Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 2007

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

Consensual Review[edit]

Microstomus kitt 1.jpg

  • Nomination Lemon sole - Microstomus kitt -- Lycaon 08:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Too bad, the picture is too soft on most of its parts. It's like the background is in focus. Worth a reshoot if can catch one similar subject again. Benh 17:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This species of fish has actually has a very smooth skin with the scales imbedded in a slime layer, giving a soft focus impression. The highest point in the picture is the eyes, which should therefore appear more out of focus than e.g. the top side of the fish, which isn't the case. The picture was taken with manual focus on the aft deck of our research vessel during very calm weather. The fish was covered by about 1 cm of water, to avoid reflections, and was of course very much alive. Lycaon 13:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • this image Image:Microstomus_kitt.jpg of the same subject by you is sharper and we can see much more of the texture of the "fish", so I believe the overall softness of the "fish" is a technical flaw and I keep opposing this to be a QI. Benh 23:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that you had some control of the photography conditions, I'd expect better lighting (more even) and at least the eyes in sharp focus (or are they covered with slime too?). Image might be useful for identifying the species, but doesn't really seem to have anything crying out Quality Image :-) --Tony Wills 21:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 21:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


  • Nomination Detail of a sewing machine. --Dschwen 14:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Little excuse for the poor DOF, looks like the exposure solution is not the best (a tripode might help) Alvesgaspar 20:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I Shot the pic 19 months ago to illustrate the advancement shoe in the article. My feeling was that the choice of DOF pulls the attention to the right spot. --Dschwen 23:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The sharpest focus seems to be on the bar behind the needle (has a sharp edge often used to cut the thread), none of the other parts (the needle, shoe etc) seem to be completely in focus, my eye isn't drawn to anything apart from that bit behind the needle. --Tony Wills 13:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 21:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


  • Nomination Snail coming out of its shell. Actual size 1cm. --Adamantios 20:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Distracting bacground --Orlovic (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A natural background should be acceptable for animal and plant shots, or do you expect all living to be taken to a studio? --Dschwen 06:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dschwen, but :-) I don't know that newly dug ground (or is that compost) is actually its natural habitat (I presume it was placed there upside down to get the shot) - but that doesn't matter much. I think the over exposure on parts of the snail and lack of focus on the eyes and shell, small DOF, mean that although interesting it's not QI --Tony Wills 00:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 21:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


On the left side it's a bit tilted. Would there help a correction? ---donald- 10:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Overexposed sky Lycaon 07:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Nope, it is definetely not overexposed. Please reconsider your vote. --Dschwen 21:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Sounded a bit harsh, but please do take another look at the sky. It is bright (as you'd expect from an overcast sky) but not overexposed. --Dschwen 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks well-exposed to me. grendel|khan 15:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are indeed about 20000 over exposed pixels in the sky (2 small areas out of 3000000 pixels), but changing the exposure would just mean there was a tiny bit more cloud detail in the sky (another shade of white), certainly no significant improvement to the image. --Tony Wills 05:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, this is getting technical but: no. How did you determine it's 20000 overexposed pixels? You counted the white ones. That would be mean that #ffffff pixels are forbidden in any picture. This is just wrong, a certain amount of white pixels is acceptable, and we do not know whether all of them are overexposed. Many of them might be exposed just right. Plus the discussion should not revolve around pixels but around possibly lost image detail (I know, you alluded to that. just a general remark). --Dschwen 06:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not quite that simplistic :-). If I see a distribution curve of pixel counts per brightness level and it is abruptly cut off (ie no smooth fall off) then I assume something's intervened. On your image there were 31774 pixels at that highest brightness level, when the preceding value only had 23691. From the (average) rapid fall off of the curve I guesstimated that a count of 10000 to 15000 might have been expected. Hence my estimate of max 20000 overexposed. So no more than 0.7% over-exposed -> 99.3% well exposed -> almost perfectly exposed :-). I was trying to agree with both of you, and pointing out that any over-exposure and loss of cloud detail was trivial and I whole-heartedly agree that loss of image detail is the important point :-)
      • (PS Of course those figures are just my opinion and may be wildly inaccurate :-) --Tony Wills 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I see you put a lot of thought into it. The flaw of the argument is expecting a smooth falloff in the first place. If this smooth fall-off is not present in the subject it shouldn't be present in the picture. So first you'd have to make the argument that a cloudy sky has a smooth fall off. Let me make the counter argument: A cloudy sky has a sharp fall off as it posesses a backbround given by diffuse light from higher cloud layers whith spatially uniform maximum brightnes. This background is modulated by low clouds. If these clouds have holes and overproportinate amount of maximum brightness background should be visible. :-) --Dschwen 06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, indeed my assumptions about what is a natural falloff may be misguided, but natural phenomena tend to be continuously variable, so a hole in a cloud is not completely empty or transparent and there will be a graduation at the edges. Come to think about it, I know very little about what makes clouds whiter, is it the cloud's density, the light angle? I'll go look it up ... hmmmm ... maybe I'll look on wikipedia (they'll probably have some nice cloud pics if nothing else :-) --Tony Wills 11:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> decline? --Tony Wills 22:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


