Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 2008

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

Image:Sun diagram.svg[edit]

Sun diagram.svg

  • Nomination Diagram of the Sun --Pbroks13 06:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Symbol support vote.svg Support I'd promote as QI except for the stars which IMHO are a distraction of random white dots that dont offer anything to the diagram Gnangarra 11:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, I removed the star background. Pbroks13 03:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I was looking for a second opinion but since you have removed them I've changed to support. Gnangarra 13:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not a good illustration of what is explained about sun structure. I don't find out each of the elements in the right shape --B.navez 15:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What exactly do you mean? It specifically shows each part. What is confusing about it? And what is not in the right "shape"? Pbroks13 (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
According to the today's english article en:Sun,
  • Chromosphere (5) is transparent to visible light. On the diagram it looks opaque.
  • Convection cells (3) are hexagonal. I see circles.
  • Granules (8) are said to be spaces between hexagonal cells. Nothing shows that on the diagram.
  • Sunspots on telescopic images are black stains of various shapes and sizes. I just see small circle spots on the diagram.
In addition I find grey color for the corona is not appropriate and I don't like the cutting (not easy to watch the layers). Sorry but other diagrams are much more understandable. --B.navez (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I believe I fixed all of the problems:
  • How would one show the chromosome if it is supposed to be transparent? All diagrams of the sun that I have seen show an opaque chromosphere.
  • The convection cells are not very important to the image; therefore, I removed them.
  • The granules look near identical to every image of solar granules out there.
  • The sunspots are now no longer ellipses.
  • New and (IMO) better looking corona.
How does that look for you? Pbroks13 (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I am not convinced. It does not look like the sun. I find the other diagrams Image:SunLayers.png Image:Sun parts big.jpg more reliable. More opinions ? --B.navez 14:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I gave it more of a sun look? Also, how are they more reliable? I got most of my information from NASA. Pbroks13 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it, but not the stars put in in the image at random (B.navez discussed it already) --High Contrast 13:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
There are no stars in the background anymore. Did you purge your cache? Pbroks13 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not convinced neither. Also too elaborate and inappropriate gradient of the corona. Lycaon 17:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    I am trying to make it look elaborate, as B.navez had some concern on it not looking enough like the Sun. How would you make the corona? I had a different one on it (look at the file history), but I am not really sure on how to make it look good enough. Pbroks13 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
May if that's orange too. --Beyond silence Finger reflections.jpg 20:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
If what's orange? Pbroks13 19:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
White corona (thant's name of shine?) --Beyond silence 20:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the corona is orange; however it is not as elegant. Will that work? Pbroks13 (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems easily work.. This may be enough what illustrate a sun, but short of image quality. _Fukutaro (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not bad. --Mrmariokartguy 02:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Fukutaro SterkeBak 16:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   -- Lycaon 16:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pomnik Harcerzy Września 01.JPG[edit]

Pomnik Harcerzy Września 01.JPG

  • Nomination Monument of polish scouts in Katowice (Kattowitz), Upper Silesia --Pudelek 12:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough --B.navez 15:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • It's sharp! -Pudelek 17:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose important parts of the picture show a lack of details, perhaps underexposured. --Mbdortmund 20:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --B.navez 06:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Skansen w Nowym Saczu, szopa kieratowa Kruzlowa 14.08.08 p.jpg[edit]

Skansen w Nowym Saczu, szopa kieratowa Kruzlowa 14.08.08 p.jpg

  • Nomination Treadwheel's shed, open air museum in Nowy Sącz, Poland --Przykuta 16:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok. --Berthold Werner 12:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Horrible noise in dark parts. --Lestath 21:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lestath. And unnatural that green color of the grass. _Fukutaro 15:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --B.navez 06:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cambronne - buste.jpg[edit]

Cambronne - buste.jpg

  • Nomination Statue of Pierre Cambronne in Nantes, France --Eusebius 21:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness is good but sky is greenish. _Fukutaro 16:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Better now? --Eusebius 14:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now O.K. _Fukutaro 15:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good details --Mbdortmund 11:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - more than good enough for QI. --Kjetil r 14:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --B.navez 06:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:3000WSP final 3.JPG[edit]

3000WSP final 3.JPG

  • Nomination Steeplechase -- Albertus teolog 12:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Full action very good picture though noisy (for that distance and speed). Very interesting because the last runner is to be the winner (Christine Kambua Muyanga) --B.navez 13:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeWhile noise may be unavoidable at capture, it can be remediated afterwards. Lycaon 17:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Interesting picture but much noise and disturbing purple fringes, especially on the left --Pom² (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - nice shot considering that you have used a compact camera. --Kjetil r 14:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -Pudelek 21:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --B.navez 06:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pila di Volta.jpg[edit]

Pila di Volta.jpg

  • Nomination Voltaic pile --Luigi Chiesa 07:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good value, excellent depth of field --Elucidate 15:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not really sharp and impossible artificial shadow. Lycaon 21:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The shadow is inappropriate. The image could do without one. Till.niermann 18:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The edge of object is not clear. Why did you remove the background? _Fukutaro (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 00:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    • This is the original photo. I have removed the background because in my opinion is confused for encyclopedic uses. --Luigi Chiesa 23:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, but I would Symbol support vote.svg Support the original. I think the DOF in the original serves well to bring the voltaic pile to the for-front and without the background it really looks... I don't know. There is no context or scale, and I think that detracts. J.smith 18:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    • OK. I have candidated the original. --Luigi Chiesa (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --B.navez 06:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:IOI 2006 bronze medal (front).jpg[edit]

