashes or locks up for me so I don't use it. Dori - Talk 05:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I gave it a try with ShiftN. Lycaon 05:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That fixed the vertical alignment but it is still horizontally distorted (the original also had this kind of distortion, I just did not notice that previously). -- Slaunger 21:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment heh -- carol 13:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Here is the thing. I can fix this photograph to have the proper perspective and to also be straight -- blah, blah, blah ...encyclopedic images... blah, blah blah. -- carol 15:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Do show us your tricks. -- Slaunger 21:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I think that the real image manipulation trick here would be to justify this image for its encyclopedic value and I don't think that any application available on any operating system (or even the old tools where you worked with the negative and film developing equipment) can do this. I certainly haven't seen the old hands here attempt it. -- carol 02:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Hey, I didn't claim there was much encyclopedic value to it (although it could be used to show perspective distortions and they are corrected through software :). Here's the original (in PNG so it wouldn't lossy compress twice). Dori - Talk 02:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Was not the claim made when it was nominated here though? I was considering this, what if that was actually a photograph of the VA Hospital in Ann Arbor (before it was rebricked). I would have a difficult time remembering what it looked like before to verify that. Perhaps if there were a sign in the lower left corner or something. -- carol 02:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
              • It depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is. I said there was not "much encyclopedic value" but there is "some". Dori - Talk 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 00:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Flower[edit]

Flower 2007-2.jpg

  • Nomination Flower of Hebe sp. (Plantaginaceae), a shrub native to New Zeland - Alvesgaspar 08:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Likely Hebe x franciscana 'Blue Gem'. Lycaon 09:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't really better than my declined photo (Image:Centaurea sadleriana-1.JPG)--Beyond silence 22.5px 10:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I find this too vague to be a valid oppose; specifically, what is it that makes this picture equal/worse to your photo? Yours was declined for sharpness/focus problems, oversharpening, and overexposure. Of those reasons, this picture suffers only from overexposure, and to a much lesser degree than yours. Would you mind elaborating? Thegreenj 23:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice colors and composition, good DOF, no noise or artifacts... I don't see why this should not be a QI. -- MJJR 20:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Can't fault it. –Dilaudid 21:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Would say much better than b_silence's because its not overexposed and very beautiful --Richard Bartz 11:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI, no doubt. -- Slaunger 21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestat 22:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - According to the rules, the voting should have been closed on the 26th October, 48 hours after MJJR's vote (the same with the other cases) - ;-) --Alvesgaspar 14:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO, the rules say closing at earliest 48hrs after the last comment/vote. But I agree this is not clear (I quote: "If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from review, the image becomes promoted or fails"). Lycaon 15:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - IMO, the most sensitive thing to do is not to allow any more votes 48 hours after the consensus for promotion/rejection has been reached. That is also the general procedure in COM:FPC. Otherwise, there is always a margin for an arbitrary decision of the closer influencing the final result - Alvesgaspar 16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 6 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Marseille Palais Longchamp Zentralsektion[edit]

Marseille Palais Longchamp Zentralsektion JD25032007.jpg
  • Nomination The center section of the Palais Longchamp in Marseille, frontal view--JDrewes 12:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice picture, but the tourist on the right definitely spoils the composition. Other opinions? -- MJJR 20:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The tourist is distracting but an otherwise nice image. Calibas 23:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's reasonably sharp and not too noisy and the tourist is "unfortunate". Lycaon 10:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Sao Camilo[edit]

Sao Camilo DF 01.jpg
  • Nomination Igreja São Camilo, em Brasília. -- Luis Dantas 08:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please correct the perspective distortion of the vertical lines by using ShiftN or another editing tool. -- MJJR 21:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the advice. How is it now? Luis Dantas 02:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Detail.--Beyond silence 22.5px 20:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is still a clear CW tilt. Lycaon 20:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be a CCW (Counter-clockwise) tilt? Anyway, I dabbled a bit more with ShiftN, see if you like the results better. And thanks for the opportunity of learning about such tools! :) Luis Dantas 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now. -- MJJR 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I took the liberty of entering the new running total myself, hopefully that is not a breach of etiquette. It's been four days already since the last entry. I was expecting some further input from Lycaon, but perhaps it's time to move on already? Luis Dantas 23:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Promotion/decline will (often) take place 48hrs after the last comment was made. My lack of comments indicated agreement with the lack of further opposition. Lycaon 10:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Alvesgaspar 13:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Kennedy Jr.[edit]

