Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 2012

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:2009-07-27-eberswalde-by-RalfR-24.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eberswalde, Center of Town --Ralf Roletschek 14:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Very nice! DimiTalen 15:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC) A lot of dust spots in the sky to be corrected. Horizon slightly tilted.--Jebulon 15:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC) OK dust spots are corrected, the horizon isn't tilted. --Ralf Roletschek 16:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lots of light spots are still there, imo image has lack of fine detail, horizon looks tilted at both sides because of perspective distortion. --Iifar 06:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info the horizon isn't tilted and i dont distort my pictures. --Ralf Roleček 08:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Honigbiene auf Krokus 4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Apis mellifera on Crokus. --Leibnitz 2610 04:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --S. F. B. Morse 05:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, honeybees are the easiest bees to photograph - they are very common and the least fearful. The sharpness is far from being satisfactory. --Gidip 16:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Gidip.--Jebulon 13:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Gidip & Jebulon. Also less than 2MP. --JDP90 17:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Honigbiene auf Krokus 9.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Apis mellifera on Crokus. --Leibnitz 2610 04:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --S. F. B. Morse 05:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This one is completely blurred! Where exactly is the "good quality"?! --Gidip 16:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose And the background... Well...Per Gidip.--Jebulon 13:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Gidip & Jebulon. Also less than 2MP.--JDP90 17:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Oldfield_Park_railway_station_MMB_08_158958.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 158958 at Oldfield Park. Mattbuck 12:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support This is a good quality image. I have carefully checked copyright information etc too. Everything seems to be fine! --Titodutta 19:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I find it very dark, not so sharp, and a bit noisy. I ask for a discussion, please--Jebulon 10:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    It was evening, so the brightness is fairly accurate I think. Mattbuck 22:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support-It's not that dark and the subject is well focused.--Gauravjuvekar 09:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Kirche Soultz.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of Soultz-sous-Forêts. Felix Koenig 11:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 10:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, nice picture but the are the stitching errors at the right roof. --Moonik 05:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Stitching errors plus light dust spots. See the notes. --Iifar 17:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I tried to repair the errors and removed two spots. There have been some more.--Hic et nunc 22:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Retouched error places are not very nice (distorted geometry), my vote stays the same. --Iifar 16:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO retouched stitching errors could pass, but there are very many dustspots in the sky...--Jebulon 13:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose strange lines and circles around the church in the sky (-> stitching problem). --Carschten 13:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Pierre-Paul_Riquet_by_Bernard_Griffoul-Dorval.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of Pierre-Paul Riquet (1609 - 1680) in Toulouse, realized by Bernard Griffoul-Dorval (1788 - 1861) --PierreSelim 08:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose underexposed / bad light: shady --Carschten 09:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Opinion above a bit too harsh to me. Picture not so bad, this is nor a bronze neither a marble statue. Needs a discussion--Jebulon 10:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Sharpness and composition are very good, but it's a pity it is so dark. That can be fixed, I'll support when it's done. --Kadellar 15:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Carschten--Lmbuga 21:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Basel_-_Antoniuskirche2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Basel: bell tower of Antonius church --Taxiarchos228 07:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Somehow tilted and to much pointless optical noise in the foreground. The other one is way better --Martin Kraft 07:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • nothing tilted here --Taxiarchos228 10:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support nothing is tilted and it's no distorted. --Ralf Roletschek 16:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I find it quite ugly, but that's not your fault. --Kadellar 15:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Ramoji Film City 111.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Inside Ramoji Film City, the World's largest film city. -- JDP90 08:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Tilted. DimiTalen 09:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)I don't know if this picture is good or not, but a tilt is always correctible, and a "decline" vote for this unique reason is a bit strong IMO. Let's wait some days if the nominator will correct it.--Jebulon 15:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    Alright, I suppose you're right. DimiTalen 15:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    I have tried to correct the tilt and re-uploaded the image. --JDP90 16:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC) The perspective should be corrected.