IOI 2006 bronze medal (front).jpg

  • Nomination IOI 2006 Bronze medal (front) --Kprateek88 07:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Twdragon 10:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Shadows are very disturbing, probably not the best background and lighting. --Lestath 20:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The little harsh lighting from the right has the advantage of showing the details of the relief --Mbdortmund 11:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, I do not find the shadows disturbing. --Kjetil r 14:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support SterkeBak 16:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The shadow looks a little odd because in images like this we are used to the light coming from the upper left. - Till.niermann 16:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Depreciating background --B.navez 02:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Mbdortmund -- MJJR 20:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Mrmariokartguy 03:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:IOI 2006 bronze medal (back).jpg[edit]

IOI 2006 bronze medal (back).jpg

  • Nomination IOI 2006 Bronze medal (back) --Kprateek88 07:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Twdragon 10:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Shadows are very disturbing, probably not the best background and lighting. --Lestath 20:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The little harsh lighting from the right has the advantage of showing the details of the relief --Mbdortmund 11:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, I do not find the shadows disturbing. --Kjetil r 14:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The shadow looks a little odd because in images like this we are used to the light coming from the upper left. - Till.niermann 16:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Depreciating background --B.navez 02:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Mbdortmund -- MJJR 20:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Mrmariokartguy 03:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chorthippus brunneus_LC0177.jpg[edit]

Chorthippus brunneus LC0177.jpg

  • Nomination Male Common Field Grasshopper (Chorthippus brunneus]]) --LC-de 22:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeDislike composition. Foreground distracting and grasshopper's head is out of focus. Elucidate 09:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportQuality acceptable for a macro, composition less relevant here. Lycaon 13:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good --Lmbuga 00:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mrmariokartguy 03:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Helianthus tuberosus controluce.jpg[edit]

Helianthus tuberosus controluce.jpg

  • Nomination Helianthus tuberosus flower --Luigi Chiesa 19:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice SterkeBak 14:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find composition is weak and blurry foreground leaves don't make it good. --B.navez 02:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Difficult: Very good colours, but it would be better to show the flowers from the front. --Mbdortmund 11:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The flower from the front was already present in the category, and this plant is also 3 meters high so is easier than you see that the opposite. --Luigi Chiesa 23:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Underneath angle could be valuable, but use a stool not to be bothered by the first leaves. --B.navez 02:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp --Beyond silence 16:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mrmariokartguy 03:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bufo viridis.jpg[edit]

Bufo viridis.jpg

  • Nomination European Green Toad. Ivengo(RUS) 20:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting but would have been better in natural environment. Reflecting areas are overexposed. --B.navez 07:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Reflecting areas are....reflecting areas. Of course they are overexposed, cause they are reflecting the sun. Not a reason for declinig in my eyes, but for illustrating the slimy skin of the toad. I want to discuss this first. Btw. I agree with you that the pic would be much better, if it shows the toad in its natural enviroment. So this isn't a support vote. --LC-de 17:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp --Beyond silence 16:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp picture, the specular highlights give a good idea of the texture of the skin. A more natural background would be nice, but is not necessary. --PieCam 21:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --B.navez 13:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Grenoble in the morning[edit]

Grenoble in the morning.jpg

  • Nomination Grenoble in the morning --Eusebius 17:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too hazy --Mbdortmund 18:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Haze was the point of the picture, but if it is not obvious, then I guess opposition is justified! --Eusebius 18:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good illustration of the town in hazy morning (and unfortunately typical for Grenoble !). Nuances of the background mountains well managed. --B.navez 06:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would support this image if the description mentioned that the haze illustrated is typical (if that is indeed the case). Otherwise it doesn't seem obvious to me that the haze was the point of the picture.--PieCam 17:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info B.navez mentionned that the haze was typical because there is much pollution in Grenoble, in the form of a cloud over the city. Here, however, I think it is only the standard water mist of a cold morning. Maybe the pollution contributes to the haze, but I'm not sure about it. --Eusebius 17:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks good --Beyond silence 16:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --B.navez 13:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Paryż orsay.JPG[edit]

Paryż orsay.JPG

  • Nomination The interior of Musée d'Orsay - retouch -- Albertus teolog 08:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Have you got the allowance to take pictures inside the museum? --Mbdortmund 20:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is no legal trouble for publishing this picture :
      • this is a place with public admittance,
      • no piece of art is clearly visible, thus no infringement of author's right
      • nobody is recognizable, thus no infringement of private intimacy

If Albertus teolog has infriged the rules of the museum, he could be prosecuted for that but that is his own problem. Museum hasn't any rights on this picture or against its publication. If you eat in a museum, you may be prosecuted too and condemned, but you are not obliged to vomit except if you have swallowed something belonging to the museum. The general image of the museum, even inside, doesn't belong exclusively to it. --B.navez (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I asked the museum staff for permission to take photos. Do not prohibited this to me. Forbidden to me just use the flash. Albertus teolog 10:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately, CA issues on the glass ceiling are too strong. --B.navez (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --B.navez 13:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Amanita muscaria 02.jpg[edit]

