Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 2007

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

Contents

Consensual Review[edit]

Marseille Palais Longchamp Wasserfall[edit]

Marseille Palais Longchamp Wasserfall JD25032007.jpg
  • Nomination The main Waterfall at the Palais Longchamp, Marseille, France. --JDrewes 12:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • A fine natural scene!--SeaSide 14:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Seaside is Drewes. Lycaon 08:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I protest this for reasons I left on Lycaon's user talk page.--JDrewes 12:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Quote: "While SeaSide is my father, and therefore "a" drewes, he is not me (Jan Drewes). Is it illegal for family members to promote? ".
  • I don't think it is a good idea to have your father or son promote your images. See Meatpuppet. Lycaon 15:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But apart from the (quite rightly) discussion about father & son, what about the quality of the picture, which seems to be rather good? -- MJJR 20:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If you like it, promote it. I didn't like it, but not that much as to oppose it ;). Lycaon 01:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 Result: 1 support, 0 oppose >> Promoted to QI -- Alvesgaspar 13:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fleecy Milk Cap[edit]

Lactarius vellereus LC0113.jpg


  • Nomination Fleecy Milk-cap (Lactarius vellereus) --LC-de 09:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like the composition, but not sharp enough. I would promote a sharpened version (sample provided on the right). - (Relic38 23:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI don't like the edited version. It looks a liitle bit oversharpened and therefore unnatural to me. But we should move ist to CR if you are different minded. --LC-de 15:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSymbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Overexposed. Sorry (unsigned comment by User:Beyond silence 08:38, 17 October 2007)
    You know that Lactarius vellereus is a nearly white mushroom? --LC-de 19:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I actually find the original version fit for QI. Lycaon 12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Due to composition, which I find a bit too cluttered and distracting for the main object. Dori - Talk 22:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'll support either version, although I still would like a bit more sharpening on the original, even if it's not as much as I added. - Relic38 00:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 18:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ponts couverts[edit]

Absolute ponts couverts 02.jpg
  • Nomination Good light, good composition Absolutecars 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's tilted uniformly counter-clockwise a few degrees; a straightening would help a lot. 75.84.118.176 01:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think it's tilted, I've put the camera. This photo was not take from the front (but from left) Absolutecars 17:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. --Beyond silence 22.5px 08:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA halos. Lycaon 13:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Other than the noise in the sky, I agree with the nominator. - Relic38 00:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good enough for QI -Pudelek 00:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI - Alvesgaspar 13:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This image was promoted by QICbot instead of waiting for CR as it hadn't been moved to CR properly --Tony Wills 22:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Absolute ponts couverts 02.jpg|

  • Nomination Good light, good composition Absolutecars 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion It's tilted uniformly counter-clockwise a few degrees; a straightening would help a lot. 75.84.118.176 01:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Good light, good composition--Beyond silence 22.5px 08:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Suorvajaure_in_stora_sjofallet_park[edit]

Suorvajaure in stora sjofallet park.jpg

  • Nomination Suorvajaure from Vakkotavare, in Stora Sjöfallet Park, northern Sweden --Nattfodd 23:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Problems in the clouds - a pity, since this is otherwise such a beautiful picture. Thegreenj 23:35, 23 October 2007
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment(UTC) Which problems? Please detail. --Nattfodd 07:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky looks "doubled" (Ghosting? Phantoms?) as if you overlayed two pictures, and the wind moved the clouds between exposures. I find that irritating. Maybe you can recompose without this artifact? It would really make a nice scene without this. --JDrewes 15:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Since this is a tone-mapped HDR from three exposures, it makes sense for this kind of artifacts to appear, but I thought I had corrected them all. Can you please detail where you see them? Thanks. --Nattfodd 07:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I see it the strongest at the lower right of the clouds, but it is present pretty much everywhere. Just look at the vertical edges of the cloud layers, there is always some kind of echo there (maybe compare with one of the single frames you hopefully still have)--JDrewes 12:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cape fur seal in Rostock[edit]

Cape fur seal in Rostock.jpg

  • Nomination sleeping cape fur seal in the zoo - rimshot 15:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good for QI --Pudelek 23:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much artefacts not sharp enough and general 'snapshot' composition. Lycaon 09:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much artefacts --Beyond silence 22.5px 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose artefacts --Lestat 22:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC) (was already declined. Lycaon 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC))
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dragonfly[edit]

DragonflyJI2.jpg DragonflyJI3.jpg

  • Nomination Dragonfly. --Joi 05:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNot identified. Lycaon 08:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think QI need species desription, otherwise detail is great! --Beyond silence 22.5px 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Please read the guidelines on identification. Thegreenj 04:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Please don't make up your own rules without consensus, Beyond Silence. Lycaon 05:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't make it, I read it: "have meaningful title and description. This should include the scientific names for minerals and Taxa naming for plants, animals etc."

meaningful title and description✓ Done It writes should include the scientific name, not must. --Beyond silence 22.5px 08:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry, but the image is extremely noisy and with artifacts (see the wings). It is a darter from the Libelullidae family, most probably a Sympetrum sp. - Alvesgaspar 10:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Maybe fewer artifacts in the cropped one I just posted on the right? -- Joi 04:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The new version looks upsampled (scaled larger). Plus there's strange dark bars running vertically through the background. Calibas 05:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Interesting. It's not enlarged... it's just cropped tighter from a 39MP image. I'm not sure exactly which bars you're talking about. Which section and how big? Curious for future reference. Thanks. -- Joi 06:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
        • The entire background has very faint dark vertical bands running through it, perhaps from jpg artifacts. I highly recommend switching your software to either GIMP (it's FREE!) or Photoshop. Calibas 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - The picture really looks as it were wildly upsampled. Just look at the pixelation and the size of artifacts! - Alvesgaspar 07:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It could be Capture Pro trying compensate for noise in the dark area. I'm not sure. Maybe I can correct for it in the noise/sharpening settings. I was just using the default settings. If this is the only thing wrong with the image, I'll work on it. I've never really worked on noise like this before. -- Joi 07:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Island 'If'[edit]

IsledIf ChateaudIf Marseille NDDLG 11032007 JD.jpg
  • Nomination The Island 'If' near Marseille, with the famous Chateu d'If. Picture taken with a 600mm equivalent FOV.--JDrewes 12:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeVery noisy. Lycaon 18:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you point out where the noise is, please? I see only the water. At 100 ISO, 1/320sec, I wouldn't know where the noise would be coming from? --JDrewes 22:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
      • That's just the problems, the detail/focus on the water is that low that it turns into noise. Lycaon 23:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lycaon, out of focus is NOT noise and you should not characterize it as that. It is of course acceptable for something which is not the subject to be out of focus in a photo, and I think the water is acceptable as out of focus for that reason. I do feel that the island is a little lacking in contrast, though. Morven 07:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I know ;-). But the result is similar. Lycaon 08:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Still, as a matter of usefulness, you should not call it 'noise' if it's not noise. I've noticed that quite a few of your comments on images here cite 'noise' where others don't see it, or call other artifacts 'noise' - e.g. JPEG artifacts from over-compression, CA, etc. 'Noise' has a technical definition in photography and calling things that aren't noise 'noise' will confuse people and not help them improve their images. Morven 09:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The image looks overexposed, unsharp and with lack of contrast. Alvesgaspar 09:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ack Alvesgaspar. --Nattfodd 11:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per the above. –Dilaudid 21:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Formations[edit]

Crystal Formations Macro 3.JPG
  • Nomination Crystal Formations --Digon3 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp and detailed. I'm not a big fan of shallow DoF on a repetitive pattern but it works well here. --Nattfodd 15:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I disagree. Mineral should have been lint-free first. Lycaon 06:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have any suggestions on how to clean it? I ran it though water and went through it with a toothpick trying to get it clean. --Digon3 13:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ultrasonic bath (careful! might dislodge crystals or concretions) and/or compressed air (available in canisters from electronic parts shops) should help a lot. Fine tweezers (N°4 or finer) and a magnifying glass are also handy. Lycaon 13:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Result (after 8 days in CR): 1 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Alvesgaspar 13:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Warthog at the Toronto Zoo[edit]

Warthog (Phacochoerus africanus) (0288) - Relic38.jpg
  • Nomination Warthog (Phacochoerus africanus) at the Toronto Zoo. -- Relic38 23:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Inadequate composition and colours, unfortunately. –Dilaudid 09:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yeah, it's tough to get colour from a grey animal. -Relic38 16:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Second opinion, anyone? -Relic38 02:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree, grey animals shouldn't be colourful, but maybe a grey animal vs. a non-grey background? Except for some streaks of green, colour distribution in this image is rather uniformous - unfortunately, lowering perceived contrast. Also, the rear of the other warthog disturbes image composition.--JDrewes 16:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Apart from the colour (needs more yellow), de behind of its twin is disturbing. Lycaon 19:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for the excellent feedback. I took these pictures at the zoo my first day with the new camera (Canon XTi/400D). Lots of fun! Three QIs and counting!  :) - Relic38 00:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Palace in Pławniowice[edit]

Pławniowice - Pałac.jpg
  • Nomination Palace in Pławniowice. --Lestat 22:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversharpened. --Nattfodd 15:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Realy? Maybe another opinion about this photo? --Lestat 16:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate lighting, overexposed sky. Lycaon 23:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks fine to me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unfortunately backlit; lighting too poor for QI, in my opinion. Morven 09:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortuantely, I have to agree with Lycaon and Morven on the lighting. - Relic38 00:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Bougainvilleablüte[edit]

Bougainvilleablüte.jpg
  • Nomination Bougainvillea by Marina0725 --Anna reg 13:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too low DOF, there are only a few mm in focus. Nice colours though. Lycaon 14:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it has near acceptable detail for QI. --Beyond silence 22.5px 13:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Good one, Beyond silence ;-). Near acceptable means: just not good enough!. Lycaon 13:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I use it as enough good for not oppose. Can be not useable at native English (I'm not that). My language near doesn't mean more or less, only near. --Beyond silence 22.5px 20:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too low DOF, the subject seems dreamy. –Dilaudid 21:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice colors, but the DOF is not to my taste, though i'am wondering at a app of f11--Richard Bartz 11:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> Not promoted - Alvesgaspar 13:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dworcowa Street in Katowice.[edit]

