Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 2009

• 
  • Nomination Porsche racing car panning picture --AngMoKio 09:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion nice impression of the dynamic --Mbdortmund 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Alderfly (Sialis lutaria) --Richard Bartz 23:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion warum ist die traurig? --Böhringer 08:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC) :-))
    Hmm .. auch Alkoholprobleme bei Schlammfliegen sind nicht zu unterschätzen :-) --null 18:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Erdfunkstelle Raisting --Richard Bartz 23:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks good. Mattbuck 22:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ruins at the Salbert hill (near Belfort, France). --ComputerHotline 14:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion I might be wrong, shouldn't it be tilted to the right just a bit (window in the back and top horizontal part) ? --Coyau 16:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC) --- @Coyau : No. It's the real vision. --ComputerHotline 18:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC) couldn't you kill the balustrade? *g* --Mbdortmund 15:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Reflections in the shallow pool of Millennium Square, Bristol. Mattbuck 00:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline No clear subject and half the water is out of focus--PieCam 13:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Female Common Blue Damselfly (Enallagma cyathigerum) --Richard Bartz 23:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline It's so fuzzy. --ComputerHotline 11:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination DTM panning photo --AngMoKio 21:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Maybe even FP? --Massimo Catarinella 22:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination DTM panning photo --AngMoKio 21:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Definitely --Massimo Catarinella 22:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination haliaeetus leucocephalus airborne--AngMoKio 21:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion bei dem Tempo! :o( --Böhringer 08:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Anti-Israel demonstration --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment More information on the place where the protest took place could be usefull. Zil 08:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
     SupportQuality looks ok to me. Place-related categorization and geotag would be useful. --Eusebius 08:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Paraglider in Veľká Fatra, Slovakia --Pudelek 10:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review  Comment A bit noisy sky and slight vignetting in upper right corner. Also, the shadow in lower right corner could be edited away (but not cropped, you'll lose the composition). Excellent composition. --Siipikarja 15:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
     Info new version - only small crop --Pudelek 10:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Naturpark Bayerischer Wald near Ruhmannsfelden --High Contrast 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline I think the clouds are a bit overexposed. Decent composition though. And is it just me, or do cherry trees almost always look messy. Mattbuck 02:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Allianz Arena, Munich, Germany --Richard Bartz 20:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very good, looks good --High Contrast 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
     Support Very good and valuable. --Siipikarja 21:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Wasp pauses while trying to find a way through the fence with her prize. --Tony Wills 04:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion interesting --Mbdortmund 10:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC) --- Correct details. --ComputerHotline 18:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Taeniopygia guttata (Zebra finch) perched at Murray Bridge, South Australia. Peripitus 03:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion good details and composition --Mbdortmund 10:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC) --- Correct colors an details. --ComputerHotline 18:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Tentement houses in Warsaw --Sfu 00:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Pretty, but overexposed in several places. Mattbuck 18:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ludlow Castle. The image creator is User:Herbythyme--Mbz1 22:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline I just don't really like the composition - it seems a bit messy, though that's the fault of the trees, not the photographer. Mattbuck 18:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Fish in Oceanographic Museum, Monaco. -- Needmyself 17:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Disturbing flashlight reflection right in front of the fish --High Contrast 17:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    Maybe the fish is just eating some ball lightning. Mattbuck 18:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Luna Park Melbourne scenic railway --High Contrast 12:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline This doesn't meet the 2 Megapixel requirement I'm afraid. Mattbuck 18:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Great Wall child --Notyourbroom 16:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment File name should have a capital W, because it's a pro-noun. --Jolly Janner 15:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Nice, good composition--Lucarelli 23:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Paraglider in Veľká Fatra, Slovakia --Pudelek 10:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review  Comment Could use some levels / brightness / contrast adjusting to make the colors crisper. --Siipikarja 15:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Notre-Dame de la Belle Verrière, one of the most famous windows in Chartres cathedral. --Eusebius 22:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality --Lucarelli 23:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Second Severn crossing, Wales. -- Jongleur100 11:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Large noise amount and low color saturation; this image is truly usual --Twdragon 19:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Landscape in Bavaria, Germany. --High Contrast 09:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Unsharp image, DOF is truly low --Twdragon 19:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination French author Martine Pouchain in 2009 --Gerolsteiner91 14:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Low sharpening level, high noise range due to unproper ISO setting --Twdragon 19:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Walking tour in the Bregenzerwald --Böhringer 19:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support I like it. Nice composition and good control on exposure. The focus is a bit undefined. The image could improved by removing the noise from the sky. English description would be a bonus. --Siipikarja 23:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC) English description  Done --Böhringer 19:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Caesarea maritima, ruins of the amphitheatre. --Berthold Werner 18:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Poor focusing, DOF is low --Twdragon 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination St James's Park in London. --High Contrast 10:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very good --Twdragon 19:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Park Snow Donovaly, Slovakia. Platter lift Patočiny --Pudelek 10:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Large noise amount due to lighting conditions --Twdragon 19:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Snow cannon in Park Snow Donovaly, Slovakia --Pudelek 10:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Large noise amount due to lighting conditions --Twdragon 19:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Zvolen mount, Veľká Fatra, Slovakia. View from Nová hoľa mount (second nomination) --Pudelek 00:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Too Noisy --Twdragon 19:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Upper Wentworth Falls in New South Wales, Australia. --High Contrast 12:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice composition and high colors --Twdragon 19:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Great Wall at Simatai --Notyourbroom 05:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Poor composition and lighting --Twdragon 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Street sign in Grenoble. --Eusebius 21:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good image --Twdragon 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A small bird named Chiffchaff. --Aleph 21:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks good, not a very large resolution though. --Coyau 17:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Spermophilus beecheyi. Howcheng 19:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Too noisy --Twdragon 19:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Paraglider in Veľká Fatra, Slovakia --Pudelek 10:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Young orange plant. --Jolly Janner 16:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Poor lighting, noise --Twdragon 19:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Äksi Church. --WikedKentaur 19:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Perspective correction needed --Twdragon 19:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Roofs of Nantes castle. --Eusebius 15:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Tower of the Old Keep, Nantes castle. --Eusebius 14:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Paraglider in Veľká Fatra, Slovakia --Pudelek 09:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review  Neutral This one is the most interesting according to me, but downsampling prevents from seing the threads properly. --Eusebius 08:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mt Misery cross & view. The creator of the image is User:Herbythyme--Mbz1 15:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Excellent! --Jolly Janner 18:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Neuschnee --Böhringer 22:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Neutral Beautiful. I'm not a fan of the composition though. --Siipikarja 10:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    Very nice.--Mbz1 15:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mount Moriah (Templemount), southern wall and Al Aqsa Mosque. --Berthold Werner 17:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good and informative image--Jongleur100 11:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Large cicada basking in the sun. --Tony Wills 12:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Correct exposure and DoF. --ComputerHotline 12:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Lamborghini LP560-4 --Ascaron 19:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Bad lighting --Ianare 17:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The church in the tiny town of Brouage. A head removed from a previous, declined from QI, version. --Berrucomons 21:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks good. Meets the criteria --High Contrast 11:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Macropus rufus, female in conservation reserve, Blue Mountains, Australia. --Carnildo 08:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Correct exposure. --ComputerHotline 12:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Northern rose window of Chartres cathedral. --Eusebius 21:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Window in Chotovice (Česká Lípa District). --Jedudedek 14:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Window in Chotovice (Česká Lípa District). --Jedudedek 14:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Ancient cross close to Crazywell Pool on southern Dartmoor. The creator of the image is user:Herbythyme --Mbz1 01:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Excellent! --Jolly Janner 01:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Citrus Swallowtail --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 20:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Really nice macro--Mbz1 01:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hoar frost on the beach of Zeebrugge, Belgium -- MJJR 22:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice -- Ianare 07:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Start of the paraglider in Veľká Fatra, Slovakia --Pudelek 09:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Paraglider in Veľká Fatra, Slovakia --Pudelek 09:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Rudbeckia fulgida --High Contrast 18:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Too low quality (DOF) for the small size. Lycaon 21:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sympetrum striolatum --Loz 17:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Qi for sure. Lycaon 17:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sympetrum striolatum --Loz 17:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good. Lycaon 17:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A criped up bup. --Körnerbrötchen 16:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