Amanita muscaria 02.jpg

  • Nomination Amanita muscaria --Yarl 15:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice image. Good level of sharpness. Elucidate 18:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate light. Lycaon 09:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems unsharp --LC-de 17:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support enough sharp --Beyond silence 16:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough for this type of macro picture. --PieCam 21:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --B.navez 13:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Star Trek fans convent 2008 - Fireworks.jpg[edit]

Star Trek fans convent 2008 - Fireworks.jpg

  • Nomination Fireworks --Twdragon 10:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 13:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not the best crop. --Lestath 20:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What cropping setting is recommended by you? --Twdragon 18:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks good --Beyond silence 16:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --B.navez 13:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Chapel in Upper Silesian Ethnographic Park[edit]

WPKiW - Skansen - Kapliczka 03.JPG

  • Nomination Little chapel in Upper Silesian Ethnographic Park. --Lestath 22:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support HQ --Twdragon 18:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lighting is not very good, the painting is in the shadow but the base of the chapel is in direct sunlight, very distracting.--PieCam 19:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Beyond silence 22:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --PieCam 15:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Adam Mickiewicz Monument[edit]

Kraków - Pomnik Mickiewicza 01.JPG

  • Nomination Adam Mickiewicz Monument in Kraków. --Lestath 12:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Twdragon 21:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Disturbing background. --Eusebius 15:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It isn't possible to change the background... --Lestath 21:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I know. I'm sorry, my review is only motivated by the guidelines. --Eusebius 21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background attracts more attention than the statue, it is unfortunate, but it is very distracting.--PieCam 03:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --PieCam 13:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:8-cell.gif[edit]

8-cell.gif

  • Nomination Beautiful animation of an hypercube made by JasonHise -- proposed by STyx 21:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The resolution is too small. --Massimo Catarinella 23:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Animations are different. --Mrmariokartguy 01:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find it nicer than the FP on the subject. --Eusebius 22:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Animation are different but this is really tiny. Lycaon 16:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks good --Beyond silence 16:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Eusebius here. Nice glass effect --Ikiwaner 21:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I nominated this for FP. --Mrmariokartguy 15:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I much prefer this to the old version. Elucidate 18:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Elucidate. - Till.niermann 21:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --PieCam 21:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Thunder-like chaotic fireworks.jpg[edit]

Thunder-like chaotic fireworks.jpg

  • Nomination Thunder-like chaotic fireworks --Twdragon 10:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 13:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not the best crop. --Lestath 20:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, very chaotic. But it has some geolocation problens (55°25′40.3″N, 37°11′38.2″E and 55°25′39.6″N, 37°11′38.1″E. Which one is right?)--Mrmariokartguy 02:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --PieCam 15:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dynamite-5.svg[edit]

Dynamite-5.svg

  • Nomination Dynamite --Pbroks13 06:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a good illustration.--PieCam 13:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the thick outline of the stick, and it seems that the perspective of the cut "window" is wrong. - Till.niermann 21:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    • A thinner outline would probably look better. --PieCam (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Purge your cache. It is thinner now. Pbroks13 21:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)!
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not bad. --Mrmariokartguy 15:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's rather good! Perspective seems fine for a technical illustration. --Specious 09:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Berlin Herz-Jesu-Kirche innen.jpg[edit]

Berlin Herz-Jesu-Kirche innen.jpg

  • Nomination Sacred Heart Church in Berlin-Charlottenburg --PetrusSilesius 13:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline 22:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overdarkened image --Twdragon
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think so --PetrusSilesius 13:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    • You cannot support your own images. --Lestath 21:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --PieCam 14:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wawel Cathedral[edit]

Kraków - Wawel Cathedral 01.jpg

  • Nomination Wawel Cathedral in Kraków. --Lestath 22:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilt correction needed --Twdragon 21:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Did You check it? For me it is good. --Lestath 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 16:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, ach, Kraków :)... --Pudelek 20:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --PieCam 14:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:ЗИЛ Panorama.jpg[edit]

ЗИЛ Panorama.jpg

  • Nomination Panorama of assembly conveyor line at ZIL (the Factory n.a. Likhachev), Moscow --Twdragon 19:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice picture with good quality. --Lestath 23:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technical quality not OK. Lycaon 10:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good lighting in every part of the picture, in a not easy situation. HBR 20:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hard conditions, but there is a lack of details on sides, and a white border on middle top. Else nice picture --Pom² 12:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very high res, so may too much. --Beyond silence 16:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Despite the blown highlights in the windows, this is a very well executed and interesting picture.--PieCam 03:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technically not good enough. This is QIC, I'm afraid. Elucidate 18:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --JuTa (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Image:TrabantPragueCzechRepublic.jpg[edit]

TrabantPragueCzechRepublic.jpg

  • Nomination Trabant in Prague --Massimo Catarinella 16:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe red car behind is disturbing, and imho a bit less DoF can better isolate the subject --Pom² 09:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    • It is good enough to become an QI. There is nothing wrong with the quality. --Massimo Catarinella 18:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe background is distracting and the lighting is poor (the front of the car is in the shadows). Lighting and backgrounds are criteria to evaluate QI candidates. --PieCam 14:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --PieCam 20:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pila di Volta 01.jpg[edit]