--Jebulon 22:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Kirche_St._Jakob_hinten.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Church in Urtijëi--Moroder 22:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment halo --Carschten 15:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Halo has been corrected by Frank Schulenburg --Moroder 10:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Gute Bearbeitung, die nur einen Haken hat, nämlich das die Entrauschung auf das ganze Bild angewendet wurde und die Kirche somit nun unscharf ist. Da müsste noch mal dran geschraubt werden. Ansonsten klare Richtung zu QI. --Carschten 18:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Translation (ungefähr...): if halo, then oversharpened. If no more halo, then unsharp...--Jebulon 01:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded a new version: selective noise reduction (not the church). --Frank Schulenburg 01:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Frank, I did the perspective, I hope now this collective effort to produce some results--Moroder 08:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose useless denoising of the whole image. No version with a selective noise reduction available. --Carschten 19:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Hope OK now Jkadavoor 09:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of fine detail and sharpness. --Iifar 07:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Pisaura_mirabilis_Luc_Viatour.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pisaura mirabilis in Belgium (Hamois). by Luc Viatour --Solar Police 14:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose-Low dof, legs not in focus--Gauravjuvekar 16:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Is it a critical reason? I can see a lot of FPs where extreme body parts are out of focus. --Jkadavoor 07:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, some shortcomings are accepted in FP as they are made up for in WOW factor. There are many FPs of natural phenomena that are lower than 2MP but not QIs because QI is purely technical.--Gauravjuvekar 14:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, this is not a valid criticism (you've written it elsewhere here too). You cannot get the entire body of many creatures in focus without focus stacking. It's absolutely fine.Gidip 07:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 1400x1400 pixels. 1,96 megapixels. Poor detail to me--Lmbuga 09:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with Gidip on DOF. And the only way to add more pixels is to add more space for little creatures like this. I think the problem is macro photographers like me review landscapes and vice versa. :) Jkadavoor 06:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, Jkadavoor, you can use a macro lens like this. See this image with Canon G10 and this macro lens--Lmbuga 09:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Porto_de_Puerto_del_Carmen-8.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Buildings. Port of Puerto del Carmen, Tías, Lanzarote, Spain 8--Lmbuga 19:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn Juraría que está un poco torcida, mira los balcones de la derecha. Por lo demás todo bien, has pillado a la gente en sus balcones in fraganti jje. --Kadellar 14:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No sé qué balcón has mirado. Te agradezco que mires diez balcones y me marques con una nota alguno que esté significativamente torcido con respecto a los demás, indicando al mismo tiempo cuantos has mirado. Yo he encontrado uno torcido, pero he mirado más de diez. ¿Corrijo ese balcón o mantengo lo que aparentan los otros? Yo no veo torcida la imagen. Si tú la ves torcida, yo la corrijo, pero indícame lo que en la imagen es o debería ser "derecho". Indícamelo con una nota--Lmbuga 20:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)}[reply]
    To me the image is not tilted (please, in English: There are other users, but you can speak spanish when you want)--Lmbuga 20:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that this image must be in the discuss zone because there aren't a objection to be QI, but the comments can seem a objection--Lmbuga 00:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Vertical are verticals, and even if the light not optimum, I think it could pass (if the dust spot in the right corner above is removed ;)--Jebulon 14:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I uploaded a new version with the tilt corrected (according to my opinion), so you can see what I mean, and I removed the dust spot. If you prefer yours, just revert, of course. I would like Jebulon to give his opinion as well. --Kadellar 17:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn. I want to remove the dust spot (coming soon) (thanks Jebulon), but the image is to me a problem. I don't see the original image tilted. It's only a image--Lmbuga 23:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dust spot removed. To Kadellar (spanish): Por favor, respeto. Si pregunto donde está torcida una imagen mía, se me puede responder o no responder, pero no se puede actuar contra mi voluntad. Gracias--Lmbuga 23:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jubilee Campus MMB H2 Melton Hall.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panorama of Melton Hall. Mattbuck 12:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support I'm not a panorama expert but this is a striking image. --Saffron Blaze 13:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Notable perspective distortion at both sides. --Iifar 14:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I noted that as well but thought it did not detract significantly from the image quality. Regardless, should be easy to fix. Saffron Blaze 14:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Iifar--Lmbuga 14:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Weiblicher_Akt5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Female art nude --Taxiarchos228 07:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood quality for me, even with the foot cropped. --Kadellar 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposePlease, let's discuss about this cropped foot...--Jebulon 16:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support the cropped foot isn't importnat. Nice and QI for me. --Alchemist-hp 19:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI with the cropped foot, it isn't important. --Ralf Roletschek 06:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment To me, it is...--Jebulon 13:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose cropped foot--Lmbuga 22:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Idem. Alvesgaspar 14:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Idem. --T137 21:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Vidnoe Church of the Nativity of Theotokos 01.jpg