Katowice - Ul. Dworcowa 01.jpg
  • Nomination Dworcowa Street in Katowice. --Lestat 16:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, unsharp, perspective problems. Lycaon 17:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC
  • I don't agree with You. Primary, this is a high resolution photo (approximately 15MP). You may downsize and resample it if this sharpness isn't enought for You. Moreover this is max. sharpness from my camera. Secondary, perspective is in my humble opinion very good for near panoramic photo. See here: [10]. Maybe You fell that perspective is better, but I don't think so. --Lestat 19:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI have to agree with Lycaon, though I would call it distortion rather than perspective (see the silver-blue fiat to the bottom-left, it looks way too flat, and the hotel right behind it has serious sharpness issues). True, some of this may be fixed by downsize-and-resample, but that should be done before the image is evaluated (read: the viewer shouldn't have to do it, you should!). --JDrewes 13:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Lestat 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Penguin close-up at Loro Parque[edit]

Penguins Loro Parque 01.JPG
  • Nomination Penguin (Spheniscidae) at Loro Parque Penguinarium. Moved here with expanded description. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please nominate with nominations, not at CR. BTW, very noisy, very unfocussed. Lycaon 23:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but you'd have to downsample (scale) this far below the QI requirements to make it sharp. Calibas 02:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 22:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

1954 Pontiac hood ornament.jpg[edit]

1954 Pontiac hood ornament.jpg
  • Nomination 1954 Pontiac hood ornaments --Acarpentier 02:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition seems a bit off to me. Calibas 17:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just wondering of the others opinions. Acarpentier 02:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Calibas: main topic is almost falling out of the picture :). Lycaon 12:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Definilty not for QI ;) Acarpentier 02:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohio University Southern Campus branch[edit]

OU S campus Proctorville closeup.jpg
  • Nomination Ohio University Proctorville branch --JaGa 15:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise, composition. Lycaon 17:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Where is the noise? --JaGa 17:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Everywhere in the grass. Lycaon 20:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestat 18:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - It is a shame but I have to agree with Lycaon. The picture has a wonderful composition and colours, but the jpeg artifacts in the grass are too obvious. Also, why is the balustrade up in the tower so blurry? - Alvesgaspar 22:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for the explanation Alvesgaspar. I'm just learning, and I was hoping to get info on where I need to improve, now I've got it. I hadn't noticed the balustrade problem - maybe there wasn't enough contrast with the background for the sharpening to make it stand out. If I redid this picture - fixed the grass issues and the balustrade, I've got the original after all - would it be tacky to repost? --JaGa 23:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Post as a new version (don't overwrite) and resubmit. Lycaon 06:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't overwrite...? --Beyond silence 22.5px 08:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

    • He could overwrite but it confuses the voting (which votes were for which version?), so it is simplest to upload as a separate file. Then we can vote on the different versions (sometimes we think the original is better) and easily see both versions side by side. --Tony Wills 10:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you add an artificial sky, it is advisable (for QI and FP even required) that you add a retouched template. Lycaon 22:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 13:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fishing boat in Cap-Haitien[edit]

Fishing boat in Cap-Haitien.jpg
  • Nomination Fishing boat in Cap-Haitien, in haiti.. --le Korrigan bla 18:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not overwhelmingly sharp and it could benefit of some noise reduction but i like the colour contrast and composition --Ikiwaner 19:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Less sharp than nomination above. Lycaon 16:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much noise. Dori - Talk 16:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not very confident in using Photoshop, so how can I remove noise ? Any of you could help me with this ? le Korrigan bla 07:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think you can get the noise out without losing too much detail. I'm afraid as shot it's not a QI image. Dori - Talk 23:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 05:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Kettős-Körös river2[edit]

Kettos-Koros-Bekes.jpg
  • Nomination Kettős-Körös river--Beyond silence 22.5px 21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI believe this has a CW tilt, also adding the location coordinates would be helpful. If those were fixed I think it's a QI. Dori - Talk 22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough for a still landscape. Lycaon 08:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's enough sharp IMO. --Beyond silence 22.5px 15:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 22:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lac Blanc Pano.jpg[edit]

Lac Blanc Pano.jpg

  • Nomination panoramic view of Lac Blanc and Col du Calvaire. --Simonizer 17:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportToo dark, too lacking in contrast. Morven 20:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Much improved new version addresses those problems.Morven
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad lighting, and I think it will be hard to save it even with postprocessing. Very noisy at full res. Benh 19:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose dark, noisy. Sorry --Beyond silence 22.5px 21:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack opposers. Dori - Talk 01:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 05:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Jacksonville Skyline Panorama 2[edit]

Jacksonville Skyline Panorama 2.jpg
  • Nomination Jacksonville Skyline in Florida, USA. --Digon3 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportCorrect picture and nice composition though a little on the soft side - Alvesgaspar 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks like a good picture, but can you fix the verticals (they open up towards the top)? Maybe also a little bit of noise reduction in the sky - Not a vital problem though. Inductiveload 23:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral This is a tough one. While overall easily reaching QI standards, the stitching error, one quarter up the Mōdis building has been as good as repaired (well enough for QI) on the concrete sides of the building, but it is still running through the glass panels. Also the perspective is borderline. Lycaon 12:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I uploaded an edit that hopefuly fixed the stitching error and denoised the sky.Digon3 17:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very nice ! But still a stitching error on the glasses from the second building from the left Wachovia building. What do you use for stitching by the way ? Benh 20:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
For this, a old demo of autopano. I tried it with Hugin at first, but it made several more stitching errors that I could not get rid of. Digon3 21:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Strange because it doesn't seem very difficult to stitch. If you use Hugin, and in case you don't know (we just found that), be careful with this : when optimizing control points, each iteration starts from the results of the previous optimization... What we do is duplicating our project before optimizing, and if some correction are needed, we start from the saved, unoptimised project. Benh 19:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promotrd to QI -- Lycaon 22:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

O.101 Benny[edit]

O.101 Benny.jpg
  • Nomination O.101 Benny. Shrimp fishing vessel, fishing close to the shore at Raversijde, Belgium. Lycaon 08:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Visible noise and/or artifacts probably resulting from underexposure. Anyway it shouldn't be allowed to fish so close to land (is it?)... - Alvesgaspar 17:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Boat itself (including dark parts) is quite noise free and sharp. The picture was taken in the late afternoon and the ship was moving at about 4 knots and we were doing about 6 knots. The sand behind was also quite a bit hotter than the seawater, maybe contributing to the shimmer, together with the movement unsharpness of the background. At least sharper than the nomination below. Lycaon 16:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp, underexposed. Dori - Talk 16:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The main subject is fairly sharp and well balanced, the unsharp background is due to air turbulences caused by the heat of the beach and the engine of the ship. This picture is not perfect, but good enough for QI. -- MJJR 19:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with MJJR. Calibas 01:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise --Beyond silence 22.5px 15:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with MJJR. The boot is sharp enough. IMHO, this shot is more than yet another boat picture. You can see the fishermen busy cooking the North Sea shrimps (Crangon crangon) with sea water following the old Flemish recipe. I would suggest to add it to the [category:Crangon crangon] and to say few words about the preparation of the shrimps directly on the boat. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 10:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ack MJJR --Thermos 16:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 23:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Tinside pool[edit]

Tinside pool.jpg

  • Nomination Tinside pool--Nilfanion 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent composition. Calibas 06:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sharp, ccw tilt. Lycaon 16:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable. --Beyond silence 22.5px 19:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good for QI -- Pudelek 19:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

NRE 3GS21B locomotive & train[edit]

NRE 3GS21B UPY 2733.jpg

  • Nomination Brand new genset switchers of the Union Pacific Railroad running in the street. --Morven 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this is borderline so you may want to go to CR, but for me there are too many chromatic aberrations, and also the somewhat shallow DOF results in unsharp wagons (stopping down might have gotten rid of CAs as well). Dori - Talk 03:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, there is a small degree of unsharpness to the wagons and a bit of CA on the poles, although I think it's pretty slight compared to most examples I see. This was at f/9; I will experiment to see whether smaller apertures help with this lens. I do think, though, that the trailing cars are not really the point of attention in this shot anyway. Morven 06:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      • There are CA at the top and right of the locomotive as well, but they're more pronounced on the poles. Dori - Talk 14:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Y'know, I never even saw that until you pointed it out. Scarcely visible. I'm not sure how much slower a shutter speed I want to drop to, though, in order to stop down - this is at 1/400; I'd imagine I can do 1/200 or so without risking motion blur, but I'm not sure how much advantage just one stop's worth of stopping down will give me, since I'm already at f/9. It's more likely simply that this lens sucks, since it came effectively for free with the camera. Morven 22:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
          • It's not a bad picture, and you get CA even with good lenses. I'd say one stop down would have been sufficient, and you could have gone to ISO 200 (or 400) to get more light without getting too much noise. Dori - Talk 22:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Main parts looks enough good! --Beyond silence 22.5px 06:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orlovic (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral CA-noisefringing. Lycaon 21:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (changed my mind. Lycaon 09:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC))
    • Tiny amount of CA, yes; but noise? I see none. Morven 07:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not perfect, but good enough for QI. Nice subject! -- MJJR 20:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 22:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Torre de Belém Lisboa Richard Bartz[edit]

Torre de Belém Lisboa Richard Bartz.jpg

  • Nomination Belém Tower is a fortified tower located in the Belém district of Lisbon, Portugal.--Richard Bartz 18:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice, and wow for the sharpness (but at this size, it's not so much a surprise). Benh 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition doesn't do it for me, too much land in the foreground. A correction to the perspective might help too. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ben Aveling version
    • I'm a complete pleb when it comes to post processing, but I've had a shot at showing that the picture could be better. Cheers, Ben Aveling 23:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - The Tower of Belém is located in the city of Lisbon, by the Tagus river - Alvesgaspar 11:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see your problems are important.--Beyond silence 22.5px 16:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -as Ben Aveling, --Szilas 04:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the composition, OK light, it's sharp enough for me. - (Relic38 13:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Original --Richard Bartz 15:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Ben Aveling -- Lycaon 12:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> Promoted to QI-- Lycaon 22:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I assume we're only voting on the original, the second version hasn't been nominated by anyone, but uploaded to show it "could be better" --Tony Wills 09:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Kettős-Körös river[edit]