Robert Kennedy Jr. 1.jpg
  • Nomination Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. --Dschwen 04:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp, noisy and weird asymmetry of the eyes. --Nattfodd 15:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, but unsharp and noisy? You can count pores and beard stubbles and it's a 13MP image for crying out loud. --Dschwen 17:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Resoltion so really huge, so sharpness is good. --Beyond silence 22.5px 23:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Beyond silence (doesn't often happen:)). Lycaon 11:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I cannot see any sharpness issues. As for the asymmetry: this isn't a beauty contest. --rimshottalk 11:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is not perfectly sharp, but sharp enough if you don't care for the haircut. There seems to be a hotpixel just under his nose? --JDrewes 09:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportAs per JDrewes. And yes, there is such a hotpixel, definitely. Barely visible at 30% zoom and not at all at 20%, but quite visible at 100%. Luis Dantas 23:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI --Tony Wills 00:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Masked owl[edit]

Masked owl mask4441.jpg
  • Nomination Masked owl--Benjamint 13:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp, OK composition (complete bird might be more useful for Wiki), some overexposure around the face though. - (Relic38 02:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are some small potatoes which i adressed in the 2nd picture above which should be fixed first --Richard Bartz 15:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mainly on the noise areas, resulting from blurring the background but not masking close enough to the bird. Lycaon 16:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Even with the aforementioned problems I still think this is a QI, though I wont complain if they're fixed. Calibas 17:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree. I think this is hoing very far here (is this because of Benjamint's review on Richard's picture here ?) -- Benh 19:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree Richard Bartz' criticisms are going too far, especially for QI. I could barely see the so-called flaws even in the retouched version. --Nattfodd 22:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's not only QI, it's near FP. --Beyond silence 22.5px 08:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Should be a Qi at least --Thermos 16:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support At this fairly low resolution we should expect much, and although I can see the points raised by Richard and Lycaon when I really look for it, I do not think it spoils an overall expression of witnessing a QI. -- Slaunger 18:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Fairly low resolution indeed. Any reason for that, with an 8.3 Mpx (3,264 × 2,448) camera, or do you follow FIR's philosophy: the smallest allowable size is more than good enough for wikicommons...? Could you please answer the question? Lycaon 19:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, FIR's Philosophy, although you don't seem to have a clear grasp on what it is:[2]Benjamint 13:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • After having read the mentioned conversation, I'm even more convinced of my statements. I'm however not opposing because of size in this case, as in full size the faults of this image (which are, admittedly, borderline) would be worse. You can hold on to your philosophy, no problems, but, as Ram-man also said, FP and QI are not rights. So you can't claim it for images for which larger (and especially better) version do exist. You can still request the status from voters though (and be turned down because of size at times). Thanks for answering my question, I'll hold the filibustering now, so that your image can be promoted. Lycaon 09:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A fine shot, the problems are minor. –Dilaudid 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 8 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 09:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Sunset in Autumn[edit]

Sunset in Autumn.jpg

  • Nomination Sunset in Autumn Laitche 07:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I want discussion to this image :) --Laitche 07:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but you can do much better than this. Though the lighting of those plunes is nice, the composition is not interesting. The blown part doesn't help either. - Alvesgaspar 21:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this composition is very nice at the sence of Japanese. And I feel that the colour as gold. --Laitche 07:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I want opinions (^^)/ Laitche 04:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is beautiful, but it doesn't say much other than autumn is beautiful. -- carol 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment From an artistic point of view, this image is superb: colors, composition, atmosphere... (I like it very much!). From a technical point of view, there are some problems: most of the objects are out of focus, the lower left part is overexposed and even burnt white. For a QI the technical aspects are decisive... -- MJJR 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, no Qi for me, Its not balanced in many aspects Oof, CA, B, N, Comp --Richard Bartz 00:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What do you mean CA, B, N ? B means a balance? N means a noise? --Laitche 06:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • OoF - Out of focus , CA - Chromatic Aberations, B - Blur and N - Noise ... and a overexposure casted by rhe sun. This would probably work great if taken as a HDR image--Richard Bartz 18:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you a lot Richard. --Laitche 06:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Thank you so much everyone. --Laitche 06:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Młada Hora[edit]