  • Decline DOF didn't change since last decline. Lycaon 17:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Bismarck tower in Zielona Góra, Poland. --Wisniowy 14:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Question What happened to EXIF data ? --Coyau 20:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    I don't know. --Wisniowy 08:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)}
     Support Good enough. However, it appears (not necessarily is) slightly tilted clockwise. Also, the picture could be improved by digitally smoothing out the small noise in the sky. Good control on the whites; shadow in the tower, bright light and snow is not the easiest combination. Since the EXIF is missing, it would be a bonus to add the information to the Information template. --Siipikarja 10:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
• 
  • Nomination: Cyphel (Minuartia sedoides) at Gornergrat, Switzerland. -- Lycaon 08:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Lions Gate in Jerusalem --Berthold Werner 07:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Panorama of Florence, Italy --Lucarelli 00:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Mount Moriah (Templemount), southern wall and Al Aqsa Mosque. --Berthold Werner 12:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Overexposure. See: . --Siipikarja 15:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Frosted leaves of Ammophila arenaria. -- Lycaon 07:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good and interesting. --Siipikarja 00:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination People ice skating in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (note that exposure is intentional) Dori 03:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good impression--Harke 20:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ferris wheel at night. -- Tfioreze 21:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Crop. Also, it is a bit noisy/not so sharp, but with a moving structure at night I think it might be acceptable. --Eusebius 09:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Interior view of the Cologne Cathedral. -- Tiago Fioreze 09:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline OOF, too little detail. Lycaon 21:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sydney, Australia --Przykuta 08:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Why is it so noisy at 100 ISO ? --Richard Bartz 17:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
     Oppose Noisy indeed, but more importantly it appears to be tilted clockwise. But it has potential. Noise reduction / rotating / perhaps adjusting levels could make this a QI. --Siipikarja 16:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sydney Opera House --Przykuta 08:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Why is it so noisy at 100 ISO ? --Richard Bartz 17:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Very noisy. Lycaon 21:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
     Oppose Vignetting. --Siipikarja 01:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination 'Dreigiebelhaus', Ditzingen, with christmas illuminations --Harke 15:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Too much noise. Lycaon 21:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Narcissus tazetta - Narkis. --MathKnight 21:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Noisy and too tight crop at the bottom. --Siipikarja 20:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Phagnalon rupestre close to el Perelló, Catalonia, Spain. -- Lycaon 08:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Technically very good but the composition is not as good as it could be. There's too much void on the right side, which makes the whole image to be a little bit out of balance. --Siipikarja 23:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    Cropped. Lycaon 17:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
     Support It's a QI. --Siipikarja 20:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination angular crab (Goneplax rhomboides) near Cami de l'Áliga, Catalonia, Spain. -- Lycaon 08:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice picture, good quality ---Lucarelli 08:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hoar frost on the beach of Zeebrugge (Belgium) -- MJJR 20:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Blurred corners, great texture though. --Coyau 21:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Taba Heights (Sinai, Egypt) -- MJJR 20:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks ok. --Eusebius 08:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Rothenburg ob der Tauber, Zwölfbotenaltar --Berthold Werner 15:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Skipark Ružomberok, Slovakia. Chairlift --Pudelek 00:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Seats are not very sharp. --Coyau 21:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Lions Gate, Jerusalem (with Tourists;-) --Berthold Werner 09:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC) I'am afraid but there is a lot of color fringing everywhere. There are some tutorials on the net how to erase CA. --Richard Bartz 17:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
• 
  • Nomination Macropus rufus, female in conservation reserve, Blue Mountains, Australia --Przykuta 08:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Somehow I like it but I have the feeling that the picture is very dull.I would even say it's underexposed. Other opinion ? --Richard Bartz 13:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    It's underexposed and the background is brighter than the subject, but both can be fixed with post-processing: see File:Kangaroo Australia 01 11 2008 - retouch.JPG. --Carnildo 01:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)  Comment Can you nominate the edit, please ?. --Carnildo 08:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Papilio cresphontes --ComputerHotline 18:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Heavy overexposure @ the torso --Richard Bartz 13:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Monument for Giuseppe Garibaldi, Livorno --Lucarelli 00:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks good. --Coyau 18:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Very old row boat in Perkins Cove, Ogunquit, Maine --Captain-tucker 00:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline The composition is fairly ok, sharpness is on the borderline. A salient problem are the color fringes around the white paddle (I assume it's the paddle). They are even visible in the previev --Richard Bartz 13:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A picture of some sheep at Sourton after a rare heavy snowfall. --Jolly Janner 23:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Comment Too tight crop at the top and the pole is a little bit disturbing. Interesting picture anyhow. What's the story behind the paint markings in the necks of the sheep? People are carrying snowboards in the background. :) --Siipikarja 22:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC) The picture is underexposed, sorry -Richard Bartz 13:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Paraglider in Veľká Fatra, Slovakia --Pudelek 00:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Zvolen mount (Veľká Fatra). View from Nová hoľa mount --Pudelek 00:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Soldier Beetle (Cantharis livida) --Richard Bartz 21:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Wow! Lovely colors, excellent composition, proper focus, nice use of DOF. Easily a QI, potentially an FP in my opinion. --Siipikarja 22:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A parallel stereo pair image of Old Faithful erupting. --Carnildo 09:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Yes, the 3D viewing experience is there. There should be more stereo images. -- Klaus with K 11:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Detail of a stained glass window from Chartres cathedral. --Eusebius 22:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline very unsharp --Pudelek 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Rust on a Bridge at Sea Mills in Bristol. Renominating. Consensual review previously produced a draw. Mattbuck 14:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline  weak oppose I think it should be a bit sharper. --Eusebius 14:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Brown bee orchid (Ophrys fusca) near el Perelló, Catalonia, Spain. -- Lycaon 08:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Correct exposure and DoF. --ComputerHotline 08:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Oxythyrea funesta near el Perelló, Catalonia, Spain. -- Lycaon 08:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Correct details. --ComputerHotline 08:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A Mossie in Namibia. -- Lycaon 07:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Noise. --Eusebius 10:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    Indeed! Issues addressed. Lycaon 10:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    Opposition removed, won't vote for now. --Eusebius 11:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC) ----- Corect exposure. --ComputerHotline 08:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Two male Mossies in Namibia. -- Lycaon 07:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Correct composition. --ComputerHotline 08:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hedvig Eleonora church in Stockholm --Pbn-dk 01:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Too much sky, not enough building. --Eusebius 14:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Les Invalides, Paris --Pro2 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline  Title does not describe the picture. --Coyau 20:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC) ...and not very sharp. --Coyau 13:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Snow Clover (Trifolium pratense subsp. nivale) near to Saas Fee, Switzerland. -- Lycaon 08:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion OK for me. --Eusebius 11:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ferry "Moby Aki" --Lucarelli 00:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Arghh! But good quality. Lycaon 08:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Torre di Calafuria, Livorno, Italy --Lucarelli 00:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks ok to me. --Eusebius 10:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Bulk carrier on the Danube --High Contrast 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice with good colors, interesting subject, especially the waves --Lucarelli 00:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The mirror in The Myrtles Plantation by User:Bnet504. -- carol 16:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline One can see the photographers and the flash in the mirror. --Eirik 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
     Comment I expect that is actually Sara Woodruff and her two daughters trapped in the mirror, signaling to get out --Tony Wills 01:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
    That is what I thought also; perhaps there could be some additional QI requirements/suggestions for images of ghosts? -- carol 13:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Skipark Ružomberok - view from Malinô Brdo mountain --Pudelek 09:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)~