donalds vot was not an oppose, just a question [3], my (implicit) support was not counted.

  • It would be a real shame not to promote a perfectly sharp and well exposed picture of less represented region on QI. I can only urge everyone here to perform a reality check and think about the other pics that have been promoted lately. A minimum of consistency should be up-held. --Dschwen 12:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Dschwen. I haven't quite got all the very technical discussion but I don't believe there is overexposition here, and if there is, this isn't that big an issue. I don't like colors (because taken at cloudy time) but it is good technically. So I'll give it a (weak) support. Benh 07:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 21:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Male tree weta-orig.jpg

  • Nomination Male tree weta on a fence --Tony Wills 09:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • New version now cropped and uploaded under same name. --Tony Wills 09:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The new version is fine with me. --Dschwen 06:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promote? --Tony Wills 05:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> Promoted to QI - Alvesgaspar 22:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

USA Mt Shasta pano CA alt.jpg

  • Nomination Railroad crossing in Mount Shasta village, restitch with proper verticals --Dschwen 22:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    • Done, you were right. --Dschwen 22:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • This looks much more "natural" ! I support it. Benh 21:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

USA Mt Shasta pano CA.jpg

  • Nomination Railroad crossing in Mount Shasta village, CA, USA --Dschwen 14:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline I decline this one in the hope you'll fix the vertical lines issue. Otherwise great ! Benh 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
  • The telephonepoles were really all out of whack! I try and see if I can get the houses straighter, but all in all the alignment is not far off. --Dschwen 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Dandelion close-up.jpg

  • Nomination A beatiful dandelion flower of the same species as the "dandelion clock" below (Taraxacum officinale), by Bdesham - Alvesgaspar 23:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Hmm tough one, but I'll decline (hopefully, this will be moved to consensual review section because I think some other opinions are needed) because of slight under exposure and low contrast which makes details hardly distinguishable even though it's sharp. Benh 16:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you are right, I was blinded by the beauty of the flower and didn't pay much attention to the details. The exposure choice is wrong, DOF could be much better under these light conditions with a smaller aperture. Alvesgaspar 20:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Venezuela Division Politica Territorial.svg

  • Nomination Venezuela Division Politica Territorial --libertad0 16:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline No scale, no geographical coordinates, no North direction indication, labels too large, colours too strong. The inclusion of a claimed territory which now belongs to Guyana is, in my opinion, an unacceptable polytical POV.Alvesgaspar 11:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Moving to CR to get other opinions on this last issue. Alvesgaspar 11:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The border between guyana and brazil is missing. And the way the (internationally unrecognized!) territorial claim is pictures is highly questionable. Venezualan nationalist POV. --Dschwen 12:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Lars-Hendrik Roeller-portrait.jpg

  • Nomination Lars-Hendrik Röller german economist (picture by the ESMT).
  • Promotion Perfect? --Tony Wills 09:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Very nice. The crop definetely is an enhancement. --Dschwen 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I wouldn't have gone so far with the crop, this way it looks like an ID card photo. But it is OK, support promotion. Alvesgaspar 08:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Doing a 4:3 crop you end up with either sidebars visible or an undesirably close crop to his head. If you don't mind something somewhat squarer a reasonable crop can be made that cuts through the knot of his tie and a reasonable height above his head. But considering Grendelkhan's following comment, I won't bother to nominate it. --Tony Wills 05:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Objection. The guidelines say "Quality images have to be uploaded to Commons by copyright holder under suitable license." This wasn't uploaded by the copyright holder; permission was granted by the website it came from, but that's not the same. grendel|khan 15:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you're right. --Tony Wills 05:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I support this image to QI. Lestat 15:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> promoted to QI 
(even though the origin of this image seems to violate guidelines it appears that people want to promote it anyway) --Tony Wills 10:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

USA Cape Cod 5 MA.jpg

  • Nomination Kitschy sunset. I just hope that many nominations in a row don't make people automatically decline ... --Dschwen 14:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline

Tilted horizon, composition uninteresting, image quality not good enough (the sea). Alvesgaspar 09:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC), you are right abt the tilt, sloppy me. But I completely disagree on both the composition and the image quality. Compare it directly to your beach QI canditate. I think we have to be very careful to keep a consistent standard. --Dschwen 11:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Better take it to consensual review. I still think the photographic quality is not good enough. Look at the sky and sea. Alvesgaspar 12:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, certainly not comparable to the DSLR mosaics, but let's keep a perspective here (sample Special:Random/Image)), and please, compare to the blown detail and the blurry seagulls in the above picture. You nominated your picture, and it is well above the average on commons, but I really have trouble understanding how you could decline this one based on technical shortcomings. --Dschwen 13:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Then again we probably both are (subconciously) biased, so let's hear for other peoples' opinions. --Dschwen 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I'm reseting the box to blue. Let's see the famous Wikipedia consensus work! - Alvesgaspar 14:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Alvesgaspar about the tilt and the bad quality, especially at the seaparts of the picture. Additional i dont like the glare at the left border of the picture. I would decline this picture, too. ;-) --Simonizer 14:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Just to make sure, you did look at the full size (new version uploaded over the old one)? As the image page still shows the old version (for some obscure cacheing reasons). Even if the glare spoils it anyways :-) --Dschwen 17:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm in oppose. Not QI. Lestat 15:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No major flaws, but not outstanding enough to deserve QI to my mind. it's tilted, there are a bit of chromatic aberration on the horizon line, and it's overall a bit soft. Benh 21:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I fear I'm loosing my mind. I just don't see a tilt. Anyway I'm just going to write this one off. Too bad I really liked the pic. --Dschwen 21:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You're right actually ! only the left side gives the impression it's tilted, but the right part (horizon) isn't. I should have looked more carefully... Still, not enough for QI status to me for the other reasons stated above. Sorry :( Benh 21:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Ok, it's not a complete waste of time after all: Now I know the lens correction filter in Gimp :-). --Dschwen 22:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills

Soviet pocket watch.JPG

  • Nomination A pocket watch made in the USSR --Orlovic (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Careless photo. Watch needs cleaning and file is heavily compressed. Alvesgaspar 08:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I dispute the decline to this photo I nominated. I would like to hear other thoughts. --Orlovic (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry for my harsh comment, I think it was one those days... Alvesgaspar 22:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
(Yes, we could tell ;-) --Tony Wills 01:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC))
  • The initial verdict (Careless photo) was indeed a bit harsh in my opinion. I don't see obvious impact of the compression. Focus is a tad soft, but resolution is easily enough for the subject. The lighting could have been chosen more pleasant (without the deep shadow to the left), and I'd prefer a more neutral, less textured background. Let me suggest a reshoot of the picture. If this whole discussion leads to a better pic being uploaded (and nominated and supported) it's a win for everybody. --Dschwen 21:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, end of discussion, I'll make a better pic with better lightning and background. --Orlovic (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Nomination Castillo de San Marcos Panorama in St. Augustine, Florida. --Digon3 16:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Ok quality, but minor stitching artifacts (and ghosting). --Dschwen 16:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm finding the picture is too blurry on large parts. Otherwise composition is good... too bad. Benh 17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please tell me where on my talk page so I can fix them. --Digon3 19:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm I'm afraid the "whole" picture is blurry. This looks like an extrapolated lower res picture, which I think is strange. Maybe the source photos share the same faults ? Benh 21:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Benh. Also there is some fringing, most visible around the palm trees. I don't know how Dilif gets such detail and quality in his panos. Talent behind the camera and with Photoshop is not enough, the equipment must be superior (and quite expensive). Alvesgaspar 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, or the alternative is compensating through diligence. Take two rows of zoomed in portrait images for a pano like this and downsample afterwards. For most compact digital cams 1:1 is trash (this became particularly apparent to me with smaller/older Kodak models, sorry). --Dschwen 21:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 02:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

AMR and PCI slots.gk.jpg

  • Nomination AMR and PCI slots --grendel|khan 15:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Blurry and messy --Orlovic (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree on the 'blurry' part, and would like a second opinion. grendel|khan 14:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. For this kind of subject the picture should be much sharper. Alvesgaspar 16:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree with Alvesgaspar! --Simonizer 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The focus on the board isn't bad, but it is covered with a layer of fine dusk, a good vacuum would help. The tops of the sockets aren't sharply on focus. --Tony Wills 01:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Porto Covo Abril 2007-2.JPG

