Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 2011

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

Contents

Consensual review[edit]

File:Beavertail Lighthouse from southeast.JPG[edit]

Beavertail Lighthouse from southeast.JPG

  • Nomination Beavertail Lighthouse in Rhode Island. Juliancolton 21:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good --George Chernilevsky 21:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp. The clouds at top are disturbing. Rule of thirds--Lmbuga 01:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Rule of thirds would lead to 75% of empty water. Central composition is more much appropriate here. Juliancolton 23:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Lmbuga, need to be crop --Chmee2 09:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

File:35 East Wacker.JPG[edit]

35 East Wacker.JPG

  • Nomination 35 East Wacker Chicago --Antoinetav 20:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To me, it's impossible the correction of the perspective distortion--Lmbuga 22:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, but in this case the distortion adds to the mood, in my opinion--Jebulon 11:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The distortion is too strong. We can not accept the one that we refuse to others. Dura lex ...--Archaeodontosaurus 14:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Perspective correction is easy here, and will make the photo better and highlight the main subject.--Ankara 17:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective distortion--Lmbuga 10:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Citrus_sinensis_close-up.jpg[edit]

Citrus sinensis close-up.jpg

  • Nomination Citrus sinensis --Ankara 15:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too much background noise and spot --Archaeodontosaurus 15:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Film grain is part of the image.--Ankara 16:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Requires a second positive vote to request the discussion. --Archaeodontosaurus 17:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. Uploader can request a discussion, and you can change without voting. --Ankara 17:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm sorry I misunderstood, and I made my excuses. --Archaeodontosaurus 18:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Archaeodontosaurus, plus the orange is unsharp in wide areas. -- H005 19:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I guess this film grain would be OK for Life Magazine 40 years ago, but today, with numeric technology or better film, QIs must be better than that. Less than 2 megapixels. Too small depth of field. Letartean 20:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    It is a matter of taste, if you prefer digital images with noise (or noise reduction that removes details) or film grain. It's not about quality. Lack of sharpness is a valid objection , and short DOF. IMO its not too small depth of field.--Ankara 21:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    I agree with you on matter of taste but if I ask myself what is the subject of this picture, my anwser would be: an orange. Then, it's not an orange from the seventies or an orange with noise, etc... QI pictures are pictures of things or places or people that are of good quality. In this case, it's front part is out of focus and back part is ok. This shows that it would need a larger depth of field to show a greater part of the fruit in focus. The picture also has to be larger than 2 megapixels which it is not. Overall, it is not of a good enough quality and if you compare to this or that you'll see that it could get better with another try. Hope it gets clearer and hope you'll try again and don't stop proposing pictures. Letartean 21:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for your kind explanation. Best regards--Ankara 21:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

File:F-16 cockpit.JPG[edit]

F-16 cockpit.JPG

  • Nomination The cockpit section of an F-16 fuselage. Photo takem by myself. --Airwolf 22:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not airwolf's usual quality, upper parts show no details --Mbdortmund 23:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not so bad IMO. Please let's discuss.--Jebulon 10:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed. Pitke 15:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Overexposed. Mattbuck 10:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Taj_Mahal,_Agra,_India_edit2.jpg[edit]

Taj Mahal, Agra, India edit2.jpg

  • Nomination Taj Mahal by Yann. --Jovianeye 06:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion *Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 13:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per here --Carschten 20:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Bin schwer von kapé, gönn uns doch mal einen Satz.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is surprising to see that edit 2 which is FP is not a QI whereas the original version is QI. IMO, the original version should delisted as QI and edit2 should be promoted! --JovianEye (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • imho both can be QI --Berthold Werner 15:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality IMO. --George Chernilevsky 11:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support By cropping you can do both IMO: spoil a QI picture, or correct composition and make a non-QI picture a QI worth. QI should not be given automaticly to derivatives, but it should not be forbidden to add QI seal to it. --sfu (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 18:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Karlsbodavägen_december_2010.jpg[edit]

Karlsbodavägen december 2010.jpg

  • Nomination Newly built residential building in Ulvsunda industrialområde. --Ankara 12:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Are the buildings leaning out from eachother in a slight v-shape in reality (seen from this position) or is it due to perspective correction? --V-wolf 08:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC) I added geocode, you can compare with the map. Perspective correction was very small here, there was basically nothing wrong with the original image.--Ankara 10:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I changed status to "discuss", to hear the others' opinions.--V-wolf 07:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Appears ok to me. --Cayambe 12:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 18:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Estpresident 1c300 8847.jpg[edit]