Kettos-Koros-Bekes-2.jpg
  • Nomination Kettős-Körös river--Beyond silence 22.5px 21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Less than optimal composition (should be landscape in my opinion), and I don't see what the vehicles are adding to it. Dori - Talk 22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Erroneously moved to cr without a reason given. Lycaon 08:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, do you need any more * reason? the preceding unsigned comment was added by Beyond silence (talk • contribs)
There was no reason nor a signature. This is not the proper way. Lycaon 19:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp + artefacts. Lycaon 19:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 16:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Pelecanidae Loro Parque 02.JPG[edit]

Pelecanidae Loro Parque 02.JPG
  • Nomination Pelecanidae in Loro Parque, nice reflection in the water.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good composition, but uneven lighting. Dori - Talk 03:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)}
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noise and overexposed. Sorry --Beyond silence 22.5px 18:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info When asking for a 'consensual review' it is usual to state why you disagree with the original review --Tony Wills 10:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 16:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Schneeberg-rocks2[edit]

Schneeberg-rocks2.jpg

  • Nomination Rocks on Schneeberg (Austria)--Beyond silence 22.5px 08:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportThe contrast is a bit harsh, but it's good enough. -- Ram-Man 03:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In such a static environment I would expect to not see any overexposed areas. Dori - Talk 05:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Contrast and composition. Lycaon 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ste_Chapelle_Basse_s.jpg[edit]

Ste Chapelle Basse s.jpg

  • Nomination Ceiling of the Holy Chapel, Paris, France --Benh 20:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I love the subject matter and the colors. However, verticals converge strongly (although the curve of the arches hides this to a degree) and parts of this aren't in the sharpest focus. I'm torn.Morven 06:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, it's not sharp... I took the picture handheld, at f/2.8 and got a decent enough shot thanks to IS. A first version I uploaded was even softer than this one, and I managed to sharpened it a little which is why I nominated it here. But I think you're right, it may be not enough for QI... Benh 19:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great light and colours! Enough sharp. --Beyond silence 22.5px 21:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition. Dori - Talk 04:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please categorize. - Till 07:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Benh 10:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for QI, but why so small with a 3,888 x 2,592 pixel camera? Lycaon 20:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Because this was taken handheld at 1/5 sec, and was a bit soft for QI IMO. I sharpened it a bit more than needed and scaled it down so it has a better "per pixel" look. Benh 20:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for explaining. Lycaon 20:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tree Dragon[edit]

Tree Dragon444.jpg

  • Nomination Tree Dragon or Jacky lizard--Benjamint 12:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very sharp and well-composed. I love the texture of the scales. --Florian Prischl 12:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unnatural oversharpening. Lycaon 15:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Did you sharpen after downsampling? Calibas 01:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I used the Bicubic function in PS, it sharpens at the same time as resampling. BTW, I have compared this image to a version that hasn't been sharpened and the difference is very slight as it was already quite a sharp image. Benjamint 08:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a border case but ok in my opinion. --LC-de 10:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok --Richard Bartz 15:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think the sharpening is so far as to be too much. Morven 00:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestat 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Result:  5 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Planetarium WPKiW.jpg[edit]

Planetarium WPKiW.jpg

  • Nomination Silesian Planetarium in Chorzow (Königshütte) - New version (help from Leafnode) -- Pudelek 15:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Minor noise in the sky, slight oversharpening but no more stitching problems, nice view, IHMO good enough for QI -- Klaus with K 17:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I still see the stitching error on the steps. Now that Morven mentions it, I see that it's a shadow on the steps, nonetheless there is a lot of noise and some chromatic aberrations in the image, so I'm staying with the oppose. Dori - Talk 22:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info my picture is ok --Pudelek 20:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question could you show more or less where are those errors? I'll try to do something with that, but I can't see any now. --Leafnode 08:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed still some stitching errors (also on the dome) but they are very minor. Good enough for QI. Lycaon 12:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good enough --Leafnode 08:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Any remaining stitching errors very minor, hard to notice. Seeming stitching error on steps appears to be a shadow on closer examination. Good illustration of subject. Morven 21:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Domestic Goose[edit]

Domestic goose thegreenj.jpg

  • Nomination Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens) Thegreenj 03:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Domestic goose Thegreenj 19:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Sure that this is a snow goose? Looks more like a white domesticated goose Anser anser f. domestica. Did it have black handwings? --LC-de 12:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    You are probably right. Unfortunately, I don't have any photos that could more clearly show the wings, but it was with a couple of geese looking like Greylag geese. Thegreenj 14:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    Then I would say, these are Anser anser. Maybe at least the white one is a runaway domestic or a hybrid, but at last these are grealags. --LC-de 17:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. --Lestat 16:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The exposure preserves detail in areas that would otherwise be overexposed on the swan. In fact, according to the histogram, the picture is actually a little overexposed. Sure, I could stretch (not sure what you call it) the histogram so the white of the swan is actually white, but I'd prefer the detail. Thegreenj 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Exposure looks fine to me, good illustration of a goose. Morven 20:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dark, low detail. Sorry --Beyond silence 22.5px 20:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Rose Garden Arena[edit]

RoseGardenArenaS.jpg

  • Nomination The rose garden arena in Portland, OR USA --Fcb981 22:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There seem to be stitching errors, and it's also a bit overexposed (which can be fixed by going down .05 or so on the exposure. Dori - Talk 05:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice sharpness, and light. --Beyond silence 22.5px 09:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Stitching errors. Thegreenj 21:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I take it I'm allowed to vote? anyway, a 2px stitching error isn't a big enough deal to preclude from QI in my opinion. This isn't FP, anyway, thats my take. -Fcb981 02:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment QI is not something worse than FP. QI should have flawless quality. FP is something different. And yes, any stitching error is a big deal. --Leafnode 07:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • There is no such thing a technically flawless photo. It does not exist. Also, there are fewer than 900 FPs and there are greater than 1700 QIs. Which one is then better? there are plenty of QIs that wont pass FPC but I would bet that almost always a FP will pass as a QI. that is just the nature of the beast. That brings me to my previous argument that a small stitching error isn't a big technical flaw, there are FP and QI panoramas with stitching worse than this. Anyway, vote as you like, I just wanted to say to you that technical perfection is not possible and that QI is indeed "worse" (although I would say "more inclusive") than FP. -Fcb981 01:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It really is not "better" or "worse" than FP, just different. It cannot be compared accurately. FP is for pictures that are exceptional in terms of being a photograph, all around, while QI is for pictures that meet a certain technical standard, and though a technical standard is required for FP, there is less emphasis than at QI. That said, you are probably right in there being few FPs that would not be QIs. You might want to see this discussion on the same topic. Thegreenj 02:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • BTW, your vote is implied by the nomination. It is not counted - see Rules, point three just above this. Thegreenj 02:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I think of it as FP is QI + wow or historical value or really superior technically (sharpness, composition, etc). It's possible that the second part of the equation is so much higher that it could be FP and not QI, but you're right that you almost never see that. The numbers themselves aren't the whole story as more pictures get put through QI and QI is easier to get as it's not so many people voting, and it's not a 2/3 majority. Dori - Talk 02:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
          • For me, that less drawn out and official nominating makes QI feel less than FP. I also feel that art is always a part of a photograph or visual (and in writing an encyclopedia article for that matter). Don't vote on that account though, If you don't think this is a technically sound picture, its your right to oppose it. Cheers. -Fcb981 02:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes QI accepts there may be small technical defects, but usually if an deficiency is fixable eg colour balance, geometric distortion, stitching errors, then people ask for them to be fixed before giving a promotion --Tony Wills 10:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Planetarium WPKiW[edit]

original version

  • Nomination Silesian Planetarium in Chorzow (Königshütte) -- Pudelek 19:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition & detail. --Beyond silence 22.5px 12:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image is shattered, as it was a stitched panorama - probably camera or software destroyed image file --Leafnode 10:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree, looks like stitching errors to me - Alvesgaspar 13:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Stitching errors ruining an otherwise nice view --Klaus with K 13:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very obvious stitching errors that even I can notice. Unfortunate, because otherwise the view is nice, as Klaus with K correctly states! --Florian Prischl 12:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination New version is in 5 October Pudelek 15:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Artur Rojek[edit]

Artur Rojek Off Festival p 068.jpg

  • Nomination Artur Rojek, director of the Off Festival Przykuta 20:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See edit. Thegreenj 22:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Could do with a small crop above his head, but nice as is. Thegreenj 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and moved to CR. The photo is very soft/unsharp (focus on the shirt instead of the face, it seems) and definitely needs to be cropped. As a crop is a very easy fix, it should not be left to be. --Florian Prischl 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't agree with Florian Prischl. --Lestat 12:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do agree. Lycaon 13:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral if it were were cropped some more above. Dori - Talk 13:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like the crop, but I still think it's good. Dori - Talk 18:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Voting for below version instead. Dori - Talk 14:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I just supported this picture as FPC, so I support it here also... -- MJJR 20:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Due to the crop as mentioned by Thegreenj. If this is fixed, I'll support. -- Slaunger 23:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Artur Rojek Edit[edit]

Artur Rojek Off Festival p 068 crop.jpg

  • Nomination How's this (crop, slight sharpen and NR)? Thegreenj 00:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The crop is now good (let's harvest). Dori - Talk 14:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The crop and sharpnes are slightly better now, but the composition is still bad - the cluttered background is distracting. It really should not have been hard to get the subject of the photo in front of a white wall or so. --Florian Prischl 11:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can accept the unfortunate background, because there is a point with it: The BG shows a poster for an event the subject is related to. -- Slaunger 20:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Background poster is quite irrelevant as it is not readable. Lycaon 11:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The essential Off festival is easily readable, the rest is not. -- Slaunger 20:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the red in the poster is what makes it stand out so much. Calibas 03:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just not a good portrait: the subject looks uncomfortable, the lighting is mediocre and the background is distracting. -Fcb981 01:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable detail. --Beyond silence 22.5px 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Although detail is there, the is nothing that in my opinion makes this much more than just a snapshot. The composition is not very interesting, the background is cluttered, and the poster, while maybe relevant, isn't in focus enough to say to a viewer "I'm relevant to this", but draws the eye from the man. It's a fine photo to maybe illustrate the subject in his WP article, but I don't think it is QI. Inductiveload 14:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fly September 2007-6.jpg[edit]