Beskid Żywiecki - Panorama z Mładej Hory.jpg

  • Nomination Mlada Hora. --Lestat 20:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is in fact a nicer composition than your other one, but unfortunately the sky and the tree at the left side are burnt white. -- MJJR 20:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe another opinion? --Lestat 15:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good panorama. English description can you write?--Beyond silence 22.5px 18:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral sky is overexposed, but composition is ok --Pudelek 19:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The overexposure and the CA on the trees are/should not acceptable for QI, otherwise nice composition. Why not crop a part of the left side ? --Richard Bartz 11:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with MJJR and Richard's suggestion. That tree to the left is really an eyesore with the very blown sky behind. -- Slaunger 21:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hill fort[edit]

Rijeka-Trsat-Hill fort-10.JPG

  • Nomination Rijeka--Beyond silence 22.5px 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp, color, nice POV Acarpentier 01:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - No clear subject, random shot. - Alvesgaspar 19:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar. Lycaon 22:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I dont like the composition because its twisted and the flag is cutted, furthermore subject is not apparent for me --Richard Bartz 11:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Alves and Richard. -- Slaunger 21:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Lestat 22:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  5 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasp and fly[edit]

Wasp August 2007-23.jpg

  • Nomination A female digger-wasp of the Sphecidae family (Bembix occulata) feeding on the fluids of a fly after having paralysed it with the sting. - Alvesgaspar 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why the large aperture? ISO 400 and f/11 would have given a better result, IMO. Thegreenj 00:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - Because there was no time to do otherwise! I just pointed and shot two or three times before the wasp flew away - Alvesgaspar 07:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hmmm... this is about to become an unassesed image, so I'll go ahead and review it despite my weak feelings. It really is close to the boundary for me. It's a great shot just for getting the moment, but it's not all that sharp for the size and the DOF problem just knocks it a little past what I'd expect. CR if you disagree; this is close. Thegreenj 21:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I don't really disagree but would like to get other opinions. This is such a difficult shot to make ! - Alvesgaspar 06:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a fantastic shot, but as has been said before difficulty of the shot doesn't count for much when considering quality - would probably count in FP, but then someone had already done a similar shot, so no longer exceptional :-) --Tony Wills 02:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support I realy like the composition as I would not expect anyone to be able to get this shot any time soon (if ever). Since DOF is the only key problem here (could have had a shot at FP otherwise), I give it weak support. Usually I totally miss these kinds of shots when they appear, so I congratulate you on catching it. - Relic38 23:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, have to agree with Thegreenj. It is a bordeline case but the DOF just doesn't cut it for me. Lycaon 07:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Somebody said weak or strong vote not used in Commons, only in English Wikipedia. Can I use these? --Beyond silence 22.5px 21:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info People can use what they like, so long as their intention is clear. I've assumed "weak" counts as a half vote (0.5), people could also use "strong" but that will only be counted as one vote (1.0). I generally don't close a discussion unless there is a clear majority of at least 1.0 for promote/decline as it seems unreasonable for a fraction of a vote to determine the outcome. --Tony Wills 02:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think weak or strong should be just for informing the nominator, it should still count as a full support or oppose vote, otherwise people should be neutral (or not say anything). It either crosses your personal threshold or it doesn't, it's not that hard. Dori - Talk 03:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... I don't know that every image is really a yes or no (or neutral). My threshold is more of a gradient - while I am opposed to it, I wouldn't want my opinion to have an overly strong effect on the outcome should the community disagree. Thegreenj 21:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As important this picture will be, i think its not balanced in many kinds of aspects, sorry. A QI should be like this --Richard Bartz 11:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0.5 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dzomba and Sara in Rostock[edit]

Dzomba and Sara in Rostock.jpg
  • Nomination Two elephants eating. Does their beauty make up for the overexposed tusks? - rimshot 15:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Detail.--Beyond silence 22.5px 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't agree. In a controlled environment (zoo), you should be able to get better lighting. Lycaon 21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Lighting is good, or you talk about overexpose?--Beyond silence 22.5px 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Subject of this photograph are the two elephants. So it does not really matter if their tusks overexposed. Hariadhi 13:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    Qué??? Overexposure of an integral part of the topic of an image always matters IMO. 10:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Lycaon
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Lycaon. In ZOO we have a lot of time to do very good photo. Moreover I don't like this crop. --Lestat 22:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Result (after +8 days in CR): 2 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Marseille Palais Longchamp At Night[edit]