Estpresident 1c300 8847.jpg

  • Nomination Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia. Photo by Janwikifoto. --Wolfgangus Mozart 09:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Image is created not by a wikimedian as required for a QI, besides, the flashlight shadow is disturbing. Mbdortmund 12:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    There is a User:Janwikifoto, in fact. Airwolf 18:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)*the text signed by me comes from another user, perhaps he had JS turned of and an edit of mine transformed it into my nick. --Mbdortmund 00:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Important artifact in the middle of the bottom edge. --Archaeodontosaurus 09:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Népouite MHNT.MIN.2005.0.63.jpg[edit]

Népouite MHNT.MIN.2005.0.63.jpg

*Sorry, but the black background has a problem. There is lighter line. Also in left-down part of stone is strange border between minerals and black colour. Not QI now. --Chmee2 10:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportThank you for fixing, you have my support now --Chmee2 07:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Makele-90 03:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Makele-90 03:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Peterskirche Blansingen.jpg[edit]

Peterskirche Blansingen.jpg

  • Nomination Blansingen: Church St. Peter --Taxiarchos228 11:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. --Cayambe 12:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The vertical lines are not vertical.--Lmbuga 13:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose spective distortion --Archaeodontosaurus 13:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support imo a good one --Mbdortmund 23:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose distortion and perspective can be corrected. --Jovianeye 05:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Cayambe 08:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Estuaire de la Gironde - Arklow Ruler.jpg[edit]

Estuaire de la Gironde - Arklow Ruler.jpg

  • Nomination Green boat. --Coyau 03:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough --Chmee2 09:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor compositions & the ship coincides with the background --Tlusťa 17:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry. To me, it's not QI, perhaps good, but not QI: too much noise and color noise (sky). I don`t like the color of the sky (to me, not natural, but it is a personal idea). Too tight crop at right and at left, not sharp enough. As Tlusťa--Lmbuga 22:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Sorry I nominated this is ugly photo. --Coyau 06:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:LindauInsel.jpg[edit]

LindauInsel.jpg

  • Nomination Insel Lindau --Böhringer 20:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Good --George Chernilevsky 08:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)}
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose totaly blurred --Taxiarchos228 11:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful, but as Taxiarchos228--Lmbuga 22:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 08:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-02-02-salb-otan-1.jpg[edit]

2011-02-02-salb-otan-1.jpg

  • Nomination Operations room in an old NATO base. --ComputerHotline 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --Taxiarchos228 11:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not QI to me. Bad quality. Noised. Focus? But perhaps I am not right--Lmbuga 21:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose much too dark and poor cloning with errors and different focussed single farmes (for both see image notes) --Carschten 21:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not properly lit. --Eusebius 22:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 22:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Bushman's Paradise at Spitzkoppe 28.06.2008 11-06-56.jpg[edit]

Bushman's Paradise at Spitzkoppe 28.06.2008 11-06-56.jpg

  • Nomination Landscape in Namibia by Hansueli Krapf. --Bartiebert 18:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion * Symbol support vote.svg SupportSehr schön, heißer Kandidat für exzellente Bilder / features Pictures --Taxiarchos228 19:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's really nice image, however obviously it's panorama and they are several problems fitting each images together. I will mark these problematic zones like "double borders" of stones etc. Please, try to fix it, but not QI now. --Chmee2 20:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's fixed now. Thanks, QI --Chmee2 06:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. I don't really like the crop on the right side though. --Eusebius 22:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 22:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Kuhmar sdd 9400.jpg[edit]

Kuhmar sdd 9400.jpg

  • Nomination Sanatorium orphanage at Kukhmar, near Pereslavl, Russia. --PereslavlFoto 16:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the composition, see the car there in the back. Moreover the lightning is not pleasant, drastic changes between light and shadow allover, perhaps it was not the best time of the day to take the picture. --Gaendalf 18:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
IMHO the lightning shows that the scene is quiet, that's the main idea.--PereslavlFoto 21:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I do respect your opinion, but I don't share it. I don't perceive that through the lightning. I know the composition is not easy in this particular case because of the location. I do like the color of the building itself. It's a difficult shot, though! --Gaendalf 00:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown highlights on the main subject. --Eusebius 21:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 21:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz_F_700_3_amk.jpg[edit]

Mercedes-Benz F 700 3 amk.jpg

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz F 700 --AngMoKio 14:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNot enough space on the left, and I generally don't like the composition. Mattbuck 10:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg SupportImo QI --Mbdortmund 23:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight... Not enough space on the left, as Mattbuck--Lmbuga 21:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To me, in addition, too tight crop at right--Lmbuga 21:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Significant noise (and denoising?), composition really not interesting. --Eusebius 21:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 23:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Schloss Chambord nachts 2.JPG[edit]