[edit]

File:Litoria fallax qtl1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eastern Dwarf Tree Frog. --Quartl 16:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose noisy, unsharp --Carschten 17:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC) -
  •  Comment I applied some noise reduction. Please note that this is a tiny frog, smaller than your thumbnail. I had to use a very small aperture here to get some dof. --Quartl 17:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Sowas habe ich mir schon gedacht. Mit der Entrauschung sieht es schon besser aus, dennoch wirkt der kleine Frosch nicht wirklich richtig gut fokussiert... Bin mir sicher ob es ein QI ist. --Carschten 18:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Let's discuss, maybe my voting is too harsh. --Carschten 10:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Endearing, but the eyes aren't sharp enough. The image is 1,924 × 1,482 pixels, but the subject is too little to me (I know that this criteria is not correct, but perhaps it can be important). Not noisy to me, but there are important zones that are a bit unsharp and the subject of the image is too little--Lmbuga 14:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Herten_-_St._Josef.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rheinfelden: Saint Josef Church --Taxiarchos228 09:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Some areas slighty overexposed, but QI for me --Moonik 14:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Slightly overexposed areas indeed, too strong shadow almost in front, tree too dark at right (no details visible), disturbing road sign just in the middle (not your fault). Very good composition though. I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 16:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon. --99of9 07:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon.--Lmbuga 16:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Fungo - Volvariella gloiocephala.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The mushroom Volvariella gloiocephala, near Castelleone di Suasa, Italia. --Accurimbono 18:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality, but shows up rotated in full resolution for some reason?.. Needs to be reuploaded, perhaps. --Óðinn 19:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Rotation fixed.--Accurimbono 19:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question How does the lower part of the image contribute to the composition? Is the brown object a part of the fungus? --Gidip 16:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Answer to the comment: It is the brown soil and a brown dried leaf (exactly it is a dried leaf of Aesculus hippocastanum), they are part of the grass in which this mushroom grown. Being the soil and leaf not the main subject of this shot, they are not included in the DOF. The dried leaf on the bottom right counterbalance (IMHO) the mushroom that it is slightly on the left side, therefore I haven't remove the leaf during the shot neither cropped out. --Accurimbono 06:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The brown leaf is very distracting to me, and there is too much soil under the mushroom making a somewhat unpleasant composition. Really calls for tighter crop at the bottom. Gidip 02:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Important overexposed zones--Lmbuga 22:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Trier_Liebfrauen_BW_2012-03-26_16-18-15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Germany, Trier, Church of Our Lady, main portal --Berthold Werner 17:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good enough. --Selbymay 22:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose upper half is unsharp --Carschten 20:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Carschten and perhaps too tight IMO--Lmbuga 22:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Allosmia nest in snail shell 2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Osmia (Allosmia) sp., female closing a nest built in an empty snail shell --Gidip 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 18:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient depth of field, too tight crop. Not QI for me. --Accurimbono 10:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 05:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I don't like the reflection of the flash. Insufficient depth of field--Lmbuga 22:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose--Low DOF--Gauravjuvekar 13:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Aswan_Nile_R03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aswan (Egypt): the Nile and part of Elephantine Island -- MJJR 21:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Moonik 07:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's a little bit tilted (see the pole behind the boat). Easy to fix. --Kadellar 14:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Tilt corrected -- MJJR 19:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support now. --Kadellar 15:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Fontenay_le_Comte_-_Tour_Rivalland_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rivalland tower- Fontenay-le-Comte (Vendée) --Selbymay 21:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportGood quality. --Taxiarchos228 18:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeTilted. That can be fixed. ;) --Kadellar 14:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Well I tried, thanx ;) --Selbymay 17:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportLooks good to me.