  • Nomination Minimalist seasight, with sand, sea and sky. Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal. Yes, there are some blown whites in the surf, but those are blown even for our eyes...Alvesgaspar 14:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline

You should point out the photoshopped horizon on the image page. And (conflict of interests / WP:POINT alert!) the pic has a soft focus. I'll abstain from further voting on this pic. --Dschwen 11:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC). No need or interest in abstaining, your critic is needed and welcome. Alvesgaspar 12:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Better take this one also, so they can be reviewed side by side, so to speak... Alvesgaspar 12:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry but i see no reason for a vertical picture format,the surf is overexposed ;-) and i dont like the cut horizon. So i would decline. --Simonizer 14:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Nobody understands my minimalist artistic soul... Alvesgaspar 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You have my commiseration! ;-) --Simonizer 21:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Picture is soft, which makes the "fake" horizon even more weird. I decline too. Benh 21:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That is the result of my inability to work with editing software. I just wanted to correct for a curved horizon... Alvesgaspar 23:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 00:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mathematik Göttingen.jpg

  • Nomination Math department, University of Göttingen, Germany --Dschwen 21:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline You don't mentioned it's stitched. Stitching/blending problem in foreground on pavement near flag pole, and up thru bike (blurred). Will support if stitching fixed. --Tony Wills 12:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • it's still sharper than many of the pictures that get promoted here. --Dschwen 11:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue is not that part of the foreground is blurred, it is the very obvious discontinuity on the pavement where the two halves meet (less obvious further up) ... stitching artefacts seem to almost invariably disqualify images from QI or FP. But it is a good picture, so I'm willing to be persuaded :-). What do others think? --Tony Wills 06:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the composition and the soft HDR-effect. The stitching problem is visible even at thumbnail size, that's too much for QI. It looks like a common panorama problem: You go to manual mode to get the same exposure but the camera still makes auto white balance. This can be fixed by either switching to the same white balance in RAW or by carefully aplying the photo filter on the image with the sky. Fix it and I'll support. --Ikiwaner 17:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll go for a reshoot if I find the time. Thanks for the comments. --Dschwen 08:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 13:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Arena pula inside.JPG

  • Nomination The amphiteatre of Pula, Croatia --Orlovic 13:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion

Nice composition and excellent DOF. I'll support after the geometric distortion is corrected and despite other minor flaws - Alvesgaspar 11:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Moving to CR, to get further opinions. Alvesgaspar 07:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I am very suspicious of trying to correct 'geometric distortion' on 3 dimensional objects (2D façades is fine). Exposure great, focus & DOF fine, noise great, composition great -> equals QI --Tony Wills 09:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nautical star.svg

  • Nomination Nautical star. Are there guidelines for vector images anywhere? --grendel|khan 15:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Too low resolution --Orlovic(talk) 12:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Resolution is not an issue with vector drawings. Lycaon 13:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Of course you're right the point of SVGs being that they're scalable to any resolution.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoMoved to consensual review as it's not procedurally appropriate to reverse someone else's review (even when you're right :-). Reverted Lycaeon's reversion to Nomination back to the Orlovic's Decline. --Tony Wills 06:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no quality here displayed --Orlovic (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - A nautical star?... Alvesgaspar 08:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, a nautical star. I made it to replace an unfree image that was on that page. (I hadn't known what it was called, but they're a popular tattoo design.) grendel|khan 14:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I think we are formulating our first guideline for vector images ... "The figure needs to be non trivial, eg simple geometric shapes are unlikely to get voted Quality Images" --Tony Wills 11:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Lars-Hendrik Roeller.jpg

  • Nomination Lars-Hendrik Röller german economist (picture by the ESMT). Perfect focus. --Dschwen 14:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Agree on the focus and quality in general. But will be much better without that background at right and left. Alvesgaspar 16:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Moving to CR. Maybe this way someone says something - Alvesgaspar 07:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lestat 15:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Result 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Male tree weta.jpg