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Former holiday homes in Bavaria for workers from Berlin. --High Contrast 23:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Not sharp enough (no details on the trees). Lycaon 08:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Medieval sculpture in Chartres cathedral. --Eusebius 21:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks ok; meets the criteria. --High Contrast 23:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination An SVG cordless telephone. Pbroks13 20:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks good. Detail critics,: maybe needs a little shadow on the handset left front bottom from the docking station? Lycaon 08:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Nils Gjerland, chairman of Førde, Norway. --Eirik 17:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Crop is a bit too tight on the top, and definitely not good on the right IMO. --Eusebius 12:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination female Anax Imperator laying eggs --Böhringer 13:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Gekauft --Richard Bartz 17:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Cyclamen persicum - Rakefet. --MathKnight 17:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Too much noise (camera is limiting factor) at 100 ISO spoils the picture. Composition is good though. Lycaon 08:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Cyclamen persicum - Rakefet. --MathKnight 17:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Overexposed sky and too much noise (camera is limiting factor) at 100 ISO spoils the picture. Regretful decline. Lycaon 08:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Skipark Ružomberok, Slovakia. Bistro "Daria" in the center --Pudelek 09:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Passes for me. Lycaon 08:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Great photo of the gibbous moon. --ComputerHotline 19:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Blurry. Lycaon 08:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Stadium MFK Ružomberok, Slovakia --Pudelek 13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Unequal lighting in panorama generation settings. Lycaon 08:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Masada, Byzantine Church. --Berthold Werner 13:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment I suggest cropping the foreground rocks. Dori 03:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    Better? --Berthold Werner 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    Acceptable technical quality. Lycaon 08:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Small spider wasp up close, front view --Tony Wills 11:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Is that there is wasp's underfoot is wood or anything? This wasp is very tiny, so I think it needs more explanation about scale of wasp and his underfoot to description. _Fukutaro 16:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    Added size info and posted a reply to your talk page. --Tony Wills 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    Rescue makes for patient posers? -- carol 12:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Panorama of Livorno, Italy --Lucarelli 08:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion very informative and a very good quality --Böhringer 08:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination en:Moscow International Business Centre --Dmottl 20:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good exposure and sharp picture, QI.--PieCam 02:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Not so boring now snow ball -- carol 19:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Would need better categorization to be usefull.--PieCam 02:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
     CommentIndeed it is not boring. I'm Matt Buck and I approve of this image. Mattbuck 21:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ski Park Ružomberok - final station of the chairlift --Pudelek 09:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Underexposed, the snow should be much closer to white--PieCam 02:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ilyushin Il-86 --Dmottl 09:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion meets QI-requirements --Mbdortmund 11:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View along Monts d'Arrée. The creator of the image is user:Herbythyme--Mbz1 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion good --Mbdortmund 11:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Çufut Qale, Crimea. --Dmottl 22:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Geocode would be nice. --Richard Bartz 23:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    Nice.--Mbz1 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Ctenosaura similis Mexican variant of the Spiny-tail iguana. --Mike Searson 17:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Tokyo Tower as seen from Roppongi Hills --Jonny-mt 14:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: A Jizo statue at Zōjō-ji in Tokyo. --Jonny-mt 09:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review  CommentI don't really like the composition. --Eusebius 17:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you for the feedback. For your reference, this is the larger context of this image--the shot above is of one of the statues on the lowest level. --Jonny-mt 01:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Rowers in Bristol Docks. Mattbuck 21:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Exposure is far away from optimum. Overexposure as well as underexposure. --Richard Bartz 23:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
     Comment - I personally thought that was what made it a good picture. Mattbuck 01:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    The contrast between the water and the rowing boat is relatively small to make a good-looking silhouette efx --Richard Bartz 01:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Humpy meadow, an ice-age remain, in the Alps --High Contrast 13:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good enough. --Richard Bartz 23:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Kuznetsk Alatau, Siberia. --Dmottl 09:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good composition, nice image overall. --Siipikarja 16:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination 360° Panorama. The Schleienlöcher nature reserve in Hard (Austria) . --Böhringer 08:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Very good --Richard Bartz 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
     Support Very good indeed. You're a master of panoramas. --Siipikarja 13:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Comment There is no need for using the {{Support}} or {{Oppose}} template here. It's for consensual review. -Richard Bartz 15:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
     Comment OK. But is it forbidden to use them? I like using them. --Siipikarja 15:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) When using them all your pictures will be deleted :-) </joke> --Richard Bartz 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Churches 1700 --Böhringer 21:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good, but please geocode it -- Dmottl 21:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
     Comment Please see again, I have georeference the location is under Camera! :-) --Böhringer 08:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
     Comment Thank you --Dmottl 16:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Plaque of the Route Napoléon in Grenoble. --Eusebius 21:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Exact depth of field -- a plaque could not be photographed more perfectly than this. -- carol 05:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Humbert I of Viennois. --Eusebius 13:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Comment eusebius' work is ok, but the lighting produces a terrible shadow of the nose --Berthold Werner 14:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion --Dmottl 22:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Panorama with over 200 mountain peaks --Böhringer 20:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Very nice picture, makes me want to be there... :) --Siipikarja 23:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
     Question How did you manage to shrink a picture with 9,559 × 1,362 resolution to only 1.89 MB? The QI lower limit is 2MB, but I think it doesn't matter here. --Siipikarja 23:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
     Comment I do not know --Böhringer 14:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
     Comment Could we have an English description also? --Siipikarja 23:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)  Done sorry for my google-english --Böhringer 14:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
     Comment Thanks.  Comment The QI lower limit is 2MPX not 2 MB --Richard Bartz 02:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
     Comment Richard Bartz, you're right. My bad. :) --Siipikarja 10:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination 8 mm camera Elmo 8V (1960) --Berthold Werner 16:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Subject in bad angle, neither perpendicular nor 45°. --Siipikarja 14:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
     Oppose. Too tightly cropped --Dmottl 21:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
     Oppose Yes, too tightly cropped. --Siipikarja 10:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination 8 mm camera Elmo 8V (1960) --Berthold Werner 16:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion good details --Mbdortmund 23:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
     Support Good shot. --Siipikarja 14:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Markakol reserve, Altay mountains, Kazakhstan. -Dmottl 10:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks fine to me. --Jonny-mt 16:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View across Bristol Docks towards St Mary Redcliffe. Mattbuck 22:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Can't really say I like the composition. It is too much centred for me, and I'd like the boat in the bottom-left corner out. --Eusebius 21:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
     Oppose Pretty much what Eusebius said. I don't think this is a particularly good image. St Mary Redcliffe splits the image vertically. --Siipikarja 01:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Altay mountains, Kazakhstan - Dmottl 14:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks ok to me. I like the composition. --JuliusR 20:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
     Comment Please geocode. --Siipikarja 14:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
     Neutral Perhaps too tightly cropped from the top. --Siipikarja 14:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ružomberok (Rosenberg) in the evening --Pudelek 10:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose 1. Clockwise rotation needed. 2. Branches in front. 3. Strange composition. --Dmottl 21:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
     Oppose What Dmottl said. --Siipikarja 14:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View of the Arno River, Pisa, Italy--Lucarelli 23:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good resolution --Dmottl 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
     Support A good picture of the subject. --Siipikarja 13:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
     Question How many pictures did you stitch together? Please add this information to the the information template of the picture. --Siipikarja 13:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    I have added the information. --Lucarelli 21:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Salt Marsh at Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge --Captain-tucker 20:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Over exposed sky with chromatic aberration. --Siipikarja 14:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Bennett four-bar mechanical linkage --Twdragon 14:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Slight chromatic aberration. --Siipikarja 14:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
     Oppose Also, a bit tightly cropped from the top. --Siipikarja 15:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
     Neutral--Where is the zone of chromatic aberration, this image have been optimized, so, I may prefer to optimize it more, may I am not? --ComputerHotline 19:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
     Comment On the right side of the round thing. Not much, but since this is a "studio" shot there should be none. OK, I admit, it is nitpicking. But the crop is still too tight. --Siipikarja 10:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Grand Canyon --High Contrast 11:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: View of Florence in Winter, before sunset. --Lucarelli 01:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Restoration of a ukiyo-e print by Ogata Gekko. As photographs of paintings are allowed here, I presume that something I spent eight hours working on should be fine. Adam Cuerden 04:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Look OK -Dmottl 10:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