Marseille Palais Longchamp At Night JD 22052007.jpg
  • Nomination The Palais Longchamp, Marseille, France. --JDrewes 12:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks unnatural because of lighting and distortion. Lycaon 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ? I agree with Lycaon about the "unnatural" look, but for me this is not a reason to decline, as the picture has a special atmosphere and the general quality is more than OK. -- MJJR 20:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment My main problem with this photo is the harsh light on the big plant on the left and other tendencies towards overexposure. It seems overexposed, but I cannot really make up my mind concerning my vote on this. -- Slaunger 19:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I've decided (better late than never)! -- Slaunger 21:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 09:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Monument_Valley_Sunset_Thunderstorm[edit]

Monument Valley Sunset Thunderstorm.jpg
  • Nomination Monument Valley at sunset, just before a thunderstorm --Flicka 19:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI like colours and composition, but it is not sharp and has halos. Lycaon 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it has acceptable detail for QI. --Beyond silence 22.5px 13:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks great at smaller resolutions but when shown at full resolution it is simply not sharp enough - and with sharpening halos too, very obvious ones. It seems that it was out of focus to begin with? Morven 09:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support acceptable detail for QI --Pudelek 23:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice light and composition, but problems with sharpness and halos as mentioned earlier. -- Slaunger 21:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The whole makes up for the lacks which I find minor. –Dilaudid 23:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • with due respect, that's an FP argument, not a QI argument. Lycaon 14:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Result (after 8 days in CR): 3 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

357 rue de la Commune Ouest - Montreal[edit]

357 rue de la Commune Ouest - Montreal.jpg

  • Nomination 357 de la Commune Ouest, Montreal. --Acarpentier 04:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An obvious QI. --Thermos 05:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree that this is a great image, however there is a pretty big error at the top of the building which looks like camera shake or stitching artifacts. Around the top two windows there is some ghosting. - Relic38 11:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Stitching error needs fixing. Lycaon 12:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting that, I guess it's a postproduction error cause I waz realy stable... I'll fix this soon. ;) Acarpentier 12:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ok, it's fixed now. ;) Acarpentier 17:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I can only see the fix in the thumbnail, not yet in the full version (cache problem), so I'll tell you tomorrow... ;-) Lycaon 20:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, got the problem too. Is it general? I'll try re-upload... Acarpentier 20:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Might be temporal (catch up of servers). Just waiting half a day often solves the problem. Lycaon 20:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support How couldn't it be QI? --TwoWings (jraf) * Wanna talk? ;-) 21:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's probably a nice work, but perspective isn't natural at all and I think they don't give a good idea of the real proportions of the building. I still see the stitching errors to. Benh 08:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a tuff job. I think I'll have to re-do it from the beginning. Acarpentier 13:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support detail --Beyond silence 22.5px 20:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The errors I noticed are fixed. --Relic38 14:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice, but there is still at least one clear stitching error. (Lower frame on window on second floor, third from right.) Fix it, and I'll change my vote. --Slaunger 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
✓ Done Done, thanks for reporting ;) Acarpentier 05:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support - as promised. Good enough for QI IMO. I can accept the projection. -- Slaunger 20:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I still see the stitching error mentioned by Slaunger, plus the perspective is really weird (like the building is wearing a belt around the middle. Plus, it would help to have a single image shot of the building (possibly in daylight) as it's really difficult to tell what's a flaw in the building and what's a flaw in the stitch. Dori - Talk 07:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose with the current perspective. It is very confusing, and I too would like to see a single image photograph of the building. The photo suffers from what we call "Stürzende Linien" in German ("collapsing lines", the building seems to fall out the front or the back of the image plane). In this case, it looks as if it would collapse onto the photographer any second. I cannot find any stitching errors that were not already mentioned, but I am very bad at that, so don't trust me on that. Also the lighting seems a little unnatural, especially on the walls of the first and second floor, because they are not directly artificially lighted and thus seems unusually bright. However, this is most likely not the fault of the photographer. All in all, the perspective makes me oppose this one. --Florian Prischl 16:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg InfoI'll have to redo it anyway, but the reason why people are confused is because this building is built in a corner and is not plane. But let it opposed, I'll follow your advices and will have a single sample next time. ;) Acarpentier 17:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 09:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)