  • Nomination Male tree weta on a fence --Tony Wills 11:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Where the halo from? Did you process the bg? --Dschwen 13:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Nah, a nice clean background like that's got to be natural ;-) --Tony Wills 14:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Two things then: please mark retouched pictures with {{RetouchedPicture}} or at least state that it has been tampered with, secondly the halo ruins it for me. Do you have the original somewhere? --Dschwen 17:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • P.S.: a nice clean background can be created with a simple sheet of paper, too... --Dschwen 17:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if only the weta would stand in front of a nice clean sheet of paper ;-) --Tony Wills 00:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Ahhrrgghh, don't make this more wearisome than it needs to be. You don't need a crane to haul around a sheet of paper. Anyways the white bg in the original is not a problem, you should apply the same crop to that picture though. --Dschwen 06:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Seriously, trying to stick a sheet of paper behind an living wild insect is highly impractical, they run away fast enough as it is!! ;-) --Tony Wills 09:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, here is the original. Perhaps I should describe it as a deliberate example of the use of over-exposure to highlight the subject. The background is a shiny sheet metal part of the fence but the weta is somewhat in the shadows - hence a 1/15th second exposure that blew out the background (the feelers have moved slightly during exposure, but apart from that I love the detail :-). --Tony Wills 00:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Nomination Drawing of 4th Century Hoplite --Malene Thyssen 07:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Nice and clean. But authorship is not clear. If he is not a wikipedian, then the picture cannot be nominated here Alvesgaspar 08:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC). Why is it not clear? guidelines say it must be uploaded by copyright holder, don't say you can only nominate your own work??? --Tony Wills 11:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Those images were uploaded there after they were uploaded here, therefore not the source. --Tony Wills 22:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently uploaded by author, see [4] --Tony Wills 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support As far as I can see the uploader is the copyright holder, who has given a valid license, and contact details. Others have apparently contacted him over other uploads and are satisfied. Unless someone has contacted the author and been told otherwise, I see no reason to assume the license is invalid. --Tony Wills 13:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral superb drawing but opposed on historical grounds : i really doubt greek hoplites had the interior of their shields enameled in blue. --Diligent 15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, historical accuracy isn't a QI criteria (and this isn't FP). So that's an objection on the basis of unreasonable colours? The shields were apparently covered with leather on the inside (and often leather and/or bronze on the outside), so it might well be shiny. Do you have evidence that blue was not a colour available to 4th century Hopolites, or perhaps that it was against their uniform code? --Tony Wills 00:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
hm, no evidence, hic et nunc and no desire to enter a debate on historical accuracy as a valid criteria or not. changed vote accordingly.
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose ==> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Superb wren.jpg
  • Nomination: Superb fairy-wren --Benjamint444 13:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Review Unnatural look, probably due to oversharpening (see purple fringing at the bird's head). Need other opinions. Alvesgaspar 11:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Hasn't been sharpened at all, fringing will be from my lens. Benjamint
  • Moving to Consensual Review to get other opinions. Alvesgaspar 14:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Doesn't matter where the fringing is from, it degrades the picture. Some areas are blown too, not everywhere on all channels, but it looks oversaturated or badly exposed. --Dschwen 14:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I think there are only a few over blown pixels on the birds head and on the wire fence. I think the purple 'fringing' is the same colour as seen on some of the blue head feathers, there is no similar 'fringing' apparent anywhere else that I can see. The DOF leaves the end of the tail, and grasshopper out of focus, but on the whole I think it is a pass :-) --Tony Wills 13:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose ==> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hemidactylus mabouia (Dominica).jpg
  • Nomination: House gecko (Hemidactylus mabouia) at home on the floor in Dominica, W.I. -- Lycaon 18:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Review White balance needs fixing (artificial lighting) colours are wrong. Head a little out of focus? - skin details disappear. Many over exposed spots on floor though that doesn't seem to detract from image --Tony Wills 10:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC) The gecko was outside on the terras just before sunset, so natural light. Head is indeed al tad out of focus (they are fast so it's a one shot event) Lycaon 19:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • My main objection was the colour balance, but given that it is natural evening light then, going by the last reptile that was promoted despite being rather red due to the reflection of the sand it may be aceptable (perhaps retitled "House Gecko at Sunset" :-) - so I have withdrawn my decline to see what other people think about it :-) --Tony Wills 23:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose ==> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Nomination Example of extremely shallow DOF with long focal lengths (560mm actual, ca. 900mm effective with f 10) --Thermos 17:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Yes, that's a QI --norro 18:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe good example, but very bad cropping. --Lestat 19:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree with Lestat. Also, white balance seems off and the backgroud is not the best. Alvesgaspar 23:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose ==> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Farmed Ostrich-2.jpg
  • Nomination Male Ostrich (Struthio camelus) on a farm --Tony Wills 12:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Too much light, uninteresting composition - Alvesgaspar 09:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Farmed Ostrich-2c.jpg
A second (more specific) opinion please :-) --Tony Wills 12:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Not quite QI in my opinion. It lacks detail and the framing of the ostrich is suboptimal. --Dschwen 13:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
How much detail do you want? you can see individual hairs on the neck of two metre tall bird. The photo is depicting the bird, the containing fence, and a view of the farm and surrounds (doesn't quite look like the plains of Africa :-). I might accept that the bird isn't quite as sharp as he ought to be, and yes he is advancing on me rather rapidly so he's a bit closer than I'd like ;-).
Hmmm, how to frame it? What do you think is best, should I have included the post and only a little of the wire fence on the right, cut down the height and given a bit of space in front of his feet? (if only he'd stop running after me :-). --Tony Wills 13:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, more space at the bottom. Its all small things, but they add up for me to just oppose it. --Dschwen 15:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll have to try again :-) --Tony Wills 22:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose ==> decline --Tony Wills 09:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