     Support Very nice image, eight hours well spent. :) The image has historical value and is of print quality resolution. Thank you for this picture, I like it very much. --Siipikarja 22:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Three-way lightbulb socket. --Hustvedt 01:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose The DOF is too shallow and it's also overexposed. Dori 03:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
     Oppose Also, the picture should be rotated counter-clockwise to make the shaft vertical. --Siipikarja 14:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Zwinger in Dresden at night (created by Kolossos) --D-Kuru 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion -- Dmottl 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
     Support Impressive resolution, nice picture overall. The horizontal line that limits the roof from the wall seems to suffer from barrel distortion, but the picture is still a QI. --Siipikarja 22:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Palm trees in Florida at sunset. --Bdesham 18:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn 'Some palm' is not good enough as species id. Especially in a country like the USA. Lycaon 23:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)  Comment I'll renominate when I have an ID. --Bdesham 17:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Gulf of Naples with Mount Vesuvius and the city of Naples --High Contrast 12:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline It's quite a nice picture, but it's noisy, too small (under 2 MP) and doesn't look like there's been much effort put into composition. Mattbuck 15:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
     Comment The 2% difference from the arbitary lower size guideline isn't worth quibbling about, but yes the sea is noisy ;-) --Tony Wills 11:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
     Oppose A bit noisy. The horizon seems to be inclined. --Siipikarja 22:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sunrise over Lake Michigan, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin Dori 03:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Not enough detail, foreground lefthandside could be in focus, too --Richard Bartz 18:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sunrise over Lake Michigan, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin Dori 03:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion I'm not sure the clouds are quite in focus, but a lovely photo. Mattbuck 22:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sunrise over Lake Michigan, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin Dori 03:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very nice. I know you took this in aperture mode, but I really like the smoothing effect that the longer exposure has on the water. --Jonny-mt 12:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A Dragonfly --SamRegarde 16:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Wonderful creature. But the vertical line at the left is somehow distracting to me. --JuliusR 20:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    Not identified. Lycaon 23:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Portishead Branchline viaduct in Pill (Somerset). Mattbuck 23:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline  Neutral Three dust spots visible in the sky. I'm not convinced by the focus but I like the composition. --Eusebius 22:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    Corrected the spots. As for focus, the camera thought it was right... stupid technology. Mattbuck 14:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    On balance I decline it. One thing that worries me is that it doesn't actually show the subject (a viaduct) very well - it just looks like a railway going around a curve (I suppose that means I don't like the composition ;-) --Tony Wills 10:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    Well, it is still a viaduct, just not a normal view of one. Mattbuck 22:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Petrus church in Jaffa --Berthold Werner 14:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline The light is very nice. But you should have paid more attention to the foreground. The image quality ist not that good, either (noise, sharpness). If you upload images like this one, which are not really sharp, you'd better scale them down. That reduces memory and traffic consumption, without constraining much of the usability. -- Aleph 15:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ter hill cross
    Image creator is User:Herbythyme--Mbz1 23:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline The horizontline looks a wee bit tilting to mee. But the major point is that there is too much heaven and uninteresting background, whereas the bottom of the cross is missing. -- Aleph 15:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A flashlight --Wuzur 15:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline too much noise (especially since this is a studio shot) --Ianare 22:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Salt lake Baskunchak in Russia --High Contrast 11:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks ok. --Eusebius 17:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Berliner Dom, Germany --Kolossos 11:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Picture quality looks good, but perspective correction has strongly distorted the higher parts, which now have a strange appearance. --Eusebius 17:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination "Schöner Brunnen" Nurembrg, Germany --Kolossos 11:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Counterclockwise tilt, overexposed. --Eusebius 17:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Frauenkirche Nurembrg, Germany --Kolossos 11:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Slight counterclockwise tilt, clouds overexposed. --Eusebius 17:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Christmas Markets in Prague --Pudelek 10:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline I know it's a limitation due to light, but it's got blurs, and all in all it just looks messy. Mattbuck 15:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Silesian Beskids in winter - view from Moravian-Silesian Beskids --Pudelek 12:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
     Info new version - edited by Dmottl --Pudelek 16:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion I'm a little sad that the EXIF data is missing, and I'd like some more information on the panorama (e.g. how many shots, what software used to perform stitching), but it's a technically solid shot of a beautiful subject. I see no stitching errors or exposure inconsistencies, and the subject is well-lit and acceptably focused. Just out of curiosity, is File:Moravskoslezské Beskydy.jpg a crop of this image? --Jonny-mt 16:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Comment - no, this [[1]] is another image --Pudelek 17:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Inside City hall Dresden, Germany --Kolossos 11:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion very good. --Berthold Werner 13:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Panorama of Bautzen, Germany --Kolossos 11:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion good --Pudelek 15:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, CA. --ShakataGaNai 08:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Bad colors, bad composition(verticals), false format PNG (14MB for 4 MPixel), Jpg would be better. --Kolossos 14:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Spaceship Earth and the Fountain of Nations at Walt Disney World. --Bdesham 05:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Not good time for shooting --Twdragon 10:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    The fountains are causing whiteout. Mattbuck 16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Shrine of the Book and Knesset --Berthold Werner 12:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Gives an idea of the shrine, but as an illustration of the shrine it is only a partial picture. --Tony Wills 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Spaceship Earth at Walt Disney World at night. --Bdesham 05:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good image --Twdragon 10:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Entrance to Plzeňský Prazdroj Brewery museum, Pilsen --Pudelek 10:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Lack of composition, usual objects and the viewpoint is not good --Twdragon 10:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Strain wave gearing details --Twdragon 12:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks fine to me. Lycaon 11:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Vierfleck (Libellula quadrimaculata) --Richard Bartz 22:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality, great detalisation. Not for NG journal, but merits to be promoted --Twdragon 10:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ballonstart --Böhringer 20:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline I like the image, but unfortunately for a 6MP image, 1.1MB is rather small and an indication of low quality. The sky is noisy, there are some JPEG artifacts, and the whole thing could use some brightening. Mattbuck 02:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ney York Stock Exchange --Massimo Catarinella 18:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment I would have left more space on the left, but maybe it was not possible. --Eusebius 16:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    No, that wasn't possible. --Massimo Catarinella 10:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    Regretfully, I decline this. It's a great sight, and it makes me wish I could see it for myself. But as Eusebius said, it could use some more space on the left, as it's currently rather unbalanced. Mattbuck 02:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Zuidas, Amsterdam --Massimo Catarinella 23:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice clean lines, interesting architecture. Mattbuck 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Moravian-Silesian Beskids in winter --Pudelek 12:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion That is lovely. It's a shame the sun wasn't a bit higher to pick out the trees in the foreground better - maybe the image would be better if the bottom were cropped a bit. But truly breathtaking. Mattbuck 02:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Roofed beach chairs in Borkum --High Contrast 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion A blend of Gurski. Good --Richard Bartz 23:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Marsh Fly (Tetanocera sp) --Richard Bartz 22:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Ok. --Berthold Werner 18:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The weighing of the souls. --Eusebius 21:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Well done. --Aleph 15:22, 29 January 2009
• 
  • Nomination Brown Flax (Linum usitatissimum) Seeds --Sanjay Acharya 21:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion No doubt QI --Richard Bartz 23:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Aereal Ropeway Masada --Berthold Werner 15:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good image--Mbz1 19:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Fringe gap --Richard Bartz 13:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Interesting formation--Mbz1 19:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Petroglyphs Castriño de Conxo (2.000 years B.C.). - --Lansbricae 13:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Lansbricae
  • Decline The shadow is disturbing. --Eusebius 16:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ichneumonidae mating--Muhammad Mahdi Karim 17:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion The highlights caused by the flash are not excessive, and it has given us a detailed view of the subject. DOF is good given the size of the subject, focus and colour good. --Tony Wills 19:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Reflection --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 13:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks good to me. Maybe I'd crop a little bit on the left, to leave the first half drop out of the frame. --Eusebius 16:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Silesian Beskids in winter - view from Moravian-Silesian Beskids --Pudelek 12:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Endangered sp of cycad --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Fleur-de-lis along a gate in a cemetary. --Jonny-mt 14:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Composition: photographically interesting row of spikes, but it doesn't really illustrate the subject very well. Only one spike is in focus but only a side on view. --Tony Wills 20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensual review