Pila di Volta 01.jpg

  • Nomination Voltaic pile --Luigi Chiesa 23:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Twdragon 17:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The red thing in the background is disturbing. --Eusebius 22:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Removed red sign. --Luigi Chiesa 15:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --PieCam 15:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hotel Bristol w Warszawie.jpg[edit]

Hotel Bristol w Warszawie.jpg

  • Nomination Bristol Hotel, Warsaw, Poland. --Sfu 19:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective overcorrected. --Lestath 20:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but I don't agree. Straight walls, are the way old masters where painting, old picutres look like that, and architects are using it. Here it looks good.--Sfu 20:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support At first sight perspective seems overcorrected indeed, but in fact it is not, or so slightly that it is to neglect. For me, this image is O.K. -- MJJR 21:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It really looks, to me at least, like the top of the building is bulging out towards the camera, I think the perspective is probably overcorrected. --PieCam (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support On the issue of perspective, it is how an architectural projection looks like. In that aspect, I cannot fault the image, vertical features are well aligned with the image y axis. Of course achitectural projection does look overtowering, same here, as your eye expects slanting lines looking upwards (please compare slanting with vertical, both can be justified). -- Klaus with K 13:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Indeed as Lestath said and/or MJJR said. It is slight but simply seems unnatural perspective (especially the left side wall) for me. _Fukutaro 13:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Lestath 00:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Colexiata do Sar, Santiago de Compostela 07.jpg[edit]

Colexiata do Sar, Santiago de Compostela 07.jpg

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Lestath 00:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pomnik Harcerzy Września 02.JPG[edit]

Pomnik Harcerzy Września 02.JPG

  • Nomination Monument of polish scouts in Katowice (Kattowitz), Upper Silesia --Pudelek 12:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough --B.navez 15:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • It's sharp! -Pudelek 17:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok detail --Beyond silence 16:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with B.navez. Because high compressed jpg. _Fukutaro 13:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Lestath 00:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

DusseldorfGermany.jpg[edit]

DusseldorfGermany.jpg

  • Nomination Rathausplatz, Düsseldorf, Germany --Massimo Catarinella 14:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • didn't we already have this one? --Mbdortmund 18:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    • No, you\ve probably seen it before at FPC. --Massimo Catarinella 00:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC) November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose C/A, over-exposure, unsharp. sorry. _Fukutaro 13:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is no CA, almost no over-exposure and only two tiny parts are blurry. Sorry, but I've seen a lot worse pictures become a QI. --Massimo Catarinella 14:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the portrait format is not appropriate for picturing this square: The lower half of the image only shows pavement, and the fence on the right side is cropped. - Till.niermann 07:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Lestath 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Syringa Vulgaris.jpg[edit]

Syringa Vulgaris.jpg

  • Nomination Syringa vulgaris SterkeBak 18:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Misidentified, not Syringa vulgaris, maybe Syringa x josiflexa, has to be checked. --B.navez 14:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I have taken the photo in a garden centra. It has the right name. SterkeBak 17:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't always trust garden centra, ask a specialist. --B.navez 05:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
        • It looks very much like the image in my book. The name is correct. SterkeBak 07:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Sorry the name is not correct. Watch the leaves : they have not the smoothness of S. vulgaris --B.navez 18:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Lestath 00:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kraków - Światowid ze Zbrucza 01.JPG[edit]

Kraków - Światowid ze Zbrucza 01.JPG

  • Nomination A Contemporary monument of Svantevit near Wawel Hill. --Lestath 08:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Is the stone stuff of this monument really so blue and pink ? --B.navez 16:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Colours are OK. This is normal stone colour! --Lestath 00:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral If you say so. I like the horsechestnut on the monument basis. --B.navez 17:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Colours look oke. SterkeBak 15:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's ok. --Mrmariokartguy 15:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine detail. --Luis Dantas 05:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Lestath 00:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Spandau Nikolaikirche Turm.jpg[edit]

Spandau Nikolaikirche Turm.jpg

  • Nomination Saint Nicholas' church in Spandau --PetrusSilesius 13:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilt coccertion needed --Twdragon 18:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO it's perpendicular --PetrusSilesius 13:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not tilted and it's a good picture. --Mrmariokartguy 01:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine picture. --Luis Dantas 05:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Lestath 00:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Agapanthus africanus white.JPG[edit]

Agapanthus africanus white.JPG

  • Nomination Agapanthus africanus, white variety --B.navez 13:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tough tow flowers composition, focused on only one flower. _Fukutaro 13:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry my camera is not an Hasselblad and light wind doen't allow long shutter times. Deeper DOF is not possible and composition made this choice of a non focused second flower --B.navez 14:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well... The difficulty is not beyond comprehension, but I should guessed that you could have noticed it before the taking, and then you have any solutions of this issue. _Fukutaro 17:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It was on purpose : as it is in my garden, I could have choosen to cut the second flower or to choose closer flowers. I choose to shot deliberately with this kind of result. --B.navez 18:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I withdraw my nomination since nobody can make an opinion. --B.navez 02:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chantilly4 tango7174.jpg[edit]