first version
  • Nomination: Mating grasshoppers caught in the act --Tony Wills 02:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Review Subject fills only a small portion of the frame, and is partially occluded. Could have been a great shot otherwise. --Dschwen 17:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoPartial occlusion was deliberate, I was trying to be creative :-).--Tony Wills 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> decline? --Tony Wills 06:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

second version

Here is a crop of the third in a series I took before they thought I was being too intrusive and hopped away. --Tony Wills 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Ah, what the heck, the second version is actually a pretty good picture! You can really see a difference between the two hoppers. So I guess it's male and female? --Dschwen 00:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg InfoI think it is male on top, female beneath. Colouration seems to vary, I've seen couples with a brown one on top, green underneath, and brown on brown - but always a smaller one on top. These guys are fairly small, 10 to 20mm so when I look at full screen versions of my pics they are about 10x normal size :-) --Tony Wills 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --> promote (decline other two) Lycaon 06:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support well balanced Gnangarra 06:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Running total:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promote? --Tony Wills 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

not for voting
  • This third version is what I would have submitted if there weren't people who demand 1600px minimum whatever else the picture may offer - it is a crop of the first version because that's sharper than the second one. --Tony Wills 02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Compare them at full size and you will see that the grasshoppers in the second image are of the highest resolution (and sharpness for that matter). --Dschwen 08:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Second image is slightly closer, so yes slightly better resolution, I was looking at things like the back leg of the top hopper - 3rd image seems to have better DOF as that area looks clearer. I find it hard to detect much difference in their faces though. --Tony Wills 09:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
this image the end of the log is harsh to view, so i oppose this one Gnangarra
Running total:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> decline? --Tony Wills 06:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Could someone else please close this nomination - thanks --Tony Wills 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Stirling range heath 01 gnangarra.jpg
  • Nomination Heath Habitat of the Stirling range in Western Australia Gnangarra 13:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Not straight --Lestat 15:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • whats not straight the view is of a range the foreground is hills the back ground is hill Gnangarra 07:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It is almost impossible to judge whether this picture is straight or not, so it should not matter for QI. I am for promotion. Lycaon 20:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose >> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Stirling range heath 01 gnangarra (rotated).jpg
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Here is a version rotated 2 degrees clockwise based on the verticallity of the Cordyline australis type trees. (Sorry, never sure what to put in derived image summary info boxes so have copied most info from original into edited version including custom license - feel free to edit :-)
  • the concern of tilt was addressed by the edit, I'm not convinced there is/was a tilt the xanthorrhoea appears to be in its natural shape in both images. The range is a single line formation so the dimishing hills to the top left is a natural view from the central location. Either image is fine, since the concern has been addressed IMHO the oppose should be discounted. Either way someone needs to make a decision and close these reviews Gnangarra 01:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose >> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Nomination Gate to ZOO in WPKiW in Chorzów (Poland). --Lestat 21:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Needs to be rotated counter-clockwise. MECUtalk 17:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This image is straight. --Lestat 18:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's just a degree and can be fixed easily (in about the time we spend discussing here :-) ) --Dschwen 18:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • More like half a degree... --Dschwen 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose >> not promoted --Tony Wills 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can support now.image changed --Tony Wills 06:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC) The sky is a little, washed out I guess is the right phrase, but that's minor in my opinion. --MECUtalk 22:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI say you've gone too far, 0.41 degree was enough :-P --Tony Wills 22:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • And I say you are right. Darn it. I also did a tiny bit of downsampling and selective sharpening on my version. --Dschwen 00:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I uploaded a new version over the old one. But there is only so much I can do. The source image quality frankly is quite low. There is virtually no detail in the grass or in the trees, just mockdetail from the compression scheme and/or raw-image conversion of the camera. --Dschwen 12:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentOk, the revised 'MECU' version is probably the best, but is it good enough? can people explicitly vote on it? --Tony Wills 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support MECU image now rotated the composition is balanced, Gnangarra 06:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose >> promoted to QI--Tony Wills 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