File:Ice crystals on the box.jpg

• Nomination Ice crystals.--Mbz1 22:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion  Comment The almost square crop and questions about "the cake box" make me hesitate before promoting this image. -- carol 01:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  Carol, thank you for the interest in my image. Please take a look here File:Ice crystals at the cake box2.jpg (it is not the same image that was cropped of for the nomination, but similar). You see the cake in a box with ice crystals. If I did not crop my image, sure somebody would have been complaining about background. So, I cropped it. I like ice. There's no ice in San Francisco, except local grocery stores.Thank you,--Mbz1 18:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support (first version) It was easier to understand by seeing the whole photograph, thank you for providing it. More than snow, I miss the real and often quick changes in the air pressure no matter what the season. -- carol (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 03:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Pill MMB 09 Harbour.jpg

• Nomination Boats in the creek at Pill (Somerset). Mattbuck 23:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Comment Four or five dust spots in the sky, probably one in the water (near the right edge of the picture). Once corrected I'd gladly support. --Eusebius 21:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Corrected these things. Mattbuck 14:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Support now. --Eusebius 14:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Still at least four dust spots (three left top sky, one left of tallest mast). Lycaon 16:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Removed those too, but frankly those were invisible without messing with the levels. Mattbuck 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR 19:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 03:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Krutvatnet_NR.jpg

• Nomination Lake Krutvatnet (Norway) --Siebengang 11:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose too noisy --Pudelek 21:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Agree, some film grain visible. Uploaded new version with some noise reduction applied (present filename / link is new version) --Siebengang 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   carol 03:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment As said before, the present version is much better concerning noise and the only opposing comment refers to an old version of the image. --Siebengang 16:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps re-nominate the improved version. -- carol (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:SchwebfliegeMorgentau4.JPG

• Nomination: Schwebfliege --Böhringer 21:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Review
•  Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 09:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Can't promote without ID, sorry. Lycaon 16:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Category:Parasyrphus annulatus gut so? --Böhringer 13:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw Eusebius 11:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Icicles Partnachklamm rb.jpg

• Nomination Icicles --Richard Bartz 03:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Neutral I'm ambivalent on this. It's a good photo, but I don't really like the bit on the left. IMO it's not good enough to promote, but not bad enough to decline. Mattbuck 15:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think you should have remained neutral and not sent this to CR. --Eusebius 12:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support a tiny bit noisy, but impressive detail and DOF --Ianare 18:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 21:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Aachen Cathedral North View at Evening.jpg

• Nomination Aachen Cathedral, north facade. -- Aleph 15:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Good point of view, but too much shadows on the trees and the cathedral. -- MJJR 19:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

  As this is a north facade, there never is more light. You have to wait for evening at summer, until the sun lights this part of the cathedral. You can check other images, if you like. -- Aleph 21:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

  I understand your problem, but nevertheless the shadows are too disturbing for a QI qualification IMO. MJJR 17:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  Is your screen adjusted correctly? You can clearly see in the histogram that there are no underexposed areas. In fact, the opposite is the case: There is a small amount of overexposure. -- -- Aleph 13:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   Comment Nobody said it was underexposed, only that the shadows were distracting. --Eusebius 14:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose I agree, this might be one of those candidates for cloudy days. It will be a bit more flat, but the light will be even. Dori 03:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 21:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Episkop BW 1.JPG

• Nomination Episcope --Berthold Werner 16:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
  
•  Support There is too much space at the sides, but not enough at the top. But overall, it's well done. -- Aleph 15:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Too tight crop at the top. Also, for a studio shot could be sharper. A good picture anyhow, but I'm not sure if it is worth a QI stamp. --Siipikarja 22:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Fine by me. Diti 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 13:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Israel Masada BW 12.JPG

• Nomination Masada, Columbarium --Berthold Werner 07:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Ok in my opinion. -- Aleph 14:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Is there a name for the columbarium? The white balance seems to be bit off, i.e. the sky is reddish. --Siipikarja 22:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment The columbarium has no name and it's an assumption that it is was a columbarium. Colours corrected. --Berthold Werner 08:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment White balance still looks a bit out to me. Red channel is a bit over exposed. Also there is a strange edit artifact on the left hand edge: a couple of bricks down the wall there is a oddly coloured grey bit (view at 100%), perhaps an accidental edit. --Tony Wills 11:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 13:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Reflections of Earth 11.jpg

• Nomination The Reflections of Earth fireworks at Walt Disney World. --Bdesham 04:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
  
•  Oppose Blurry image, also please rotate clockwise -Dmottl 10:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've rotated the image. I don't think it's blurry… which part of the photo are you referring to? --Bdesham 03:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment. Thank you Bdesham. I think houses can be somewhat sharper, sorry. --Dmottl 22:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I've improved the sharpness down at the bottom of the picture. --Bdesham 22:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
        • ... like previous - not much difference, imho. It is rather difficult to take sharp images at night :) --Dmottl 22:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   Lycaon 14:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

File:Sea Mills bridge rust2.jpg

• Nomination: A rusty bridge over the River Trym in Bristol. Mattbuck 00:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Review
•  Support Looks good, can't find any faults. Dori 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose low resolution for this image size --Dmottl 21:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment You're opposing because the file size is too large? It's the file size the camera took it at, so I would assume it is the right file size. Maybe it's because of detail in the rust there aren't many commonalities to allow easy compression. Mattbuck 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment A little detail, I think -- Dmottl 10:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> Draw -- Lycaon 14:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

File:Larus_delawarensis_flight_4.jpg

• Nomination Larus delawarensis in flight. --Ianare 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
  
•  Oppose There is significant overexposure. Dori 03:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good shot --Dmottl 15:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Overexposure in the neck of the gull, but overall a quality image. --Siipikarja 23:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support A bit unsharp, but very nice! Diti 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- carol 13:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Grenoble - Saint-Louis - orgue.jpg