Fly September 2007-6.jpg

  • Nomination A blow-fly of the Calliphoridae family (Chrysomya albiceps) - Alvesgaspar 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support and QI again Benh 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition but this picture is very noisy/distorted and harsh lighted. --Richard Bartz 15:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lighting is very harsh, just a little too harsh. The noise is amplified by that, which is why I oppose this image (albeit just barely). --Florian Prischl 12:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is a great shoot -- Jarekt 23:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great shot, somewhat harsh lighting, but decent detail. -- (Relic38 13:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC))
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Madison Wisconsin[edit]

Madison Wisconsin img 1196.jpg

  • Nomination A shot of Madison, Wisconsin from the Monona lakeshore. --Dori Talk 03:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeVery flat, almost bland perspective. No distinctive features are cought, it looks like a straight wall. --Florian Prischl 00:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentIt's OK if you don't like the image, but exactly which of the QI guidelines does it not fulfill? Are you saying that it doesn't represent the actual view? The buildings are far away from the camera, so the focussing plane will be on all of them, hence the flat view. The white building in the shore was from a design of w:en:Frank Lloyd Wright and you can also see the capitol of Madison, both of which are distinctive. Thanks for the comments. Dori - Talk 02:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem this photo exhibits is very common among panoramas - lacking composure or structure. That is also the QI criterion I would quote - composition. That is not really your fault, as you cannot change the way the city looks. The things I already mentioned become that way because the photo was taken from such a low level, at water level. This results in the "wall" I wrote about. The unsharpnes of the photo adds to that effect because it blurs the distinctions between the buildings. Compare this to, for example, this panorama, where, due to the perspective and the lines in the photo dictated by the river, the composition and structure is more lively. --Florian Prischl 10:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, you're talking about something you like or don't like but not technical. The guidelines state:
  • common problems: Unclear or non-existent subject.
  • guideline: The arrangement of the elements within the image should support depiction of the subject, not distract from it. The subject should not be cropped, unless it is only a specific part of the subject that is of interest. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head).The “Rule of Thirds” is a common guideline for composition that has been inherited from painting. The idea is to divide the image with two imaginary horizontal and two vertical lines, thus dividing the image into thirds horizontally and vertically. Centering the subject is often considered a negative practice. Subjects of interest are placed in one of the “interest points”, where horizontal and vertical lines intersect (4 interest points are created). Horizons are almost never placed in the middle, for they “cut” the image in half. They are placed either in the upper or lower horizontal line. The main idea here is NOT to center the subject without a very good reason.
  • There is nothing in there about liveliness. Obviously the guidelines can't list every single problem there could be, but as far as I can tell the image exhibits none of the problems mentioned in the guidelines, and all the guidelines are more or less objective (except maybe the rule of thirds, but this image doesn't violate that and even that test is fairly objective to perform) unlike the liveliness or dullness of a subject. As far as sharpness, I think it's pretty good for the distance. Oh, and this is not a panorama. It has the wide format of a panorama because of how i cropped it, but it is a single shot taken at 75 mm. I guess I'll wait for some other opinions. Thanks, Dori - Talk 12:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • For one, I think the large portion of sky is making the panorama uninteresting. To quote your quoted text: "Horizons are almost never placed in the middle, for they “cut” the image in half." And yes, I stand by my point of view that this is a panorma, because of what it depicts (a large portion of something, in this landscape/city. That it is a panorama has nothing do do with focal length or the use of stitching software. However, this might be a simple misunderstanding on either end is just a question of semantics, anyway. For another, please keep in mind that the Guidelines are just that - guidelines and not laws. Maybe I chose to interpret them more towards my view of a "quality image", but so be it. This is why we have CR, after all. Regarding composition, the two buildings you mention are, in my opinion, not distinctive at all. The capitol might be the highest building, but the only visible thing is the cupola. Also, the Wright building you point out is not distintive, either. The white/beige building behind it blends the two together, and neither is as sharp as they should be. I also just noticed the picture has a very, very small clockwise tilt. I hope you can understand my vote better now. I would welcome other opinions on the photo. --Florian Prischl 12:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Tree Sparrow[edit]

Tree Sparrow August 2007 Osaka Japan.jpg

  • Nomination Tree Sparrow in a park. --Laitche 18:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion

*Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable detail for me. --Beyond silence 22.5px 20:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)--Beyond silence 22.5px 07:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy for such a small picture. Resampling is not an option here. Lycaon 17:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Noise doesn't bother me here, it seems not to take any detail out of the picture. And aside that issue, I think this picture is very nice Benh 20:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too bad it is so noisy, especially in the brown parts. It would otherwise be a good photograph. --Florian Prischl 00:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A good photo of the species, good size, good exposure, good focus, no obtrusive noise - obviously QI --Tony Wills 09:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestat 12:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dori - Talk 21:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Really noisy per Lycaon. Doodledoo 22:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • conditionalSymbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for ISO 800 the noise is realistic, but there are very easy to use noise reduction tools which should be applied here --Richard Bartz 02:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it could be done very easily. The noise is pretty coarse grained to the point where most automatic filters wouldn't touch it. Dori - Talk 03:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I really have a hard time seeing why people have problems with the noise only really noticeable on some dark brown wing feathers, it is not the sort of speckled multicoloured noise effect that is annoying, it could best be described as a coarseness in small areas - if you try to smooth it out you will just loose detail for no great gain. We are not looking for perfect images, we are looking for good resolution, high quality images, small defects have always been acceptable --Tony Wills 07:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I appreciate it :) --Laitche 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I did noise reduction as much as possible without losing detail and uploaded the edited version. Please vote to the edited version :) --Laitche 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  4 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> (vote on revised version?) --Tony Wills 23:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

edited version

Tree Sparrow August 2007 Osaka Japan.jpg
  • Nomination Tree Sparrow in a park. --Laitche 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the noise is getting better. Probably some noise still remain but I agree with Tony Wills. It was not easy for me as Dori said. --Laitche 05:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But then what do I know, I thought the original was ok ;-) --Tony Wills 09:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This version. Noise is better now, the resulting unsharpnes is acceptable. --Florian Prischl 11:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp, clean now, and good DOF. -- (Relic38 01:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have a different opinion on clean and sharp. Still too noisy for its size. Lycaon 11:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pannonian Knapweed[edit]

Centaurea sadleriana-crop.jpg

  • Nomination Centaurea sadleriana (Pannonian Knapweed) cropped--Beyond silence 22.5px 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe flowers still look out of focus, I think the problem is with over-exposure. Examine the histogram and individual channels, 3.5% of pixels over exposed (most in just red and blue channels). Sorry :-) --Tony Wills 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think where is the focus? I can not agree that.--Beyond silence 22.5px 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this is oversharpened now, and it is still obvious that the photo is actually unsharp. To answer Beyond silence's question: As far as I can tell, the focus rests with the upper part of the stem (as seen better in the original photo), which is the wrong place. I also concur with Tony Wills that it is overexposed. --Florian Prischl 12:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 Support, 2 Oppose not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Delicious calamares[edit]

Rabas calamares a la romana.jpg

  • Nomination Calamares a la romana Fried coated squid slices --Javier ME 21:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oh my god, that looks so TASTY. Background a tad noisy but acceptable. Doodledoo 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I love calamares but that is not enough to let the promotion pass... The crop is too tight and there is something in the background spoiling the composition - Alvesgaspar 19:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree with Alvesgaspar -- Slaunger 22:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hey "crop-background barbarians", it's a good technical quality photo!--Beyond silence 22.5px 19:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar --Leafnode 10:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose another close call, but I do not like the reflection in the background. I also miss the EXIF information! --Florian Prischl 12:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oedipoda caerulescens korseby[edit]

Oedipoda caerulescens korseby.jpeg
  • Nomination very sharp close-up of Oedipoda caerulescens. Fabelfroh 16:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support At minimum size but good quality. --LC-de 16:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness. --Beyond silence 22.5px 12:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Promotion template restored (not the place to discuss - Alvesgaspar 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - I'll be neutral on this one. The detail and focus are good enough but the branch in foreground kills it - Alvesgaspar 22:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose plant in the foreground --Leafnode 10:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the plant in the foreground and the rather shallow DOF make me oppose this, but besides, this is a very nice shot, so this is unfortunate. --Florian Prischl 12:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - I really want to promote this for sharpness, good DOF, and value, but the twig in front, and the tight crop (100 more pixels on left and right) have me neutral. -- (Relic38 01:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not really sharp enough for its size. Lycaon 15:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yusupovsky Garden in Saint Petersburg[edit]

Pond in Yusupovsky Garden (Saint Petersburg).jpg

  • Nomination Yusupovsky Garden in Saint Petersburg -- Sergey kudryavtsev 06:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The photograph intended for article about old park of Saint Petersburg. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 06:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It seems this image was put in CR without going through the regular gallery at first (see Sergey kudryavtsev's diff at 2007-10-04T08:43:08 - link provided below as to not break the template). Should we just move it up to the gallery (not regarding my vote or regarding it?) or leave it here? I will leave it here for now. --Florian Prischl 12:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I ask for consensual review only, not nominate to quality images. There is in Commons:Quality images candidates ("How to ask for consensual review") nothing about setting anything into gallery. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 13:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
      • As far as I understand, you were only looking for a review or critique of your photo, is that right? By posting it on the Quality Images page, an image will get reviewed and either promoted as a Quality Image or not. The CR section is for disputed nominations, not general critique on the image (although it often turns into such, which is good). What I think you might have been looking for is Commons:Photography critiques. Under that light, you might want to withdraw your nomination if you do not want it to be reviewed on a simple support/oppose basis. --Florian Prischl 13:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I think it's necessary to make section "How to ask for consensual review" of Commons:Quality images candidates more clear. For non English-speaking people it is difficult to understand. Can you rewrite this section? -- Sergey kudryavtsev 06:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Slight counterclockwise tilt; strong fringing that is especially evident on the leafs in the top left; unsharpnes (which look like shake, which it is not, regarding that the exposure time was 1/500th of a second). --Florian Prischl 12:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What is "string fringing"? I don't understand this term. This is color abberations on the leafs? -- Sergey kudryavtsev 13:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Please excuse me, that was a typo. It should have read: "strong fringing". I corrected the typo in the original text also. --Florian Prischl 13:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
        • This seems as second colored edge. Through what this is happened? And how i can fix this fringing? -- Sergey kudryavtsev 06:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The diff in question --Florian Prischl 12:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

hawk[edit]