      • I agree too, the "MECU" one shown is just slightly over-rotated image changed --Tony Wills 06:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC). I like the "Wills" one rotationally. MECUtalk 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes the "MECU" one is sharper and has a slightly better sky, perhaps Dschwen could redo his magic on a slightly less rotated version (I suggest 0.41degree :-) --Tony Wills 12:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Latest "MECU" one is better --Tony Wills 06:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose >> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wellington Wind Turbine.jpg
  • Nomination Wind turbine and radio mast at sunset --Tony Wills 12:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline The antenna is the second eyecather next to the turbine. --donald- 19:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Wellington Wind Turbine (sans radio mast).jpg
  • So the problem is with the title then? I have changed it to mention the radio mast so that you won't be shocked ;-) --Tony Wills 21:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It also has sharpness and noise issues. Wouldn't bother me if it wasn't just barely the minimum resolution. --Dschwen 17:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, not as sharp as I would like. I'll have to get a tripod so I can go for longer exposure times to reduce noise. Thanks for a meaningful critique :-) --Tony Wills 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • For -donald- I had the radio mast removed (took a few hours to dismantle ;-) --Tony Wills 01:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So i can Symbol support vote.svg Support the image. ---donald- 17:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is the point of QIC to invent new realities that are more pleasing to the eye. And I must strongly oppose this kind of image manipulation. --Dschwen 09:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I oppose the second version :-) --Tony Wills 12:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Original image running total:  0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> decline? --Tony Wills 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Edited version running total:  1 support, 1 oppose (excluding the nominator) -> draw? --Tony Wills 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose >> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 03:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Smithsonian Building NR.jpg
  • Nomination Smithsonian Building. --norro 13:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Hmm, panorama of building - good work, little problem with perspective on left and right tower, but I'll promote it. --Lestat 14:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Retouched version

In my opinion, the problem with the perspective should be solved before promoting it as QI. This picture is currently in a graphics lab. Hopefully, this problem can be resolved there, because it's a great picture. Maybe it could also be a FP candidate after that. --Leyo 13:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah, it could be a FP candidate. --Arad 15:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I promote the retouched version. --Leyo 08:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose >> promoted to QI --Leyo 23:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure, which image is promoted. I would prefer the retouched version. -- 18:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

At first glance it looks ok, but looking closer it is odd, especially when you compare the retouched front right tower with back right tower it looks skewed. The modification disregards that due to the perspective we are not looking straight at the front face of the towers, but at an angle. So I can only oppose the retouched version. --Dschwen 21:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You might tell your opinion to the producer of the retouched version (here. Maybe he is able to correct that. -- 08:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
There actually is no need to. We already have a correct version, it's the original! Any modyfication wich attemts to change perspective only in parts of the image will always yielad an incorrect version. --Dschwen 08:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I note the author of that picture stitched it together from 23 images! So it is already a highly modified view (en:FP). Unless it can be demonstrated that the tops of those towers are actually on strange angles, I don't think there is a problem with trying to correct an abberation of the stitching. (perhaps should check with author) --Tony Wills 12:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No, absolutely not. The stitching does not modify the perspective inconsistently if all pictures were taken from the same spot (which they are). --Dschwen 19:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Running total 1st:  2 support, 1 oppose -> promote? --Tony Wills 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Running total 2nd:  1 support (excluding anon), 1 oppose -> draw? --Tony Wills 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


Result:  2 support, 1 oppose >> promote to QI --Tony Wills 04:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Nomination Cat --Steevven1 02:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Some noise, extremely low DOF, eyes out of focus --Dschwen 07:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Low DOF, bad crop --Lestat 15:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
here is an edit. It's sharpened and downsampled.
  • This picture is an support example in the QI guidlines Commons:Quality images guidelines for a "shallow depth of field serving a purpose"-picture. So what do we do now? Review this image again or change the guidlines? My opinion is this: DOF is ok, because the main theme of this picture is the cats glance. But i agree with Dschwen that the eyes could be sharper. --Simonizer 10:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree too. We can even down sample it and then we get a very sharp eye. --Arad 21:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I played with down sampling it, but it is still clear that the focus is at the end of its nose, not the eyes. I don't see any problem with it being used as an example of creative DOF even if it is not a QI. Of course we should find a QI using this technique for a better example. --Tony Wills 23:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support On balance I think it is a quality image - DOF deliberate, focus error only minor, cropping produces striking picture --Tony Wills 13:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose, 2 comments? -> not sure whether the two comments are for or against. --Tony Wills 13:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Edit 1 I downsampled and sharpened the image. It looks sharp now. Also removed red-eye. --Arad 17:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I could live with edit1. Shallow DOF can be ok, its just that the eyes are still a tad to unsharp. --Dschwen 17:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I could also live with edit 1. --Leyo 21:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As per original image --Tony Wills 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Running total 1st:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> draw? --Tony Wills 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Running total 2nd:  4 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promote? --Tony Wills 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