Chantilly4 tango7174.jpg

  • Nomination Château de Chantilly, France. --Tango7174 14:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition, disturbing tilt. --Eusebius 10:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think the image is tilted. - Till.niermann 21:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Some parts of it are, because of distortion. See horizontality of the plaque in the back, or of the golden portal in the foreground. But the wooden parts on the sides of the picture are almost aligned. --Eusebius (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Thank you for your comments. This optical effect is due to the use of a wide-angle lens, which is the only way to capture the entire chapel at such a close distance (my back was against a wall). A longer focal lens would show only a very partial view. --Tango7174 (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Lestath 22:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Image:Colexiata do Sar, Santiago de Compostela 03.jpg[edit]

Colexiata do Sar, Santiago de Compostela 03.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Lestath 00:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kraków - Collegium Iuridicum 01.jpg[edit]

Kraków - Collegium Iuridicum 01.jpg

  • Nomination Collegium Iuridicum in Kraków. --Lestath 00:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - fine picture. --Luis Dantas 05:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd support if perspective was corrected. - Till.niermann 22:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Missing geolocation. --PieCam 15:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, good photo. Yarl 16:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Lestath 00:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Zametovka Grape.jpg[edit]

Zametovka Grape.jpg

  • Nomination Grapes of Slovenian Red Wine Variety Zametovka --Mmxx 07:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive depth-of-field. Perhaps a bit too bright on the background. --Luis Dantas 00:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I uploaded a new version with darker darker BG. Mmxx 20:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support may it should get a bit cropped. Howeer good image --D-Kuru 08:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose oversaturated, overexposed BG. Not too sharp neither. Lycaon 19:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Lestath 00:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:KlausenpassPano.jpg[edit]

KlausenpassPano.jpg

  • Nomination Klausen Pass --D-Kuru 14:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I get fisheyes, but otherwise impressive. --Niabot 23:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You should remove sensor dust in the sky, else ok --Pom² 16:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sorry, editors can't vote. Lycaon 19:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Ok i did it as you asked (3 little dust spots). As you used photoshop, it's very easy with spot healing brush tool --Pom² 17:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info (sodala die Flecken sind weg) Removes sensor dust in the sky --Böhringer 07:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice picture IMO, if the camera location (geolocation) was added then I would support.--PieCam 15:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --PieCam (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Stade-Hafen.jpg[edit]

Stade-Hafen.jpg

  • Nomination habor of Stade; Germany. --Kolossos 19:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark --Lmbuga 13:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't believe so. --Kolossos 21:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It looks ok to me. Verticals are disturbing, but mainly because of the architecture itself. I like the composition, although it leads to a strange geometry. --Eusebius 16:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think is good. --Lansbricae 23:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good. Pbroks13 18:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Eusebius 16:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gdańsk Długi Targ nocą.jpg[edit]

Gdańsk Długi Targ nocą.jpg

  • Nomination Long Market in Gdańsk, Poland. --Sfu 14:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Mbdortmund 16:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose flares on the sky in the center. --Lestath 16:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC) OK. --Lestath 22:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info corrected --Sfu 17:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good lighting and composition. --Kosiarz-PL 15:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Lestath 22:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chausey maison de Marin Marie.JPG[edit]

Chausey maison de Marin Marie.JPG

  • Nomination House of the painter Marin Marie Chausey Island, France. --Mmxx 13:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy sky --B.navez 03:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I removed the noise in the sky. Mmxx 19:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK now --B.navez 12:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose weird noise reduction artefacts under the trees left. Lycaon 19:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fixed. Mmxx 18:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --PieCam 14:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit1[edit]

ЗИЛ Panorama Edit1.jpg

  • Nomination Cropped, brightness balance changed --Twdragon 10:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Previous version has just been promoted, QICbot has been disturbed with the inclusion of the new version and left a few lines here. Should this nomination be removed? --Eusebius 13:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Sigh. The correct way of adding an edit is to put it in the same subsection. The first image in the subsection will be promoted by the bot. --Dschwen 21:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
      • It was in the same subsection, within the discuss template. The bot promoted the original but left the end of the discuss template here. --Eusebius 09:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because another version of the same image has just been promoted (see above). --Eusebius 16:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --PieCam 14:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Château de Nantes - armoiries ducales.jpg[edit]

Château de Nantes - armoiries ducales.jpg

  • Nomination Coat of arms of the dukes of Brittany in Nantes castle. --Eusebius 13:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this needs a bit of photoshopping - the imperfections in the marble(?) are rather distracting, especially that one at the top right. Unfortunately, truth is not always beauty. Mattbuck 18:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've eliminated a few spots, but I didn't want to touch the lions (FYI you're right, it's not marble, I think it's Tuffeau, a kind of tufa stone quite common in the area). --Eusebius 20:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Symbol support vote.svg Support then. Mattbuck 14:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Eusebius 09:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Réunion Demi-Piton PlaineDesSables[edit]