--Jebulon 14:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It's strange, I feel the tower is leaning, but the rest is ok. I don't oppose anymore. --Kadellar 20:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Larosterna_inca_(Inca_Tern_-_Inkaseeschwalbe)_Weltvogelpark_Walsrode_2012-010.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Inca Tern at Weltvogelpark Walsrode. --Fiorellino 15:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 12:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, noise and, in plumage, too much chromatic noise --Lmbuga 20:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough, in my opinion. --Jebulon 14:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good enough for me too. --Alchemist-hp 21:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks. I'm learning. Chromatic noise is not important to QI, but avoidable: I'm learning...--Lmbuga 22:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine with me. --Iifar 07:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Passer_montanus_ringed_by_Landsort_Bird_Observatory-2.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination A Eurasian Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus) ringed by Landsort Bird Observatory. --Calandrella 20:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Bad crop. Makele-90 21:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    please let's discuss, for me it is a good crop. --Ralf Roletschek 11:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    Ralf, what is the man behind doing? --Kadellar 11:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't knew. He is looking to a phone, a device? Looking for the number of the Bird? The main object is in focus, the background is well unsharp, i like it. --Ralf Roletschek 13:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
If he's kind of a scientist and studies birds (specially this sparrow), I find this is a great composition. If he's not related to the bird, I am not so sure. --Kadellar 18:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Man playing with his cell phone or camera. I don't see nothing related to the bird. Perhaps Calandrella could shed light on the matter. Makele-90 11:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I can indeed! The man is indeed one of the people working for the bird observatory with ringing the birds (yes, you could call that a scientist) and thus relevant for the subject. At this very picture, however, I am not sure what he is doing - perhaps he is examining a photograph of his own of the bird, or possibly doing nothing bird-related at all (such as checking his cell-phone). Perhaps a tighter crop would be better? Calandrella 23:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support after Calandrella's explanation. --Kadellar 09:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support--Subject is excellently focused, the tag on its right leg is important but crop could have been better(a slightly changed angle would have included the entire bird and the man behind)--Gauravjuvekar 09:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose--Subject is focused, but not excellently focussed. The middle left of the image it's not important and this left part is in the image: Bad composition. Also bad composition because the subject is, in part, out of the image--Lmbuga 14:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose as Makele. --Iifar 06:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Žale-7.jpg

[edit]
  • Nomination Jože Plečnik Žale (Cemetery), Ljubljana, Slovenia --Mihael Grmek 11:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality, nice symmetry, well balanced exposure --Superbass 10:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The same distortion and CA as when it was already declined last February. No changes have been made. --Kadellar 18:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I sharpened the image and tried to corect the perspective (re-stiched the images). I shot this with ultra wide lens to get rid of trees in front of the building. For now that is the best that I can do. --Mihael Grmek 12:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose right side of the building is still distorted. --Iifar 06:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

File:A22.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination structure of S-(3,4-Dichlorbenzyl)isothiourea, also known as A22 --Gauravjuvekar 11:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Good quality. --Saffron Blaze 15:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too simple for QI. --99of9 14:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Abstain --as nominator/author; Comment-and where exactly in the QI guidelines is it given that a simple image can't be a QI>--Gauravjuvekar 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too simple. Yann 09:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Since when does the simplicity(or complexity) of images affect their quality?--Gauravjuvekar 07:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
    • It doesn't, but a purely blue field couldn't become a QI. There's not much wow expected here, but a very simple chemical structure is unlikely to make the bar because it devalues the QI tag. --Claritas 00:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
      • So PD-simple, PD-text, PD-geometry (also PD-chem) couldn't be QI's because they are simple? Illustrations that are QI are much less in number than photographs. Also a technically good (bond angles, bond lines, placement of text, border around the structure, free from any librsvg bugs, distance between bond lines and the atom(text), resolution(not applicable for SVG), etc)structural diagram won't devalue QI.