• Nomination Organ of the church Saint-Louis in Grenoble. --Eusebius 17:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Organs are often difficult to shoot. Think it's ok --Berthold Werner 15:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Its not good sharpness. And, I don't like this composition what is cut off ground and arch tip. _Fukutaro 15:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The same reasons what Fukutaro said. --Siipikarja 13:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 13:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Snow RB.jpg

• Nomination Snow --Richard Bartz 03:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Yawn.[2] -- carol 04:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
   Comment Uniqueness etc isn't a requirement for QI, what are the technical faults? --Tony Wills 09:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  If you feel that I mishandled this image, feel free to change it to discuss. -- carol 13:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
   Comment Maybe it should be declined, but it is traditional to state the reasons ;-) --Tony Wills 19:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually remember considering any of the criteria for QIC consideration before (and since) declining this image. -- carol (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose - I have to say I don't think this is a particularly good image. There's not anything technically wrong with it per se, it's just... not that good. Mattbuck 16:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I just don't get your point here. It is a nice still life photograph, image quality is good. The composition could be a bit less centered, but we are not talking about Featured Pictures here. -- Aleph 14:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not enough detail, should have more DOF IMO. Dori 03:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Neutral What Mattbuck said. --Siipikarja 23:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- carol 13:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Mattbuck says moreless nothing and this smells like arbitrariness. Starting deciding based on a subjective impression is a strange trend - if you haven't a concrete opinion then you dont need to put in your two cents. If you think it's boring or you can't do anything with it then remain neutral. I mean what's wrong with the picture ? It's simply snow - no banging landscape panorama, maybe not entertaining but this isn't a entertainment channel here. It displays snow in a very minimalistic way. You can even look beneath and the shadows are very fine. There are hundred of QI pictures with a centered composition --Richard Bartz 01:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
   Comment This is not an entertainment channel here, you're right. This is an educational channel. From Commons upload form: "Wikimedia Commons is for educational or informational content." Commons already has plenty of pictures from snow. Now, what does this picture contribute? As Tony Wills pointed out earlier, uniqueness is not a requirement for a QI. I don't see any technical flaws in the picture, so I change my vote to neutral. But from my point of view, the picture still has little or no educational/informational content. --Siipikarja (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It shows a state which is called crusted snow a layer of snow on the surface of the snowpack that is stronger than the snow below, which may be powder snow. So I can't see a reason why it should be useless, moreover it's inventive packaged for such a dry subject . --Richard Bartz 15:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Fair enough. Please add the information you provided to the description template of the image. When someone needs an image of crusted snow, he/she will find your image easier. --Siipikarja 15:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose DOF, colours --Mbdortmund 01:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: the last oppose does not count as it was added after the 48 hours, however, the outcome would have been the same with or without it. -- carol (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Gyejoksan Fortress.jpg

• Nomination Gyejoksan Fortress --YooChung 04:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline * I would decline, because the colour of the sky does not look realistic to me. But I'd like another opinion here. --Aleph 15:18, 29 January 2009
•  Oppose Nice picture. But it seems that the sky was manipulated, which caused JPEG artifacts. -- MJJR 19:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

  The sky wasn't manipulated, although I did notice the sky being unnaturally clear and blue. I just attributed it to being early in the morning with very clear skies. On the other hand, I may have raised the saturation a bit too much ... -- YooChung 15:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  I believe you when you say the sky wasn't manipulated, but the problem of the JPEG artifacts in the transition zone between the darker and the lighter blue remains. MJJR 17:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment - You should consider taking your photographs in RAW format rather than in jpeg format. Then tune the white balance manually on your computer. You will achieve much better results then. -- Aleph 14:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oversaturated image --Dmottl 10:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose, oversaturated --Siipikarja (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Siipikarja 11:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Butterfly portrait.jpg

• Nomination Butterfly portrait --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 17:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose Not identified. Lycaon 20:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Lycaon 11:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  QuestionHans, what are the silvery 2 dots underneath the eyes, left and right of the snout? --Richard Bartz 01:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Now identified and updated the description page --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 04:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support i like this angle, usually not seen in butterfly pictures. nice job! --Ianare 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support this is good for QI --Böhringer 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbdortmund 23:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Siipikarja 11:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Równica drogowskaz na szczycie p.jpg

• Nomination Równica - Trail signs, Beskid Śląski, Poland Przykuta 08:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
   Oppose I quote Mattbuck from another image as it is what I think of this image: "I have to say I don't think this is a particularly good image. There's not anything technically wrong with it per se, it's just... not that good." --Siipikarja 14:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
   Comment Please state a concrete reason --Richard Bartz 15:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
   Comment Concrete reason: it does not please my eye. Should have narrower DOF to bring out the subject from the background. --Siipikarja 15:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 07:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Trier Kaiserthermen BW 1.JPG

• Nomination Imperial Baths (Kaiserthermen) in Trier --Berthold Werner 13:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
   Oppose Judging from the vertical lines, the image should be rotated clockwise. Interesting subject, anyhows. --Siipikarja 15:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  Corrected. --Berthold Werner 17:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
   Comment Changed my vote. Although I must say, that the image still seems a little bit inclined. Since you've probably checked that it is not inclined, it must be only an illusion that the wall limiting the field creates. --Siipikarja 10:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

 Support --Mbdortmund 00:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 07:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Hypernova in Ružomberok.jpg

• Nomination Hypernova hypermarket in Ružomberok, Slovakia --Pudelek 13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
   Oppose Subject too dark. --Siipikarja 14:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
   Comment this is NIGHT --Pudelek 15:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
   Comment Sure it is, but the subject is still too dark. --Siipikarja 15:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 07:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Vlkolínec - houses.JPG

• Nomination Vlkolínec - historically a separate village, now part of Ružomberok. Since 1993 is part of the UNESCO World Heritage. --Pudelek 10:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Comment Please geocode. --Siipikarja 14:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Info done --Pudelek 15:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks. --Siipikarja 15:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very natural. --Manco Capac 15:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 07:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Pisaura mirabilis on Plantago lanceolata.jpg

• Nomination Nursery web spider (Pisaura mirabilis) on Ribwort Plantain(Plantago lanceolata) in lurking stance --Richard Bartz 23:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support has the long legs :-I --Böhringer 07:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
   Comment Good use of DOF, strange composition. --Siipikarja 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
   Comment Adding to my previous comment: not using the rule of thirds, yet not centered. --Siipikarja 14:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
   Comment The textbook, yes - working on a 3x3 grid is the only satisfaction ? Cheese, joy and pancake. Can you show me a rule of thirds on this picture, please ? --> How about tension and artistic freedom ? --Richard Bartz 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
   Neutral The rule exists, because photos composed conforming to the rule please eye. Not the other way around i.e. photos should conform to the rule just for the sake of the rule. Anyhow, I would center the subject in this picture because there is too much space on the left side. --Siipikarja 10:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
   Comment About this picture: , there is no rule of thirds, but we're not evaluating that picture. --Siipikarja 10:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

 Comment It's OK - let's be piky --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Good DOF, quality, background. A perfect QI and also a good FPC --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 20:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 07:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Livorno Monumento Leopoldo II Piazza XX Settembre 2.jpg

• Nomination Monument for Leopold II, Grand Duke of Tuscany, Livorno, Italy--Lucarelli 01:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
  

 Neutral Slight chromatic aberration is visible. Could use lower depth of field to bring attention to the main subject. Composition is good. --Siipikarja 13:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)  Support Interesting --Manco Capac 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 07:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