Réunion Demi-Piton PlaineDesSables.JPG

  • Nomination Demi-Piton, Réunion volcano --B.navez 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC))
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSeems to be generally a bit out of focus, and that's especially distracting on the road. Mattbuck 18:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I could admit any good reason in order to improve my skills but in this very case I think you make a confusion between focusing and resolution. For any fractal stuff, such as vegetation or rocky area, you always have details that are beyond the finest resolution. Watch your own pictures : do you see the nerves of the leaves even if foliage is in the focused field ? Images should not be judged at full resolution but at a fixed size. In addition, in this volcanic location, sun heats the naked and dark rocks which in return give back warmth radiation, creating at ground level a layer of troubled air. Even with hawk eyes, details look really a bit blurry. I didn't want to cheat. I could have done so, downsampling the picture to 2Mp and tool-sharpening like this : Réunion Demi-Piton PlaineDesSables-2Mp.JPG. I preferred to give it plain. --B.navez 07:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --PieCam 02:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Montreal MReine2 tango7174.jpg[edit]

Montreal MReine2 tango7174.jpg

  • Nomination Marie-Reine-du-Monde, Montréal, Canada. --Tango7174 14:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice picture, but unsharp, with CAs at the windows. Overexposed at some places, but I guess it is unavoidable. --Eusebius 10:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support perhaps accectable because of the atmosphere and the specific situation, where it is difficult to avoid technical difficulties, ausdrucksstark --Mbdortmund 23:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that the picture is too unsharp. Nice composition, though! Hold the camera really still or use a tripod, and resubmit? --Specious 02:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --PieCam 02:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gerard_'t_Hooft.jpg[edit]

Gerard 't Hooft.jpg

  • Nomination Prof. Gerard 't Hooft, Physicist --Wammes Waggel 18:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good portrait --Mbdortmund 16:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy background, very few of the face is in focus. --Eusebius 17:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good portrait - Sterkebaktalk 13:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Eusebius. Good portrait has nothing to do with the quality of the image. Lycaon 19:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition, color, etc. There are a couple of technical aspects that aren't ideal (focal point is a tad close), but to me these don't seem pronounced enough to disqualify it. Huwmanbeing  21:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Eusibius. --Lestath 00:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Depth of field could be deeper, noice could be lower, but it's a great portrait -- good composition, good lighting, great timing. Great illustration of this scientist, in my opinion! --Specious 22:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is a colour cast probably caused by the saturated green background. --Ikiwaner 23:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I like it, the background is fine, it's just one of those standard backdrops for photos. Mattbuck 14:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote? Mattbuck 14:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Water frozen in time.JPG[edit]

Water frozen in time.JPG

  • Nomination Water bubbling up in a fountain. --J.smith 00:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Rather noisy and composition only so-so. Lycaon 23:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Noise? Where? Those dots in the screen are not noise. Check the others in the series for comparison. --J.smith 05:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. --Mrmariokartguy 14:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --PieCam 17:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dresden-Semperoper-gp.jpg[edit]

Dresden-Semperoper-gp.jpg rotated by 0.43deg, slightly brightened

  • Nomination: Semperoper Dresden --Kolossos 19:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Review *Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark --Lmbuga 13:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't believe so. --Kolossos 21:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted. --Dschwen 16:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    • this oppose template was inserted by User:Lestath. My comment was deliberately not marked as an oppose to avoid early closure and to indicate that it is a minor fixable issue. --Dschwen 22:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry, it wasn't clear. I did it only in good faith. --Lestath 10:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ok, with this argument I can live. --Kolossos 18:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think what Daniel wanted to say is that the perspective is overcorrected which disturbs me too. The cylindrical shape of the building emphasizes the error of probably 1-2°. Contrast is OK for me and the composition well chosen. --Ikiwaner 12:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • What I wanted to say is that the image is tilted to the left. --Dschwen 04:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't quite understand that. Am I the only one who sees that the picture is significantly leaning to the left?! This is very easy to fix. --Dschwen 21:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support detail --Beyond silence 23:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support detail goes for me too. --Manco Capac 10:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> (draw)--Lycaon 09:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nantes - colonne Louis XVI.jpg[edit]

Nantes - colonne Louis XVI.jpg

  • Nomination: Louis XVI column in Nantes, France. --Eusebius 13:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ground is tilt --Pudelek 14:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment But the column is vertical. I'm not convinced the ground is perfectly horizontal here. You think my taking the picture could have induced a significative angle between a vertical and a horizontal line in the center of the frame? --Eusebius 15:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It looks like there is a slope, the column seems vertical and buildings seem vertical.--PieCam 15:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would like to see the foreground cropped so that the buildings are confined to the bottom third of the image, Gnangarra 01:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> draw -- Lycaon 09:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Senlis NDame3 tango7174.jpg[edit]

Senlis NDame3 tango7174.jpg

  • Nomination Notre-Dame de Senlis, France. --Tango7174 14:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good lighting. - Till.niermann 06:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The thumbnail is beautiful, but the quality is really poor at full resolution. Why is the EXIF data missing? --Specious 09:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very noisy. Körnerbrötchen 11:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good lighting indeed, but much too noisy for QI. --PieCam 14:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Lestath 18:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Picea Pungens Young Cones.jpg[edit]

Picea Pungens Young Cones.jpg

  • Nomination Young cones of a Colorado Blue Spruce (created by Noodle snacks) (maybe needs noise reduction) --D-Kuru 15:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Dust spots. Lycaon 17:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC) was fixed. Lycaon 22:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Manco Capac 09:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice bokeh, good depth of field and detail.--PieCam 02:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support per PieCam. - Till.niermann 06:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --PieCam 02:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:2008-11-10 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse in Chapel Hill.jpg[edit]