To quote from Commons:Quality Images

Quality images are diagrams or photographs which meet certain quality standards (which are mostly technical in nature) and which are valuable for Wikimedia projects. Unlike featured pictures, quality images must be the work of Commons contributors; they need not be extraordinary or outstanding, but merely well-composed and generally well-executed.

A few days ago, one such of my image did make it to QI which infact may be more simpler than these.--Gauravjuvekar 04:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris - 09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Portal of Judgement, Notre-Dame of Paris, France. --Kadellar 10:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Yann 07:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, it's good, but too tight at bottom, I don't like the composition--Lmbuga 21:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cropped too tightly on the top and bottom. --Carnildo 21:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Sydney_Spider_Wasp.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination An Australian spider wasp (Cryptocheilus bicolor) --99of9 12:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Legs not in focus--Gauravjuvekar 11:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support That's fine. Although could have benefited from a higher F number. --Gidip 02:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Not perfect, but as Gidip--Lmbuga 09:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI. --NorbertNagel 09:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Gare Les Coteaux - Saint-Cloud 003.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination The entrance in the former railway station in Saint-Cloud, France. --Moonik 09:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportNice.--Jebulon 12:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    IMO you should crop a little bit one the left side, to get a better symmetry. Also, noisy and a bit unsharp because of using f.9 and 1/15 s rather than wider f number and quicker exposure. --Kadellar 14:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New file is uploaded with the crop more symmetric. Thank for advice for the exposition parameters. It was a cloudy evening and not a lot of light. --Moonik 07:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
     Support Not perfect, but QI for me though -- MJJR 09:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Thanks for the crop. Anyway I am not sure yet. --Kadellar 15:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Ortsschild - Ortsende - Mörfelden-Walldorf - Stadtteil Walldorf - Frankfurt am Main 15km - 01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination City limit sign, end of Walldorf, Mörfelden-Walldorf, Hesse, Germany - 15km to Frankfurt. --NorbertNagel 21:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Moonik 08:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, not really sharp --Carschten 13:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I uploaded a new version: Sharpened and CA removed. --NorbertNagel 14:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support meets QI criteria --Taxiarchos228 18:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me -- MJJR 21:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose chromatic aberrations and I don't like the composition: too much space at top (centered subject).--Lmbuga 14:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC))
  •  Comment I uploaded version 3 with more symmetric crop. --NorbertNagel 19:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp enough for a simple sign and distorted on the top right on the sign. --Alchemist-hp 20:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
if you had some experience in shooting "simple signs" you would know that this object is not trivial. street sign like this have a very reflecting surface and therefore they aren't so easy to capture. the sharpness is quite good and enough compared to the standard-QI image here --Taxiarchos228 20:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support It's not interesting, but imo meets the criteria. --Iifar 07:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Mont de seura chedul Cir.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Chedul valley in Gröden.--Moroder 16:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Amazing. QI! DimiTalen 17:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO, composition is wrong. Sky and mountain shouldn't fill 50% each. I don't know if detail should be better, though it is a very distant object. Sorry, but we need more opinions. --Kadellar 13:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I like the sky very much, but the overall quality (especially on the right) is imo not good enough. --Iifar 07:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Herten_-_St._Josef_-_Langhaus.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rheinfelden: Interior of St. Josef --Taxiarchos228 09:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 12:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose good, but needs correction of tilt and perspective before promotion IMO.--Jebulon 14:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good but only without distortion. --Ralf Roletschek 18:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    • ??? Don't understand your meaning. Maybe you mean correction instead of distortion ? But Perspective correction is a mandatory, please read the guidelines. Don't use your vote to make a point, please.--Jebulon 19:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