Schloss Chambord nachts 2.JPG

  • Nomination France: Château de Chambord --Taxiarchos228 11:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 13:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lateral vertical lines are not vertical. Too much noise (sky). Not natural colors (yelows of the windows, blue of the sky). To me it's not QI--Lmbuga 19:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice mood, but the chateau is too dark IMHO, and Lmbuga isn't wrong either. -- H005 19:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good quality and useful Antoinetav 22:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Really good but perspective on the left side should be corrected, and no, the chateau is not too dark for a night photograph.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pretty picture. --King of Hearts 19:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The lateral vertical lines are not vertical, as in usual life: any vertical line of such building will seem not vertical. Noise has to be removed, but this can be done later (sky, water).--PereslavlFoto 02:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy --Carschten 13:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lmbuga --Chmee2 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, DOF too shallow. --Eusebius 21:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 23:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Close-up_of_Chhatrapati_Shivaji_Terminus.jpg[edit]

Close-up of Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus.jpg

  • Nomination Close-up of Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus --Jovianeye 18:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good quality, except in the top, the statue, but it is normal and it is difficult to do it better--Lmbuga 20:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, leaning to oppose Good, but the fact that the picture is not taken in the axis is a bit disturbing. --Eusebius 22:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment looks overexposed to me, I think there's missing some contrast. Shuold be fixed before it becomes QI. --Carschten 10:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I've reduced the brightness level. (make sure to purge the cache of your browser)--JovianEye (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 18:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Image:Dana Reserve 02.jpg[edit]

Dana Reserve 02.jpg

  • Nomination Landscape in Dana Biosphere Reserve, Jordan --Bgag 18:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol support vote.svg SupportQI for me --Gaendalf 00:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Details are really not good. Too strong denoising, I would say. --Eusebius 22:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have only denoised the sky. --Bgag 15:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm afraid the processor of your camera did the rest... --Eusebius 18:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon 23:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 18:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Florian Schroeder.jpg[edit]

Florian Schroeder.jpg

  • Nomination Kabarett artists Florian Schroeder --Taxiarchos228 08:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Below the line good; slightly image noise. --BlackIceNRW 10:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it's more than slightly IMO. --Sfu 15:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Sfu, the IMO is very visible --Gaendalf 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC) see comment below
  • (strong) Symbol support vote.svg Support OMG, noise by an indoor portrait with a visible bad stage lighting. I wanna see an image with similar conditions which doesn't have noise (NR excepted). Please change nothing at the image because now it has a reality photo atmosphere and not a photoshopping impact. --Carschten 18:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    So it's perfect for having FP because of WOW factor, I'm not convinced about QI. How did disappear my stupid comment? --Sfu 18:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support typical gesture of the comedian --Mbdortmund 22:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is some software to denoise, then some software to mix layers.--PereslavlFoto 02:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    Pereslav is totally right, perhaps correcting it with NeatImage or even Photoshop --Gaendalf 20:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like it, but noise. It is possible to work the noise, I can do it, if Taxiarchos228 want, but I cannot promise nothing--Lmbuga 22:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New other image. I only can do this, It's not better--Lmbuga 00:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have a new image, in which I think the problem has been solved to acceptable levels, actually the noise was erased quite good. check it here I would support this one. --Gaendalf 00:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Okay, it's more than slightly noisy, but it has enough good points (composition, pose) to make up for that. --Avenue 07:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Alofok 17:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Alofok 17:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Carcasssonne_vieux_pont.jpg[edit]

Carcassonne vieux pont.jpg

  • Nomination Fortified city of Carcassonne and the Pont Vieux crossing the Aude river by Jean-Pierre Lavoie --Berthold Werner 16:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. Some parts a bit noisy (inavoidable I guess), but good overall quality. --Eusebius 20:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unrealistic distortion of the perspective of the bridge. Could be acceptable if alone, but not with the city. Some overexposed areas (the walls)--Jebulon 23:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jebulon--Lmbuga 23:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 00:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Mostar - Stari Most by Pudelek.JPG[edit]

Mostar - Stari Most by Pudelek.JPG

  • Nomination Mostar - Stari Most --Pudelek 10:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, nice shot --Taxiarchos228 10:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why crop the bridge?? This one deserves to be shown in full... --Eusebius 22:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I wonder why you croped your bridge-picture File:Rio bridge - wave 1.jpg that is already a QI. --Taxiarchos228 14:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't pretend my choices to be perfect (or even good in average), but this is just plain blatant bad faith now (in addition to an ad hominem attack). Please look at all my rejected pictures (they're many, you should be pleased) and adapt your reviewing accordingly. This should increase the general level. --Eusebius 18:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposePoor composition. Too tight crop--Lmbuga 23:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 00:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Traube des blauen Spätburgunders.jpg[edit]