2008-11-10 Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse in Chapel Hill.jpg

  • Nomination Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse --Specious 07:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Top corner of building is cropped off, which is a shame. Mattbuck 13:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I chose to zoom in slightly -- it looked better to me. There's nothing in that corner that looks different, and it looks more cozy to me this way. I took several shots, but alas none with the full corner intact. --Specious 23:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, let's take it to discussion. I do like the flare off the sign, pity about the van. Mattbuck 23:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The truck is there on purpose. It's Lowes' own truck they advertise for rental to get your purchased good home. My intention was to illustrate a Lowe's front entrance as well as possible with a single picture, for the Wikipedia article. --Specious 02:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the composition is good but could be strengthened by reducing the amount of building and the couple of incidental cars on the left edge. I like the flare on the sign and the vehicle as to the vehicle which adds to composition, presumption is the vehicleis a unique feature to Lowes. I can "live" with the corner of the roof/building being cut off but because of the depth it becomes an additional negative element. Gnangarra 01:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The cut off roof disturbs me less than the tree foliage in the upper-left corner and the flare of the truck. I like the composition, but I think it could be sharper. --Eusebius 09:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support detail --Beyond silence 22:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crispness should be better. There is also some CA and the perspective could be improved. Lycaon 09:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Lycaon (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Plasma-lamp.jpg[edit]

Plasma-lamp.jpg

  • Nomination plasma lamp (created by Lviatour) --D-Kuru 22:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent! --Mrmariokartguy 04:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs noise reduction. Lycaon 12:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Odd, but this image is already a FP. Regardless, I de-noised it. Pbroks13 00:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine now. Not really odd as the FP was some years ago already... Lycaon 08:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a nice picture! --Mrmariokartguy 14:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    • You cannot support the same picture twice! --Eusebius 09:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks fine to me. --Eusebius (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture. Körnerbrötchen 11:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Lycaon 09:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Autumn leaves (in Japan)[edit]

Autumn Leaf 08Nov17.jpg

  • Nomination Autumn Leaf.--池田正樹 02:04,18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable quality. Nice colors and... well... composition. --Dschwen 16:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Species must be identified before. I would say Zelkova serrata but I'm not used to asian species. Please check. OK I've just seen now categorization but you must put it in description and in name --B.navez 04:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, I did it myself. --B.navez 07:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you Mr.Bnavez from masaki ikeda
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --B.navez 02:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bydgoszcz panorama rynku.jpg[edit]

Bydgoszcz panorama rynku.jpg

  • Nomination Market Square in Bydgoszcz, Poland. --Sfu 06:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose a little tilt in my opinion... --Pudelek 13:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)<
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question to the right side? --Sfu 22:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment exactly --Pudelek 14:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info slightly rotated. --Sfu 19:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too much in shadow. --Lestath 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- carol (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:AskøyBridge panorama.jpg[edit]

AskøyBridge panorama.jpg

  • Nomination The neighbourhood of Kjøkkelvik (created by Aqwis) --D-Kuru 19:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks ok to me, in spite of the lighting in the upper-left corner. --Eusebius 10:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lots of artefacts in the water. Lycaon 12:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp --Beyond silence 23:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe small for a panorama, but nice anyway. You could also geolocate it --Pom² 11:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the picture but would like to see the location (geodata) included before supporting. --PieCam 14:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good, but geocoded please --Pudelek 08:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestath 10:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund 23:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --TimVickers 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   -- carol (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Casiña da Moura - Encoro das Maus de Salas - Muiños - Ourense.jpg[edit]

Casiña da Moura - Encoro das Maus de Salas - Muiños - Ourense.jpg

  • Nomination Dolmen of "Casiña da Moura" - Maus de Salas - Galicia - Spain. --Lansbricae 19:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy. --Lestath 18:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
    Ok, I tried to correct the noises, but the result is not very good, I believe --Lansbricae 22:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    New version retouched by Lestath. Could be review it now? Casina da Moura - Encoro das Maus de Salas - Muinos - Ourense - Lestat.jpg --Lansbricae 11:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Better put it as a new nomination, that's less confusing. Lycaon 18:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I´ll do it. Sorry. --Lansbricae 18:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Loxahatchee_boardwalk.jpg[edit]

Loxahatchee boardwalk.jpg

  • Nomination Cypress Swamp boardwalk in Loxahatchee NWR. --Dschwen 23:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn *Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Should be crisper, especially the Tillandsia looks too blurry. Lycaon 13:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • No problem, I just fixed that. --Dschwen 20:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
      The slight improvement doesn't warrant the downsampling. Lycaon 22:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Mh, my guess is you are talking about the sharpness deficits in the corner of the frame? I could crop those away and get away with way less downsampling. But I have a feeling that would not satisfy you either... --Dschwen 19:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Clothes pegs.JPG[edit]

Clothes pegs.JPG

  • Nomination Some Clothes pegs SterkeBak 20:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems to fulfill the criterias. --Calandrella 21:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For a 'studio picture' I don't like the harsh shadows, the vignetting and the low DOF. Lycaon 01:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The effects of the flash lighting and the out-of-focus yellow peg detract from the composition. Huwmanbeing 13:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- carol (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The picture is taken on my desk. Not in a studio SterkeBak 20:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • That fulfils the criteria for a 'Studio' ;-). Lycaon 20:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kankakee_aerial.jpg[edit]