Cooper's hawk.jpg
  • Nomination Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii). --Calibas 03:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Wow, nice picture. You should probably correct the white balance though as the bird looks blue. Dori - Talk 03:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
✓ Done Good catch. Calibas 03:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done, my first promotion but it's easy with this image :) Dori - Talk 03:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness, light. --Beyond silence 22.5px 12:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Promotion template restored (not the place to discuss) - Alvesgaspar 14:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I don't like the composition but the detail on the bird is quite good - Alvesgaspar 22:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good. The Bokeh in the background looks great --Richard Bartz 01:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 03:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jarekt 23:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Urbana Illinois park[edit]

Urbana Illinois park 20070929 img 2194.jpg
  • Nomination A firewheel flower. Dori - Talk 17:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Awesome colors, good detail. I think a little bit tighter crop would be an improvement but still a QI. Calibas 03:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness, (background?) If you know the species write it to the desciption.. --Beyond silence 22.5px 12:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I've updated the description. Dori - Talk 13:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Promotion template restored (not the place to discuss - Alvesgaspar 14:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good detail and colours. But I would crop a bit on the right to de-center the main subject - Alvesgaspar 22:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Young California Kingsnake[edit]

Californiakingsnake.jpg

  • Nomination Young California Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula californiae) . --Calibas 04:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Problems with noise and glow on the head of the snake. They are outweighed by the composition (posture of the snake) and the, in my view, good use of DOF (although that might be criticized). --Florian Prischl 00:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness, noise. --Beyond silence 22.5px 12:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 20:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

City pigeon[edit]

Pigeon 2007-1.jpg

  • Nomination Common city pigeon (Columba livia). Taken in Lisboa, Portugal - Alvesgaspar 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely photo (as usual). No faults, great composition. Doodledoo 23:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness, noise. --Beyond silence 22.5px 12:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • When you don't agree with the review PLEASE move the picture to CR - Alvesgaspar 13:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharpness and noise levels are acceptable for QI. Lycaon 13:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the sharpness is pretty good (maybe not FP level, but way better than most shots). Dori - Talk 13:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL. --Beyond silence 22.5px 14:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Constructive comments would be more useful :-) --Tony Wills 23:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Undoubtedly QI ! -- MJJR 20:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Artillery in St. Petersburg[edit]

Вход в музей артиллерии.jpg

  • Nomination Enterace in museum of artellery in St. Petersburg #!George Shuklin 20:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Blurred faces make it unfit for QI. What happened to the EXIF, BTW? Lycaon 20:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I reupload non-blured version, but will it been accepted with faces of random people? About EXIF - it has no meaning after editing. #!George Shuklin 22:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Do you mean your image editing program deletes the EXIF data? The EXIF data still has plenty of meaning after editing, you cant change things like focal length or f-stop. Calibas 02:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great photo! --Orlovic (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support composition and quality ok. nice picture Pudelek 15:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cathedrale Béziers[edit]

CathedraleBeziers.jpg

  • Nomination Béziers cathedral (France).--Sanchezn 20:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The colors are a little bit pale, but sharpness and composition are OK. -- MJJR 20:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Quite good but I see a slight CCW tilt in all the verticals. QI when corrected. Lycaon 17:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • CCW tilt corrected with Hugin. But I disagree this kind of comments, a quality picture doesn't need to have perfect verticals everywhere, it's a persepctive problem. Sanchezn 21:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh yes it has to, that why we award it a QI stamp. Technically as perfect as possible, and correcting a tilt is (almost) always possible. BTW, I didn't oppose, just brought it to CR, because I knew the tilt correction was an easy but necessary thing. Lycaon 08:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestat 22:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tilt is so easily correctable that it should always be taken into account; Lycaon is right. Also, might I suggest a level-corrected version? The original seems washed out. (On an external server so as not to clutter up the Commons). --Florian Prischl 00:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I am sorry if my comment was unclear. I did assume that the picture was already corrected by you when I made that comment, is that not right? It does look fine as it is now (and did look fine when I first looked at it and wrote my comment), tilt-wise. I did not mean it should be rotated even further. What I meant to say was that tilt should always be corrected, and slightly-off image that is otherwise good should not become a QI because tilt is so easily correctable. --Florian Prischl 10:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Your comment was clear, but perhaps my answer was not... I just explained why tilt-correction is not easy : because there is also perspective problems that make verticals on border of the pics not vertical. As another example, if you put your Altlerchenfelder Kirche on QIC, there will be people to say "tilted"... it's not tilted, it's a perspective problem not easy to correct. In my picture the problem was the same even if it seems to be a tilt problem. Sanchezn 10:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, now I understand what you meant. And yes, what you say makes perfect sense. Interestingly, in Image:Altlerchenfelder Kirche Wien.jpg the perspective IS already adjusted (using The GIMP). I remember it was not easy and it still looks somewhat crummy. --Florian Prischl 12:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Some spot checking of verticals I did found them at 90°. Dori - Talk 13:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The tilt has been corrected... Sanchezn 18:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Crested Tern[edit]

Crested tern444.jpg
  • Nomination Crested Tern--Benjamint 03:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unconventional format, but sharp and good use of DOF. Please complete information template. Lycaon 13:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment no author, no source, no date taken, these need to be fixed Gnangarra 13:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support to me a future FPC (but I'll wait for the information template to be completed). Benh 20:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Issues seem to have been resolved. Lycaon 08:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Great shot, a serious candidate to FP - Alvesgaspar 09:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I've Just Nominated it at FPC now.--Benjamint 10:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically good and hilarious subject. Doodledoo 12:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The technical side is well done, but the composition - with another bird directly behind the subject - is troubling me. It looks very confusing to me. I'll think about it. --Florian Prischl 00:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A very good image of the bird, and I can ignore the second bird behind the tail, but the third bird that has a beak immediately behind the main subject is a real problem - it creates a halo around the birds beak - very distracting --Tony Wills 09:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 21:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator),  0.5 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Goat 2007-1.jpg
  • Nomination A young she-goat grazing (Capra aegagrus hircus) - Alvesgaspar 19:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Seems oversharpened, if you did sharpen it I'd say tone that down. Dori - Talk 19:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it was a bit overcontrasted, please check it now - Alvesgaspar 20:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks fine now. Another excellent photo by Mr. Gaspar.... Doodledoo 15:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, sharpness. --Beyond silence 22.5px 20:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Contrast has come down, but the composition just doesn't do it for me (not enough of a goat lover :) A side image would have been better. Dori - Talk 03:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Celastrina Argiolus[edit]

Celastrina Argiolus.jpg
  • Nomination A Celastrina argiolus (Holly Blue). --S Sepp 13:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazingly detailed and beautiful, despite the blurred parts. Benh 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness, DOF, noise. --Beyond silence 22.5px 12:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Promotion template restored (not the place to discuss - Alvesgaspar 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Low depth of field but the head is in focus and the good detail make it sufficient for QI --Tony Wills 20:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Beyond silence. Lycaon 21:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree with opposers, the high noise in the background is too much - Alvesgaspar 22:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

scleranthus[edit]

Scleranthus perennis.jpeg
  • Nomination big and detailed photo. Fabelfroh 16:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, you're right. Sharp and well illuminated too. --LC-de 16:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting fore and background.--Beyond silence 22.5px 12:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Promotion template restored (not the place to discuss - Alvesgaspar 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Composition not good enough, specially the unfocused foreground - Alvesgaspar 22:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hoverfly on Agastache Blue Fortune.jpg[edit]

Hoverfly on Agastache Blue Fortune.jpg

  • Nomination My first macro shot submission, I love the colours a lot and wonder if you agree. -- Benh 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs id on the hoverfly. Lycaon 13:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC) issues resolved Lycaon 21:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose great colors, good composition, great resolution, but low sharpness and low depth-of-field, and the hoverfly is out of focus (which is the subject here). Fabelfroh 09:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree. I may not be "Richard Bartz" sharp, but it is in focus to me. Please have a look at it again at real size. I agree with Lycaon and will do some research on the hoverfly id. Benh 17:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry Benh but I also agree the quality is not good enough. Six months ago the picture would habe been easily promoted but now the "insect bar" is much higher due to many excellent contributions. Personally I don't like the centred composition. As for the species, it might be Syritta sp., please check this one - Alvesgaspar 18:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • uch ! I really thought this was a good picture (but after all, I come here to have feedbacks) ! But size of the insect aside, what serious flaw does this picture has ?? I thought details on the plant and the insect (given the size) were good. About the composition... it's a more subjective point, but I actually consider the plants are a good part of it, which is why I don't see it as "simply centered" (I could still add back the part I cropped out on the right). Benh 18:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not agree with the suggestion the QI criteria should have become more stringent because of the good quality images submitted over the last six months, this is not FP, there is not a limit on how many images can join the QI category. Just because we have more excellent images is no reason to decline good images --Tony Wills 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The main problem I have is that the hoverfly seems to be the main subject but there's no ID. Otherwise the composition and colors make up for the low DOF. I wouldn't support this as an FP but it's good enough for QI. Calibas 19:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
A QI should be better than a FP if we take the quality for example --Richard Bartz 02:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Hoverfly ID added. Great thanks to Lycaon (I promise I'll try to find by myself next time :) ) Benh 19:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The head of the fly is in reasonable focus and shows good detail. I have reservations about the composition. --Tony Wills 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 2 less detail for my taste. Hard subject. --Richard Bartz 02:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Blowfly 1[edit]