• Nomination: Ducal palace in Dijon. Maybe better crops can be suggested, this is the widest I can provide. --Eusebius 21:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Review
•  Info replaced by a better crop. --Eusebius 07:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I think I would promote it except for the green/purple chromatic aberration seen down the sides of black objects like the downpipes and flag-poles (moving to discuss so that it doesn't drop off the bottom of QIC)--Tony Wills 10:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> draw --Eusebius 22:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Echeveria setosaCRH.JPG

• Nomination Mexican Fire Cracker (Echeveria setosa) --IvanTortuga 06:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
  
•  Oppose Only about half of the image is in focus. Cropping it down to the useable parts (in particular the large plant just to the left of center) would be greatly beneficial. --Jonny-mt 15:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support original photo (not croped) dated 06:53, 5 February 2009. Disagree with Berthold Werner about "useable parts" -- Dmottl 20:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I haven't said anything about this photograph!? --Berthold Werner 09:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support both versions, prefer original one --Dmottl 09:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support original photo as well (shallow DOF provides bokeh framing) Notjake13 21:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 09:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I don't disagree that shallow DOF can be very beneficial for framing, but this seems like too much frame to me. I think the two plants that are in focus are sharp and beautifully rendered, but in my view the significant amount of bokeh surrounding them distracts from what should be the subject(s) of the picture. The user was kind enough to upload a cropped version here that I like immensely. (It also takes care of the odd black protrusion in the top left corner of the image.) --Jonny-mt 11:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose What Jonny-mt said. I like the cropped version better. The top left corner dark thing should not be there. --Siipikarja 13:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment So there are two supports for this one and two supports for the cropped? Or just two supports and two opposes? --IvanTortuga 18:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment This chaos should be moved to consensual review --Richard Bartz 18:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Pure white overexposed highlights disturb. Lycaon 08:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 11:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ružomberok wieczorem1.jpg

• Nomination Ružomberok in the evening --Pudelek 13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
   Comment A bit blueish. --Siipikarja 14:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Distracting distortion, I agree that the chosen colour temperature is too cold (although it could serve a purpose here). --Eusebius 08:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 11:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:OP-Pohjola HQ January 31 2009.jpg

• Nomination A corporate HQ in Helsinki, Finland. --Siipikarja 22:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
  
•  OpposeSky is too noisy for me, and there are dust spots. --Eusebius 21:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
   Done Removed noise and dust spots from the sky. Fortuitously this also reduced the file size from 6.58 MB to 4.71 MB. Thanks for your feedback. --Siipikarja 00:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Perspective distortion. I can't find not a single horizontal line, nor a vertical. How about keystone correction ? --Richard Bartz 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
   Support --Dmottl 08:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
   Done You're right Richard, there was a perspective distortion. I did a keystone correction, but left the vertical lines still slightly tilted since making them dead vertical made the building look like ice cream cone -shaped. By the way, thanks for introducing me the term keystone correction. --Siipikarja 12:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome --Richard Bartz 13:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

 Comment without keystone correction looks better for me --null 17:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

 Comment That's what I think also. With the correction the building does not look natural. Perhaps I overdid the correction? What do you think? --Siipikarja 22:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

 Comment After having a second look at the image, I decided to revert the keystone correction. The picture might have a perspective distortion, but the building looks more natural without the correction. This is quite a challenging image as what comes to perspective: straight lines with perpendicular planes shot from a difficult angle. --Siipikarja 10:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Quality looks good, and I have absolutely no problem with natural perspective in this picture. --Eusebius 08:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 11:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Larus_delawarensis_flight_2.jpg

• Nomination Larus delawarensis in flight. --Ianare 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Very nice! --Lucarelli 23:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't think it's as sharp as it should be. Dori 03:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Larus_delawarensis_flight_4.jpg (upper photo) is better --Dmottl 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support not perfect, but I like colours and composition --Mbdortmund 01:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as Dori. Lycaon 14:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I understand the opposes, but I think it is good enough. I especially like the point of view we have on the bird, and the composition. --Eusebius 08:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 11:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:La foire de Beaucroissant.JPG

• Nomination La foire de Beaucroissant, by Théodore Ravanat. --Eusebius 22:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Comment Ouch, looks very dark now that I've switched to another monitor... Neither is calibrated, so if somebody wants to adjust levels, feel free. --Eusebius 08:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Not a work by a common'er. Lycaon 10:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  Seems to have precedents :-o. Lycaon 12:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Decline. Distorted, and some rather annoying reflections on the right. Mattbuck 15:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  OK about the reflections, but not ok about the distortions, the canvas is not rectangular: I based myself on a metallic rectangular frame, just outside the picture. Not QI anyway, I guess. --Eusebius 15:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support We are evaluating how well the painting is reproduced, so buckled frame and dark colours are probably a correct reproduction. --Tony Wills 11:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Dmottl 07:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 11:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Den-sorte-diamant.jpg

• Nomination Harbourside facade shot of Royal Library, Copenhagen --Pbn-dk 01:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
  
•  Oppose Blown sky. Lycaon 08:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  CommentPlease explain. The guidelines say that "details in a significant part of image" should be retained, which they are. --Pbn-dk 13:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Barrel distortion in the wall at the lower part of the image. --Siipikarja 21:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 08:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:October Revolution celebration 1983.png

• Nomination Soviet tanks on parade in 1983 --High Contrast 11:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
  
•  Support Super! -- Villa16 17:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Definitely valuable, maybe some kind of wow factor, but no QI for technical reasons (spots due to scanning or to aging photo paper, people in the foreground). --Eusebius 18:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very interesting picture, but sadly the small scratches and spots make this a non-QI. --Siipikarja 17:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 08:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ružomberok - night.jpg

• Nomination Ružomberok by night (in the background industrial area) --Pudelek 09:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
  
•  Support Very nice - good contrast between the fore and back. Mattbuck 12:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Should be geocoded. For the small size the lacking of sharpness on the borders, the overblown exposure on the wall on the right side (as well the lightsources) and the noise value isn't acceptable. --Richard Bartz 23:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment where is noisy and unsharp? --Pudelek 09:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment On the edge region left and the upper half --Richard Bartz 10:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Richard. Lycaon 08:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overexposed wall on the right side. --Siipikarja 17:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 08:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Cam-based analog computer.jpg

• Nomination Cam-based analog computer indication device --Twdragon 13:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
  
•  Oppose DOF looks too narrow to me (why so long a focale?) and I think the bottom crop is too tight. --Eusebius 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Agree - bottom crop is too tight, nevertheless - support --Dmottl 21:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much CA for me, even the shadows colour magenta left and greenish right. Lycaon 08:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Magenta" is from one color decomposition and "Green"ish is from another. Could you choose one color model or another whence critiquing? -- carol (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I could but here one side is definite the other 'ish. Lycaon 16:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Chromatic aberration, especially in the leftmost vertical dark rod. --Siipikarja 17:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 08:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Kungstradgarden-Karl-XII.jpg

• Nomination Royal statue in central Stockholm with comic effects --Pbn-dk 01:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
  
•  Oppose Blown sky. Lycaon 08:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Please explain. The guidelines say that "details in a significant part of image" should be retained, which they are. --Pbn-dk 13:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Also the statue has overexposed parts. A QI has to be technically (near) perfect. Lycaon 18:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 11:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Cabin at Allegany State Park.jpg

• Nomination A cabin at Allegany State Park in New York. --Bdesham 18:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
  
•  Oppose Chromatic aberration. --Siipikarja 14:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've reduced the aberration, could you please re-review? --Bdesham 03:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Re-reviewed. I changed my vote to neutral. --Siipikarja 11:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral The snow in front of and on top of the cabin may be overexposed, have you tried to reduce brightness from these zones? --Siipikarja 10:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've retrieved a lot of detail from the snow… how does it look now? --Bdesham 17:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • A lot better. I stay neutral with this one. --Siipikarja 22:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - QI for me --Pudelek 21:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 11:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Spider Wasp 01.jpg