Kankakee aerial.jpg

  • Nomination Aerial shot of Kankakee, Illinois. Anyone how has taken a picture from a plane should appreciate the effort that went into postprocessing... (removal of vignetting, haze reduction while keeping the colors natural) --Dschwen 00:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think I saw any picture taken in a plane look as good as that before! --Mrmariokartguy 15:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That's probably true, but unlike at FPC it is the technical side (i.e. the result) that counts, not the circumstances. Lycaon 08:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Then you should address the technical issues. Keem in mind though that the image has 12MP, so there is quite some headroom here. --Dschwen 14:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
      • OK. Though there are of course mitigating circumstances, they IMO do not count for a QI (that would count for FP). Again I would like to see a sharper image and a bit more contrast. I admit that you probably would have to use a hot air balloon or so to achieve that, but still, such are the results presented. Lycaon 22:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but this is bogus. The image has 12MP. You cannot go around yelling OMG downsized and complain about lack of sharpness in an image this large! Or should I be penalized for having a DSLR with a large sensor? I could easily deliver a tack sharp image at the size most of the contribution here, but I choose not to downsample (I find this kind of pixelpeeping rather discouraging though). The mitigating circumstances argument goes both ways, images are frequently turned down for being easily reproducible at a higher quality. This one is not easily reproducible, and I quite frankly think your quality expectations are too high. --Dschwen 23:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Sorry too that you feel my expectations are to high (I can't deliver myself to those standards most of the time so I don't nominate but just post), but bogus is not the correct word for it, and if you are fair, nor is pixelpeeping. If you can at times produce pixel perfect not downsampled images (I've seen quite a few from your hand), then you can't blame me for faulting the ones that are sometimes not. Lycaon 00:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
            • That is the essence of my comment: You are working with different standards for different photographers. Seems not only unfair, but unproductive. The enduser won't care who took the picture. The QI seal is supposed to ensure them that the image exceeds a fixed minimum standard. --Dschwen 00:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Overall a very good photo. There's still a little bluish atmospheric haze remaining, but I'm inclined to see that as a natural aspect of shots covering such an extremely long range. I might also suggest a mild unsharp mask to make the fine details a bit crisper. Still a great shot. Huwmanbeing 13:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jesień w Sądeckim1.JPG[edit]

Jesień w Sądeckim1.JPG

  • Nomination Autumn in Beskid Sądecki mountains --Pudelek 13:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tree ID? Otherwise good quality and compo. --Dschwen 16:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs tree species and categorization accordingly. Lycaon 21:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC) That's why we need a forest officer :-). Lycaon 23:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Tree(s) IDed --B.navez 17:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support like Dschwen --Mbdortmund 23:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Arbutus andrachne fruit (Ab plant 98).jpg[edit]

Arbutus andrachne fruit (Ab plant 98).jpg

  • Nomination Arbutus andrachne --Butko 08:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • I think this is a good shot of the berries. --Specious 08:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC).
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Rename please. --Dschwen 16:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. Image renamed --Butko 06:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Heh, Symbol support vote.svg Support -- carol (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund 23:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Church near Monastiraki.jpg[edit]

Church near Monastiraki.jpg

  • Nomination Church in Athens (resubmission, went to a draw last time). --Eusebius 17:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems to meet the criterias. --Calandrella 17:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise reduction has blurred fine details (e.g. grass). Lycaon 21:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Grass? Where in the picture do you see grass? --Mrmariokartguy 00:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting info.svg Info On the roof. --Eusebius 07:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I never knew that people grow grass on the roof. --Mrmariokartguy 00:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • (I think that this roof was not intended to for grasses to grow on but no one told this to the wind.... -- carol (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC))
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not just the grass but also where the paint is peeling and other points of interest. As difficult as it can feel to agree.... -- carol (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- carol (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Katowice - Dzień niepodległości 2008 - 24.jpg[edit]

Katowice - Dzień niepodległości 2008 - 24.jpg

  • Nomination Independence Day in Katowice. --Lestath 01:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline shadows are an issue, maybe possible to crop and reduce this issue not sure the end result will be a QI Gnangarra 11:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support detail --Beyond silence 22:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lighting --Mbdortmund 22:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Motion blur on front hoof is nice but the lighting is a problem; much detail is lost in the shadows. -- carol (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 03:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bydgoszcz spichrze.jpg[edit]

Bydgoszcz spichrze.jpg

  • Nomination Granaries in Bydgoszcz, Poland. --Sfu 22:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe building on the left and the street lamp on the right should be off the picture (crop+clone?): they're disturbing and show strong CA. --Eusebius 10:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info retouched version uploaded. --Sfu 22:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Better, although CA is still visible in some parts. --Eusebius 08:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeIt is rather low in details. Tiles on the roof seem fused. The wood looks smooth like plastic. It looks like noise reduction and sharpen filter were overused. Am I wrong? I would like to see the original picture... --Berrucomons 13:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    No such thing made here, just lamp and part of the building removed. --Sfu 07:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Berrucomons 14:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)