Fly September 2007-10.jpg

  • Nomination A blow-fly of the Sarcophagidae family (Sarcophaga sp.) - Alvesgaspar 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm always amazed by your macro shots, amazing catchs although slightly soft (which is really the only reason why I don't nominate them for FPC. Maybe someone else will ?... Benh 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - First, second and third reason for the softness: lack of skill, clumsyness; fourth reason: maybe with a better lens and lighting ... Alvesgaspar 20:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I wish I were as clumsy as you then :) Benh 21:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Flash, glowing, sharpness. --Beyond silence 22.5px 12:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • When you don't agree with the review PLEASE move the picture to CR - Alvesgaspar 13:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This picture offers both, overexposure and underexposure. The lighting is very harsh and suppresses the fine details, which would great to see. One question: How is it possible to have that amount of noise at 100 ISO ? --Richard Bartz 15:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Blowfly 2[edit]

Fly September 2007-2.jpg

  • Nomination A blow-fly of the Sarcophagidae family (Sarcophaga sp.) - Alvesgaspar 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI Benh 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sharpness, noise --Beyond silence 22.5px 12:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • When you don't agree with the review PLEASE move the picture to CR - Alvesgaspar 13:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The contrast/lighting is very harsh and the crop is unfortunate. I would like to see more fine/gracile details on the insect for a QI. --Richard Bartz 15:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Cathedral in Lviv[edit]

Lwów - Zaułek Ormiański.JPG

  • Nomination Armenian Cathedral in Lviv. --Lestat 15:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unclear composition - what is the subject? The composition is further disturbed by the metal bar. It also lacks detail, probably due to the softnes. --Florian Prischl 00:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't agree. Please for another opinion. --Lestat 12:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The subject is clearly the door (some people myself included find some doors fascinating), but it's not a good composition in my opinion due to obstruction by the metal bar. I'd also like to see some more of the walls as they seem to make good lines. Dori - Talk 13:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Polyporus fomentarius[edit]

Huba.JPG

  • Nomination Huba. --Lestat 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you add the latin name and add the picture to a galery, please. --LC-de 19:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If someone has it, please add it (I wouldn't know). --Lestat 18:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably it's Polyporus fomentarius --Leafnode 23:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I add it to description. --Lestat 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lighting is unfortunate, creating overexpose and glow on the right side and underexposure on the left. The raindrops just add to the lighting problems. --Florian Prischl 00:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't agree. Please for another opinion. --Lestat 12:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Florian on the lighting. Dori - Talk 13:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Pannonian Knapweed[edit]

Centaurea sadleriana-1.JPG

  • Nomination Centaurea sadleriana (Pannonian Knapweed)--Beyond silence 18:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeAs a vegetal macro shot, I expect the main subject to be isolated from the background by having this last one more blurred than what we have here. As a consequence, composition is a bit messy to my taste. Benh 20:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
?! --Beyond silence 22.5px 08:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
What is your question? All Benh has said is that he does not care for the composition and would like for a shallower DOF/flatter perspective. Thegreenj 22:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Benh. Thegreenj 22:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and agree with Benh and Thegreenj. Additionally, the bloom itself does not seem to be in focus and there seems to be some shake in the photo (visible on the stem). --Florian Prischl 00:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, then see some other QI. I'm sick of this, I will not nominate any picture at the future.

(removed QICBOT hampering gallery) I'm interesting in how you think change a flower's background, with use as DOF as sharp the whole flower.--Beyond silence 22.5px 07:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, some of the photos you showed as examples should not have been promoted as QIs. But how does this change the fact that your photo is not as good as it should be for QI? Agreed, the background in your photo is not the biggest problem at all. As I wrote (and also just amended), I think the biggest problems are focus (which is not on the bloom, but on the upper part of the stem how I see it) and shake (although the stem could as well just be out of focus, it look more like shake to me and would explain the unsharpnes of the bloom, too). Regarding these problems, I do not think the picture should be promoted as a Quality Image. Also, if you hold a personal grudge against any reviewer or everybody at QI, of which you are a part, please don't take it out on the whole community by arbitrarily declaring a QI boycott. This is of no use to anybody. --Florian Prischl 10:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The only problem I have with this image is that the flowers are not sharp. At that shutter speed I would be surprised if it was movement, but whatever the cause they look out of focus at full resolution. Sorry :-) --Tony Wills 11:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Examining the image more carefully, I see the problem is indeed not a simple focus problem, but that the red and blue channels are over-exposed in many places on the petals - that is what gives the unsharp look to the petals. --Tony Wills 11:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Symbol support vote.svg Support. I think this is borderline. The FG/BG seperation could have been better and the composition less cluttered, but I think it is sufficiently sharp and I like the colours. Having said that I disapprove of your emotional burst. The QI process is not an exact science but a fast track review proces, where the result can differ slightly depending on each reviewers personal preferences. -- Slaunger 23:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Thegreenj 02:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If it is processed and voting has finished, why has the template not been changed? I do not want to mess with it without knowing exactly what I do, so I ask someone who knows better to fix this. Thank you, Florian Prischl 11:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • My mistake. Thegreenj 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Basilica of Estrela[edit]

BasilicaEstrelaJun2007-1.jpg

  • Nomination Detail of the Estrela Basilica, Lisbon, framed by the branches of a lime tree - Alvesgaspar 20:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The quality criteria are not met: ordinary and quite accettable composition, but the church is so distant and poor in colors while the leaves are so bright. Are the leaves the principle subject of this pic? Nao gosto dessa foto, sinto muito.-- 87.23.252.165 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent sharpness and composition. In full res the dome is a little bit tilted, but this is absolutely not disturbing. Very nice light, especially on the leaves. It's true: the church is not the main subject here, but the whole composition is a QI. -- MJJR 20:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Weak detail on Basilica, sorry --Beyond silence 19:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose-the composition is rahter distracting. but the light trou the leaves is quite cool efect :P-LadyofHats 19:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Really don't like the composition. Doodledoo 20:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cluttered, unclear composition, clockwise tilt. --Florian Prischl 19:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Lestat 12:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  6 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Loch Fada Storr Skye[edit]

Loch Fada Storr Skye 2007-08-22.jpg
  • Nomination Storr and Loch Fada on Skye. -- Klaus with K 14:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please geocode. --Siipikarja 19:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Done -- Klaus with K 08:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Composition, detail acceptable. --Beyond silence 20:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Posterization artifacts, blurry. Doodledoo 20:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question Increasing contrast to an insane value, I can see some sensor noise in the sky and just spot a few jpeg artifacts, but cannot make out posterisation. Where should I look? -- Klaus with K 13:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I rechecked the image on my main display - it was a problem with my laptop. However, I maintain my oppose due to the blurriness (specifically in the foreground). Doodledoo 17:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to the bluriness in the foreground. It could really use more DOF, especially since it was most likely taken on a tripod anyway. --Florian Prischl 23:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Just for the record, there was no tripod involved at all, I was balancing on a fence pole. -- Klaus with K 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Manhattan4_amk[edit]

Manhattan4 amk.jpg
  • Nomination Manhattan with Brooklyn Bridge. --AngMoKio 21:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting composition, nice exposure. --Leafnode 11:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Significant colour fringing off-centre, look at the left skyscrapers. -- Klaus with K 12:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition, not very good sharpness. --Beyond silence 22.5px 09:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not too fond of the perspective. All buildings are leaning towards the centre. And the colour fringes are indeed disturbing. Lycaon 08:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some noise, strong fringing all over the photo. Bad perspective correction (mentioned by Lycaon and some tilt (observable at the base of the bridge pillar). --Florian Prischl 23:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There's an nice picture here, just needs a little work. Perspective could use correcting and personally, I'd crop this so the skyscrapers on the left are the main subject framed by the water and bridge. Calibas
Result: 1.5 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Snellegem_Kerk_01.jpg[edit]

Snellegem Kerk 01.jpg
  • Nomination Snellegem (Belgium): St Eligius church, late 19th century -- MJJR 20:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose i think from quality it is acceptable, but the composition is sooo boring and straight foward-LadyofHats 19:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think it's boring (maybe lighting too flat ??), and I also think quality is very good. Benh 20:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very flat angle, thus both uninteresting and not very revealing perspective. It also seems slightly overexposed. --Florian Prischl 23:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sunflower bud[edit]

Sunflower bud.jpg

  • Nomination A Sunflower bud just getting started. -- carol 18:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The yellow petals seem greenish, but I think that is how it is. Otherwise technically good. --Florian Prischl 18:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Rather distracting crop, if reasonably cropped it would of course be on the small side. --Tony Wills 01:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
What is a better crop? One of the things I liked about this image was that the subject wasn't in dead center. However, that being said, I might have some secret upscaling tools -- carol 19:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable composition and tech detail. --Beyond silence 08:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose weird crop indeed. Lycaon 10:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Define "weird" -- carol 20:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Most of the image is not of the subject, and my eye sees the bud then follows the picture up to the right to, well, an expanse of leaves and I am left somewhat lost :-). Now you could overcome this problem by titling it "sunflower bud and leaves", but then people would have to look at whether it was showing off the leaves very well (I'm not even sure the leaves are those of a sunflower :-). It is usual for the photo to emphasise the subject :-) --Tony Wills 03:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I am particularly fond of how it barely meets the size recommendations. -- carol 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you vote as nominator? Doodledoo 22:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes but the vote doesn't count ;-). Lycaon 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes your vote is implicit in your nomination, we are just trying to see if anyone agrees with you :-) --Tony Wills 03:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I just looked up "implicit" and it made me think that perhaps the nomination should count as a vote. Is there something to read in the QI Guidlines or elsewhere so that I can understand this better? -- carol 02:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info What I meant is that the idea is that you nominate images that you consider Quality Images (as per the criteria), and someone reviews your submission to see if they agree (so you implicitly vote for QI). If your nomination is counted as a 'vote' then we would need two people to disagree before we could get a 'majority' and decline it. Which would defeat the whole idea of fast throughput. The idea is that obviously quality images will get promoted quickly, poor images will get declined quickly. --Tony Wills 04:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
So, if I had gotten someone else to nominate it, then as the photographer I could vote for it? -- carol 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it probably wouldn't make a difference, because the nominator wouldn't be able to offer support. That said, QI is about getting a collect of quality photographs encouraging high-quality images, and, well, that suggestion just doesn't seem in the right spirit. Thegreenj 17:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Way too much dead space. Yes, centered pictures can be boring, but just offsetting the subject does not necessarily improve the composition. Thegreenj 01:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Now that it is mentioned here over and over again, there does seem to be a predominance of subject centered images in the QI collection, particularly in the Plant life section. There was only this exception and this exception to this subject centric "rule". I wonder now if it is a reflection of the schooling or of the collective mindset because personally, I always disliked having the subject in the center of the image -- especially all of the time. It seems uninteresting, conservative and eventually not very brave. A little sunflower bud would not get very far in life without those big soft leaves that feed it, after all. -- carol 02:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I would think that the thirds rule would be conservative when it comes to photographs. I personally like centered images in the case of flowers when you're trying to illustrate (as opposed to producing an artistic shot). Dori - Talk 02:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose-dont like the composition -LadyofHats 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not fond of the lighting or the crop. Doodledoo 12:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Happy Belated Birthday Dad! I tried! -- carol 01:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Assebroek_De_Lelie.jpg[edit]