Traube des blauen Spätburgunders.jpg

  • Nomination Pinot noir grapes --Taxiarchos228 09:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. Please add locality and geotag to the file description. --Cayambe 11:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Watch your shadow... --Eusebius 22:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad composition. As Eusebius--Lmbuga 23:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 00:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Parkinsonia_wuerttembergica_01.JPG[edit]

Parkinsonia compressa 01.JPG

  • Nomination Parkinsonia wuerttembergica, a Middle Jurassic Ammonite --Llez 17:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol support vote.svg Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 17:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp. --Eusebius 22:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Replaced by a completely new version --Llez 08:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I take the liberty to strike both votes then. --Eusebius 08:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. This version is better.--Archaeodontosaurus 11:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't like it (noise, perhaps detail). I think that for me it's not QI, but I'm not sure--Lmbuga 23:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 00:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:13-34-01-site-plutons.jpg[edit]

13-34-01-site-plutons.jpg

  • Nomination Inside the main building in an old Plutons missiles site, near Bourogne, France. --ComputerHotline 13:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support Also good. The blown opening in the backround appears tolaerable to me.--Chmee2 21:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Sorry, but this is not my review and vote. See history (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AQuality_images_candidates%2Fcandidate_list&action=historysubmit&diff=49018882&oldid=49018475), it only filled my signature, but somebody else make review. --Chmee2 13:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Horizontal composition not adapted in my opinion. Also, no clear subject to me. --Eusebius 22:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Eusebius (portrait compo would be better)--Jebulon 23:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As other above. And overexposed in door (for me it's not a tecnical effect)--Lmbuga 23:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 00:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Gasse Victoria Gozo 2009.JPG[edit]

Gasse Victoria Gozo 2009.JPG

  • Nomination Narrow Street, Victoria, Gozo, Malta. -- Felix Koenig 15:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good. --Cayambe 17:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Incredible. Distortion, strong distortion: You must see the vertical left lines. I can't understand. What can be QI?, all?--Lmbuga 00:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Sorry, but the walls are so in real !!--Jebulon 00:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry, I do not agree --Lmbuga 00:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    But Jebulon's definitely right. That's what's interesting about these buildings. The walls are tilted in real. Felix Koenig 17:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Taxiarchos228 10:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support a joke, lmbuga? Alofok 17:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support There is simply no distortion. Those walls are how they are --High Contrast 19:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg SupportIt would be better without so many shadows and the girls in the back, but definetely a good one!!--Gaendalf 21:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Ok, I'm mistaken --Lmbuga 20:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 09:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Krakau - Ulica Kanonicza.jpg[edit]

Krakau - Ulica Kanonicza.jpg

  • Nomination Kanonicza Street, Cracow --Taxiarchos228 15:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 00:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QI it's not "Pretty Good Images". At right side there is a strong perspective distortion --- ¿? --- --Lmbuga 01:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I am sorry, but you are wrong: there is no distortion but the facades of the buildings are not yet straight. Kanonicza Street and the buildings there belong to the oldes part of Cracow. --Taxiarchos228 07:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Ok Taxiarchos228, sorry, but the inclination, perhaps, must be indicated--Lmbuga 20:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon 15:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Alofok 17:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 21:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Smyčka Podbaba, Tatra T3SUCS na vnější koleji.jpg[edit]

Smyčka Podbaba, Tatra T3SUCS na vnější koleji.jpg

  • Nomination Tatra T3SUCS, Prague — Jagro 23:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 00:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Nice picture, good colors. But the composition ruins it. The vehicle should clearly stand in one of the "interesting points" expressed in the Rule of Thirds. --Gaendalf 04:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The composition seems all right. The rear of the tram and the headlights coincide with the 1/3 grid lines. --JovianEye (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, and therefore your eyes are guided to the rear of the tram instead of the front. IMO, the tram should be located more to the right, so that the front of it coincides with this intersection of lines. --Gaendalf 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice. Alofok 17:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rule of thirds is no dogma. Good colours, good composition. --Alupus 18:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)~
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 17:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Landmannalaugar in summer 2009 (13).jpg[edit]

Landmannalaugar in summer 2009 (13).jpg

  • Nomination Landmannalaugar area, Iceland --Chmee2 21:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Really beautiful!!--Gaendalf 04:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful, but very soft focus, background almost looks painted. --