Result:  4 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose >> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 04:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Urząd Wojewódzki - westybul.JPG
  • Nomination Silesia Parlament Inn. --Lestat 18:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline I think taking the image closer to the red carpet to have hidden the heater in the bottom left, and show more of the flags on the first landing and the text at the top would have been better. There's also an optical illusion that the top of the image seems wider than the top, possibly due to the lighting on the right top of the image. MECUtalk 17:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support MECU you are asking for a different photo that emphasises different aspects of the scene, but the photo of the scene as depicted is a quality image - depicting the stairs and floor levels above. --Tony Wills 11:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective lets all pillars and walls look as if they are leaning. Lycaon 13:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the composition and quality is OK. Will support after geometric distortion is fixed. Alvesgaspar 19:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose >> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

StPetersBasilica Keyhole 2.jpg
  • Nomination St. Peters Basilica seen through keyhole --AngMoKio 17:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline This "window view" isn't good idea - photo is too dark. Lestat 14:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • AngMoKio, please explain your reasons for contesting the decision. I agree with the decline, it may be "artsy", but I wouldn't say the image is very valuable to other Wikimedia projects (there is certainly a better way to shoot the Basilica). --Pharaoh Hound 20:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that i have to disagree as the nominator and author of this picture. This keyhole (at Villa Malta) through which you can see the Vatican is a tourist attraction in Rome. Behind the keyhole is a path which is surrounded by those high bushes. This picture shows more or less exactly what you see when you look through that keyhole. The picture is actually taken through that keyhole which has a diameter of maybe 1-2cm (which is quite a challenge:) ). This dark and bright contrast is in my opinion the main thing that makes this view so special. --AngMoKio 20:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Btw..i first moved the picture and then wrote my reasons, that's the reason for the delay...sorry.--AngMoKio 20:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • without knowing the complication of the whole size. i do not think the picture is too dark. i would think is good enough to be QI-LadyofHats 13:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I liked the image and its composition, commons isnt just a repository of images for wikipedia's is it? even though thats the greatest consumer of the images. I think the abstract, artful and interesting perspective images are something that needs to be explored. Yet at both FP and QI the comment that "encyclopedic value isnt a consideration here" is all too common. Is this QI? i think so the composition and the lighting are good, maybe a tighter crop but since its artistic thats debatable until the cows come home. Gnangarra 12:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose --> draw, 1 more vote needed --Leyo 22:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but definitely an oppose: Way too small, lacking detail and sharpness. Nice composition though... --Dschwen 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I do support the image, judging it on itself, not because there are better ways to illustrate it on wikipedia. The image, as it is, it's good. -- Drini 02:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • yet it does not comply with the criteria set forth on this page --Dschwen 07:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • yet Commons:Quality images guidelines says "This is the detailed requirement for Quality Image candidates. These are only guidelines, not rules.". I think we're turning this into a checklist without considering the image itself. This is not FP yet we're having more strict rules than FP. -- Drini 15:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Exactly, we have stricter rules in the technical department. QI should be a reliable source for high quality images which are up to a given technical standard. No matter how you turn it, this picture is lacking in size and sharpness, especially if you consider that most of it is dead area. FP is a different game, they are way stricter in terms of subject matter and composition. --Dschwen 16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small. Can not be promoted. Lycaon 11:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Minimum image dimensions are a guideline, in itself not sufficient reason to decline an image. --Tony Wills 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Then where do you draw the line? And why do we bother with guidelines? Lycaon 23:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Few pictures are perfect. A single flaw shouldn't exclude it if other requirements were met. --Tony Wills 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Much better than another image of the same scene on the web that describes itself as perfect (and mentions the scene shows three countries), but main subject lacks clarity (haze? lack of focus, noise?) --Tony Wills 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it's atmospheric haze due to the distance. Morven 00:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Result:  3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose >> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 04:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)