Assebroek De Lelie.jpg
  • Nomination Assebroek (Bruges, Belgium): former inn De Lelie, 17th century -- MJJR 20:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI am not sure what the word is, but this image has a bulge in the middle where there should be straight lines.carol 10:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support- i think the building itself is the one deformed and for a picture of a white building in a sunny day it is acceptable -LadyofHats 19:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as the Lady. Lycaon 17:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 23:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

View from Śnieżnik Mountains[edit]

View from Glatzer Schneeberg.JPG

  • Nomination View from Glatzer Schneeberg / Śnieżnik (Sudetes) -- Pudelek 11:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentIt is technically fine but the composition is poor, with an extense and uninteresting foreground. I'm not sure it should be declined - Alvesgaspar 23:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support i wouldnt decline it, i mean it is quite a straight foward composition but it is normally so by this *i can see my house from here*lanscapes -LadyofHats 19:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Move to CR to get more opinions. IMO geocoding is very important for such a panorama. I would suggest to use the Location Template [11] together with the attribute heading to indicate the direction the camera was pointing at [12]. Is it not Glatzer Schneegebirge instead of Glatzer Schneeberg? Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 08:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Geocode done. This is exactly Glatzer Schneeberg [13], Pudelek 09:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp and noise, strong chromatic aberration due to the mist. --Florian Prischl 19:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ac Florian Prischl --Lestat 22:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 23:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Lutheran Cathedral Helsinki[edit]

Lutheran Cathedral Helsinki.jpg

  • Nomination Lutheran Cathedral in Helsinki (composite image). Lycaon 12:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could use a slight clockwise rotation. Calibas 21:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Guess you're right, I'll reprocess. Lycaon 22:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hmm very good for sure, but surprisingly a bit noisy (especially if it's a sample down version of a much higher one, which I guess is the case from 22 stitched pictures). Also some noticeable sitching errors on the bottom left part, and on some columns. It's a QI without doubt if these are corrected. Benh 21:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done ! I wonder if I should make it an FP candidate... Benh 20:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed some minor stitch errors. The picture was not much resampled, the photographs had quite a bit (maybe too much?) of overlap. I also tried to address the noise, which IMO was already very slight. Lycaon 22:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment More stitching errors at the very top left, sorry. Calibas 03:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The more pixels the more scrutinizing!! I hope every single pixels of this 38,243,688 pixel image has now been looked at? Lycaon 04:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now that you mention it those are pretty minor errors for a picture this huge. Calibas 04:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Finally, a decent image of one of Helsinki's finest buildings. Lycaon has done good job stitching the 22 photos together. It would be sad if all the effort put into this picture wouldn't be awarded with a QI stamp. --Siipikarja 10:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very Nice. Setting up standards for HiRes building pictures. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 08:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another phenomenal photo by Lycaon. *sigh* I wish I were that good... Doodledoo 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I am not experienced at stitched panoramas, but it looks very well done. The "usual" technical aspects such as lighting, angle, etc. are also very well done. This should be a QI. --Florian Prischl 19:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Black ice growler[edit]

Black ice growler upernavik 2007-07-07.jpg

The crop seems to distract from the subject, perhaps a little tighter? Calibas 00:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I understand your point, but... The current crop is done so on purpose to give a feeling that black ice is much more rare than the normal white ice. -- Slaunger 00:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment An interesting picture, but the normal white ice is near over exposure. --Siipikarja 13:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is bright, as white ice should be, but the ice is not overexposed. This is objectively confirmed by the perfect histogram. -- Slaunger 05:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For me the ice seems to be burned-out. Okay, okay, ice is bright when light is reflecting from it, but for me the bright regions rule this out from QIs. Sorry. Check for yourself, the burned-out regions: --Siipikarja 22:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You are right. Objectively, the histogram is good, but not perfect. Thank you for pointing that out. Please decline the photo if you feel the amount of overexposure is unacceptable for QI. -- Slaunger 07:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Declined. --Siipikarja 13:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The areas marked by User:Siipikarja are not over exposed, examine a histogram, yes they are bright white. The amount of over exposure is absolutely trivial (0.05% of pixels) and is well within an acceptable level, especially for a subject like ice!! --Tony Wills 02:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ice is white... what do you expect? As per Tony Wills, the overexposure is absolutely negligable. I don't see a better exposure possible. Thegreenj 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is quite boring. Doodledoo 22:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think a crop like this: Black ice growler upernavik 2007-07-07a.jpg emphasizes the subject much better. The bright white iceberg on the bottom is rather distracting. Calibas 05:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Although I have stubbornly insisted on the original crop, I must admit that your crop is an improvement, and it juuust meets the size guideline. I would like to see the end of the CR for the original (as i am stubborn). It will probably be declined. If it gets declined, I will nominate your crop for QI afresh and see how the opinions are. -- Slaunger 06:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The crop made by Calibas is a significant improvement to the original. --Siipikarja 19:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-ice is always complicated to take. i think there is more than enough detail-LadyofHats 19:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I also like Calibas's crop better. --Florian Prischl 19:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> (more votes?) --Tony Wills 22:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I may be stubborn, but it seems clear that most reviewers prefer the crop by Calibas. So no reason to spend more precious reviewer resources on this ufortunate crop. I am nominating the improved, cropped version as a normal QI instead. Thanks to the reviewers for their time so far... -- Slaunger 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Kłodzko[edit]

Glatz - herb.JPG

  • Nomination Coat of Arms of Kłodzko (Glatz) on the city hall --Pudelek 23:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good light acceptable technical condition. --Beyond silence 23:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, too small (1.85 Mpx) and tilted. Lycaon 00:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ac Lycaon. --Lestat 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose-size-LadyofHats 19:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Size, overexposed, tilt. --Florian Prischl 19:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Leccinum scabrum[edit]

Leccinum scabrum LC0108.jpg

  • Nomination Birch bolete (Leccinum scabrum) --LC-de 17:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose flat light, overexposed left. Lycaon 18:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Uploaded a new edit. --LC-de 17:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable sharpness. --Beyond silence 07:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. I suggest adding Geodata to the image page as a supplement to the written location. -- Slaunger 20:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Lycaon - overexposed, and the light seems strangely hued. --Florian Prischl 20:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    the light seems strangely hued. Could you explain this further, please? --LC-de 07:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would support if you brought down the exposure (hopefully you have a raw file), and cropped off the out of focus grass at the bottom. I think the color may be part of the mushroom not an effect of lighting (at least not completely). Dori - Talk 05:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support- even with light problems it looks nice and is a cute little mushroom. ejem.. not that this would count.. but -LadyofHats 19:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Colours look a little magenta. Doodledoo 20:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    ??? I've took a look on this pic on 3 different monitors and it doesn't look magenta on any of them. --LC-de 20:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    If you look at the small twigs under the mushroom, they look somewhat purple/magenta on my monitor. Not that it bothers me though. -- Slaunger 21:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lestat 23:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Kowloon Clock Tower[edit]