• Nomination Small spider wasp up close, side view --Tony Wills 11:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
  
•  Support a good Pic --Böhringer 07:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Needs a better id than just the family. The whole pic is about the wasp! Lycaon 23:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

   Comment Yes surely it does, but where do I get one from? Unfortunately it turns out there are not dozens of experts on NZ beasties :-(. I suspect that the best way to get a name for a lot of NZ species is to name them myself (might have to study for a few years to get some credibility :-). I know there are lots of undescribed spiders, it now appears that many sites that attach species names to pictures of NZ flies may not be very precise (see File talk:Fly feeding on fly 01.jpg). So far I have only managed to get acknowledgement that these photos are indeed pompilidae but no one yet is willing to give a more specific diagnosis. Lastly QI criteria state "This should include the Taxa naming for organisms" - the image meets this requirement ;-) --Tony Wills 11:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

   Comment should IMHO be cropped --Mbdortmund 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

   Info Nearest I can find is Priocnemis conformis --Tony Wills 01:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 Comment I would only put a specific name if I was convinced. In this case family may not suffice but genus might. Insects can be very difficult, but surely there must be some specialists around. Look up the genus/family on Google Scholar and check out who is currently heading the field;then send them a mail. That's what I e.g. did for this file. You can't know them all. I don't feel pity for those that say: "I'm not a botanist" or "I don't know anything about 17th century architecture". I you don't kow, ask. Just my 2 €-cents. Lycaon 08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Neutral The foreground gray blurry area is disturbing. --Siipikarja 17:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

 Comment This is her life raft, the wasp was standing on a small floating (semi-submerged) block of sawn wood which it had managed to climb onto from the water. I lifted it out of the water so the wasp could dry out properly. --Tony Wills 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 10:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 12:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Details are good, but the distracting foreground ruins it for me. --Relic38 16:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  Already closed, sorry. --Eusebius 18:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Vitznau-Rigibahn-Elektrische Motorwagen.JPG

• Nomination Electric motor coach in Switzerland --High Contrast 16:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Nice composition, however, minor objections are cut tower and a dust spot at the right of it in the sky, more important is the overexposed snow. -- Klaus with K 20:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support in my opinion is ok --Pudelek 23:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Significant overexposure (details lost in the snowy parts), very visible dust spot. --Eusebius 08:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Same reasons that Klaus with K mentioned. --Siipikarja 17:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 13:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Tagebau Garzweiler Panorama 2005.jpg

• Nomination Panorama of open-pit mining Garzweiler, Germany (created by Raymond) --D-Kuru 00:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
  
•  Oppose Mediocre quality, washed out details, blown sky to the right. Lycaon 08:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The "washed out details" are due to thermical flicker which is caracteristic for an open pit mine of this size. Image meets the criteria in any aspect. Furthermore, the image gives an excellent impression of the dimensions of open pit coal mining. --High Contrast 09:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• That would make it an FP and possibly a VI but not necessarily a QI. Lycaon 07:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Hard to vote against an FP, but I agree with Lycaon. The over exposed sky should not be there. --Siipikarja 17:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 13:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Vlkolínec - socha.JPG

• Nomination: Vlkolínec - historically a separate village, now part of Ružomberok. Since 1993 is part of the UNESCO World Heritage. --Pudelek 10:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• WARNING: third template parameter added – please remove.

Trains

• Nomination Trains --Simonizer 17:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Good composition, but the sky is overexposed. --Siipikarja 10:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Sorry but the sky is not overexposed. Its wasnt a day with a blue sky when I took the picture. It was a very hazy day. There are some minor highlights in the snow but not in the sky. Other opinions please --Simonizer 16:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment The sky may not be pure white (#FFFFFF), but it is very close to it. It is distractingly bright. Since it is not overexposed, it should be possible to make the sky darker by simply adjusting the brightness / contrast. --Siipikarja 17:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment It looks better if you increase the contrast. --Jolly Janner 17:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 09:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Sol de Manana Stevage.jpg

• Nomination Geyser in Sol de Mañana --High Contrast 09:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Comment Noisy sky, rocks a bit unsharp. --Eusebius 09:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  Is it pro or a con? --High Contrast 07:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  Con for me, but not an oppose. --Eusebius (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then the Running total is 2 pro, 1 oppose, then, isn't it? --High Contrast 09:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Eusebius 09:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Only very small noise and sharpness of the rocks is ok in my opinion. I would promote it for QI --Simonizer 09:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very cool image and the noise is not distracting at reasonable review sizes. J.smith 18:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overprocessed, possibly in-camera. Lycaon 20:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 09:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose oversaturated Colors seem unnatural. --Siipikarja (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  Closed already. --Eusebius 11:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ilay_lake.jpg

• Nomination Ilay Lake, in the Jura Mountains, France --Stephanemartin 19:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support I like it (composition and colours), even though (because?) most of it is black or very dark. --Eusebius 08:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose At 1.47Mp, this image does not meet the minimum size requirements of 2Mp --Relic38 16:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose True, sorry about that. --Eusebius 13:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 09:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Liquid-filled-lensatic-compass-hdr-0a.jpg

• Nomination Liquid filled lensatic compass. --Adamantios 10:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Withdrawn
  
•  Support All ok. --Berthold Werner 14:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  
•  Comment I think I can see dust spots on the inside of the cap. --Jolly Janner 20:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  I Think it's on the compass itself !? --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think there is lots of dust on the compass itself, but there are two dust spots on the camera lens, which have resulted in two discoloured circles on the inside of the cap. Jolly Janner 12:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Is this an oppose? ;-) --Berthold Werner 15:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• For the moment. You can probably remove the dust spots using a tool. I might try it myself, if I'm allowed to. I'd much rather see an image improved rather than opposing it. I will support it if they are removed. Jolly Janner 15:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support --Mbdortmund 23:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Dust spots should be removed. --Siipikarja 11:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   Siipikarja 11:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination I'll take another shot and nominate again. Danke für die Unterstützung! adamantios (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Pavillon Aubette.jpg

• Nomination Schuppen slate roof in Strasbourg. --Coyau 20:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
  
•  SupportLooks alright. Darkoneko 23:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overexposed sky and window at the bottom. --Siipikarja 00:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Sky was very grey and homogenous. --Coyau 12:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support In my view it's OK: high sharpness level outbalanced (for me) --High Contrast 13:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 08:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Air Canada B767-300ER (C-FTCA) @ YUL, Feb 2009.jpg

• Nomination Air Canada Boeing 767-300ER. --Phil13 20:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
  
•  Support OK --Coyau 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Notyourbroom and Siipikarja are rignt. Can't be a QI without noise removal. --Coyau 15:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I see a lot of noise that could be smoothed out digitally... Especially if this is accepted, Phil13 should look into cleaning it up a bit. --Notyourbroom 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Yes, removing the noise from the sky would make the picture better. --Siipikarja 10:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Noise removed. Lycaon 18:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support - yeah, sure, why not. Mattbuck 18:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support No problem now. --Coyau 18:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It's all good. --Siipikarja 21:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 11:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Bergrettungsheim Brüggelekopf 1.JPG

• Nomination Mountain rescue home --Böhringer 19:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support It is such a beautiful image pure and white! Thank you for uploading it.--Mbz1 22:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Beautiful, but lens flare should not be there. --Siipikarja 21:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  Unsigned comment, does not count (please sign). --Eusebius (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

   Done Sorry about that. --Siipikarja 21:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose It is a really nice picture, but the lens flare is just too strong.--PieCam 03:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 21:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)