Kowloon Clock Tower June 18 2007 rectified.jpg

  • Nomination Former Kowloon-Canton Railway Clock Tower at night. --Siipikarja 00:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentHmmm... why is the photo not visible --88.114.148.198 23:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportWe have to look at the full picture. It's very good.--Szilas 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose issue resolved Lycaon 17:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC) tilt, noise, perspective, ... Lycaon 18:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The tower is tilted to right, but the palms and the building behind them are tilted to left. So which way to rotate? --Siipikarja 13:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    Towers are usually straight, unlike palm trees ;-). If several buildings are 'leaning' towards each other, then you have a perspective problem, rather than a tilt problem. Lycaon 13:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment True. :) Looks like I have a perspective problem then. Thanks for the comments. --Siipikarja 14:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Uploaded a new version with -0,6° tilt correction and partial noise reduction. --Siipikarja 22:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It's very tilt now too! --Beyond silence 14:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See, that's the problem with this picture. It is always tilted. I rotated it (to left) so that the tower is dead-vertical. But now the horizontal lines, especially the pool edge near the tower, look tilted. If I rotate it to right, the tower becomes tilted - or at least it will appear to be tilted. It is, after all 45m tall, so maybe the perspective is doing tricks here. No bonus :(. --Siipikarja 18:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think you should try to do genuine perspective correction then. Tilting is not enough when lines are not parallel. -- Slaunger 20:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Uah, I give up. I tried parallelizing with different rotation angles, but the image just becomes an eyesore. Even a slight rotation to the left from the original image makes the clock tower look like The Leaning Tower of Pisa :/ Let this be The Leaning Tower of Hong Kong then... --Siipikarja 21:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC).
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Reverted to the original version because the slight rightward tilt is "a natural tilt" due to perspective. The noise is back, but it can be removed again, if desired. --Siipikarja 22:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The perspective is very unfortunate in this version. It looks not like the leaning tower of Hong Kong, but the giant banana of Hong Kong, sorry. :-( Please try to get another shot or correct this one, because I like it. --Florian Prischl 23:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just tell me which way to rotate and how much. Or any other kind of correction. I think I'm not going to get another shot very soon - there's a 7836km distance between my current location and the clock tower. --Siipikarja 01:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI have tried myself to correct it, to no avail. The tower looks bent in the middle, and I do not think that anything short of a split in half and re-assembly will do it. This, presumably, would ruin the rest of the photo. On the other hand, I very little experience with perspective correction, so maybe someone else is capable of doing it. --Florian Prischl 11:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I rectified the image using Hugin. Unfortunately this distorted the original boundaries in such a way that I had to crop large portions of the right side in order to get a rectangular image. This is the outcome: [14]. Geometric distortions are gone, but I'm not really convinced that the crop is tolerable. - Till 12:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentMuch better, crop is fine. Is it my eye, or is the end of the pool still not quite flat. Would support the edited version otherwise. Ben Aveling 13:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective. I like the edit by Till. I suggest nominating that instead.Done. -- Slaunger 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
✓ Done Ok, I'll change the nomination. Till's edit is now the official nomination. Till has pretty effectively managed to get rid of the perspective problems, but on the other hand I don't like the nonstandard dimensions (non 4:3 or 16:9) at all (also, the cropped version cuts out the wedding couple on the right hand side.) I don't know if it is allowable just to change the image link above during the voting process, but I just did so. Please change the link back to the original, if I have violated the QI voting regulations . --Siipikarja 09:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support as promised. -- Slaunger 21:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wouldn't have done the work of rectifying if I didn't think the picture was worth it... - Till 17:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Too bad so much got chopped off, still good enough for QI. Calibas 00:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- even for a night shot i dislike the light contrast-LadyofHats 19:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> (promote?) --promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Lighthouse pano[edit]

St. Augustine Lighthouse 2.jpg

  • Nomination St. Augustine Lighthouse Panorama. --Digon3
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice detail from resolution. --Beyond silence 18:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Moved to CR for further comments. I'm not sure this is the right projection for this panoramic image, the building seems unnatural. Maybe it is not possible to make it very different as the shot was made too close to the building. The feeling is reinforced by a too tight framing on the lighthouse, in my opinion - Alvesgaspar 11:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe that it the best projection possible. St. Augustine light is 165 feet and I tried to get as far away and up (I am on the second story deck) as I could. The tower looks as same proportions as it did in real life to me. As for the tight framing, are you refering to the hight or the width? Digon3 12:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Specially on top but also a bit on the width - Alvesgaspar 13:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I uploaded Image:St. Augustine Lighthouse 1.jpg which has more height, but I only took one vertical set of pictures so I can't do anything about the width. There was ugly trees on the left and a shed on the right anyway. Or you are talking about the number of pixels? --Digon3 15:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I'm talking about the crop. And the second version is a lot better - Alvesgaspar 19:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, I have nominated the second version for QIC and will uploaded a new version of this with more space on top (I think I have a better source image) in a day or so. -Digon3 20:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Digon3 01:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Not withdrawn, as they are (mostly) two seperate sets of source pictures. They only have one or two in common and if possible I would like QI for both. --Digon3 13:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't have a problem withe the projection as much as with the lighting on the top part and the sharpness of the same. Lycaon 08:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- i dislike the forced prespective-LadyofHats 18:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not big on the lighting. Doodledoo 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Jugendstil owls[edit]

Jugendstil owls - Koloman Moser - Detail facade of Secession Building - Vienna.jpg

  • Nomination Detail of the facade of the Secession Building. Original crop was not satisfactory. [15]. -- Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 09:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Very nice composition and quality. Is there some geometric distortion (the left vertical line is not parallel with the image border, whereas horizontal alignment is perfect)? -- Slaunger 20:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable technical condition. --Beyond silence 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Apparently, there is some geometrical distortion - vertical lines are not vertical. If this is fixed I will support the image. -- Slaunger 19:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The left line is not parallel with the image border because it is not the case in reality. ;-) More seriously, the owls were put on a sort of trapezoidal support. I went back, retake the picture with tripod exactly in front of the owls. Old version available here: [16]. Please revote. Thanks. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 10:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Satisfactory explanation. I've changed my vote accordingly. -- Slaunger 10:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, what a beautiful building. Technically fine. What's the story behind these carvings? --Doodledoo 23:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done, the detail is chosen well. --Florian Prischl 23:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Little is known about the external decoration of the Secession Building in Vienna. Its decoration is commonly attributed to Koloman Moser. More information on the Secessionstyle (Viennese Art Nouveau) can be found here [17]. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 10:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, Art Nouveau. Klimt. Fascinating. Doodledoo 00:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support- sure let it be-LadyofHats 18:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

NEMO and area[edit]

NEMO and area.jpg

  • Nomination Science museum NEMO in Amsterdam --S Sepp 21:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good light acceptable quality. --Beyond silence 17:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted. Lycaon 07:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I rotated it. S Sepp 10:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentIs it just me or is the thumbnail blank? S Sepp 12:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC).
Something has stuffed a number of thumbnails --Tony Wills 12:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. Calibas 23:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to noise in the shadows. It also looks a little unsharp. --Florian Prischl 23:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the lighting except for the one window reflection (missing N in NEMO), sharpness is just OK. Good image overall. -- (Relic38 01:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC))
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Being a photo of a museum called 'NEMO' it find it very unfortunate that the sun is reflecting in the glass such that we can only see the letters 'EMO'. It ruins an otherwise nice photo and composition IMO. -- Slaunger 20:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This image grabs my attention from the other candidates everytime I look through the current stack. I was thinking about nominating it for FP because of that. -- carol 09:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
btw, didn't I read somewhere that nominations count as votes? -- carol 10:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info No, for QI the nominators vote isn't counted --Tony Wills 01:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support- ahoy ahoy a pirate ship-LadyofHats 18:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is a very interesting subject - looks good. Doodledoo 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 6 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Krakow univesity of economics main building.JPG[edit]

Krakow univesity of economics main building.JPG

  • Nomination The oldest and recently newly renovated building of Cracow University of Economics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The subject is a little obscured, and there are some other minor flaws (angle of shooting paired with the obstruction of the trees creates a weird sight to me), but I think it is still OK. --Florian Prischl 21:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is no description, no author, date or anything. Körnerbrötchen - @ 21:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thank you for catching my mistake, Körnerbrötchen. I forgot to check for those things. They lack, so the picture should not be a QI. --Florian Prischl 22:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As the original nominator, I abstain from vote - but I am appending the original caption: The oldest and recently newly renovated building of Cracow University of Economics.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose >> Not promoted - Alvesgaspar 10:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Although technically closed, I have reverted this to /discuss, see explanation:

Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have untangled the move of this to CR, and the votes so that it makes sense. As the nominator appears to have addressed the points mentioned in the oppose vote, but added the extra info here rather than on the image page (a misunderstanding I expect), I will update the image page and ask the reviewers to re-assess their votes. --Tony Wills 11:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I see he has not actually specified the author, I have left him a message about it --Tony Wills 12:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the building is tilted CW and the sky is overexposed. Lycaon 04:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Lestat 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Now that the description has been updated, I realise it is not made by a wikimedian and so is not eligible for QI anyway. --Tony Wills 01:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose-LadyofHats 18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  5 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Taraxacum officinale[edit]

Missbildung Loewenzahn (Taraxacum officinale agg.).jpg

Please write English description and use categories! Thanks --Beyond silence 21:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not a rarity, unfortunate background and light. Lycaon 21:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
it is caused by a virus and not rare at all. Lycaon 04:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • @Beyond silence: done, I hope so. @Lycaon: Show me an other picture :-) --Nightflyer 21:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice sharpness, composition. --Beyond silence 08:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp, well framed, good composition; the top stem is a bit bright and background is unappealing, but still gets my support. --(Relic38 03:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC))
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The background is not so bad, the dark blue contrasts well with the green, I think. What I do not like is the lack of categorization. I do not know about the rarity of such deformities, probably because I never examined enough of the Taraxacum that's growing around my area. I can say, however, that I do not remember ever seeing something like this. I will think about my vote. --Florian Prischl 23:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There has been a lot of talk about rarity in this CR. Just to remind everyone that rarity in itself only has little to do with whether it is a QI or not. Of course, the image page shall be correct and not state that it is a rarity if it isn't, but an image can be valuable for a Wikimedia project without representing a rarity. So in this case, if Lycaons virus explanation is correct, the image page ought to be corrected such that it is stated that the deformities are caused by a virus. -- Slaunger 14:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do so. My english is too bad, but I try translate it back to german. Greetings --Nightflyer 21:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I have now changed the image description reflecting the cause stated by Lycaon. --Florian Prischl 19:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I oppose this photo, mainly due to the shallow DOF as evident on the middle (largest) specimen. Also, the large stem that spans the whole photo from left to right is very distracting and does not belong there. --Florian Prischl 19:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – It's not an artwork, but it's okay for me. -- Aleph 19:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Issues resolved. -- Slaunger 20:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Main issues seem to have been compositional and illuminatory. I didn't see fixes there... Lycaon 04:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • When I wrote issues resolved, I referred to the image page description concerning rarity and the virus. Besides that I do not have any objections to the image, although I am aware that other reviewers have other opinions. -- Slaunger 21:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
What should I fix? I am angry, that I show not the whole plant, the stem in the middle turned around to the right blossum. This stem is more than four times thicker als an original. At fix I can only crop the picture, but then could nobody see the deformed stems. Any ideas? Greetings --Nightflyer 21:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can't stand that background. Doodledoo 21:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dull background and light. Not a rarity in any way. --Siipikarja 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Rare or not has nothing to do with whether it is a quality image --Tony Wills 01:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It says "valuable for Wikimedia projects" in the guidelines. I understand that this covers also the rarity of the subject. The more rare the subject, the more technical shortcomings can be overlooked. --Siipikarja 09:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- i dislike the composition -LadyofHats 18:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator),  5 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nuke this (my) picture. Maybe there are better one's. Thanks for your patience. Greetings --Nightflyer 22:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)