      • What do you call correction, I call distortion. A distorted image for me isn't QI. --Ralf Roletschek 09:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
        • This is not the right place for such a debate, which is closed for a long time...--Jebulon 19:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Jebulon--Lmbuga 14:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Good, but as above. --Iifar 06:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment - it's difficult to correct the perspective without losing the symmetry of the image or a lot of information. --Claritas 00:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Alexander Babakov IF MOW 07-11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Alexander Babakov, a Russian parliamentarian. A.Savin 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose either he's got funny horns, or a divine halo - and the Interfax signage comes straight out of his ear. --Centovalli 12:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Yann 15:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Photographically good, although I have doubts about the portraiture. --Claritas 22:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me, especially glasses: glasses don't have reflexes--Lmbuga 15:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support see Lmbuga --Ralf Roletschek 19:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   - A.Savin 22:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Kruchinin-2011-2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Igor Alexandrovich Kruchinin, local historian from Pereslavl. --PereslavlFoto 13:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose for same reason as 2011-11 - A.Savin 19:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    •  Info Redone from RAW, please change your opinion.--PereslavlFoto 00:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Carschten 13:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As A.Savin--Lmbuga 21:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment because comments in my talk page by Pereslavl Not bad, but not good: Perspective and composition, and as Savin--Lmbuga 19:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The new image is better. But to me too tight at botom (more tight than at top) and too tight at left (Rule of thirds): Better placed is the ear. The ear is what tends to see the viewer or user. With other perspective (a bit more frontal) perhaps that problem did not exist. Sorry--Lmbuga 09:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • But perhaps you're right because this is not FP.  Neutral See above and I don't like it--Lmbuga 09:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   ----Jebulon 14:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Polymethine_Squaraine.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination Structure of polymethine squaraine --Gauravjuvekar 11:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Saffron Blaze 15:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too simple for QI. --99of9 14:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Abstain --as nominator/author; Comment-and where exactly in the QI guidelines is it given that a simple image can't be a QI>--Gauravjuvekar 12:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too simple. Yann 09:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Since when does the simplicity(or complexity) of images affect their quality?--Gauravjuvekar 07:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are no general QI-guidlines published concerning the complexity of images but this one is too simple. One would not have the idea to nominate a black rectangle. Many QI-technical aspects such as composition and lighting are not touched with this image due to its simpliness. Nevertheless, it has an encyclopedic value. Maybe the nominator should go to the Valued Images. --High Contrast 21:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Igrexa_de_Puerto_del_Carmen.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of Puerto del Carmen, Tías, Lanzarote, La Palma, The Canary islands, Spain --Lmbuga 11:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Overexposed sky. --Kadellar 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    It's not overexposed to me (see the image with a program like lightroom 4.0), but it's possible other version, but perhaps not a real version--Lmbuga 15:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC))
    ✓ Done Less overexposed sky, but the sky is white--Lmbuga 15:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    It's much better now. --Kadellar 15:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks. I think now that you're (and were) right--Lmbuga 16:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Sky is not blue everyday in real life. We need more QI with different skies (IMO).--Jebulon 19:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Ap4a.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination Structure of diadenosine 5',5-P1,P4-tetraphosphate --Gauravjuvekar 11:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Saffron Blaze 15:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too simple for QI. --99of9 14:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support That's a well-done structural formula that requires quite some work - I'd rather agree with Saffron Blaze. --S nova 18:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
On this one I have an extra problem, I don't like the long bonds. --99of9 22:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Many people in the world hate chemistry so liking shouldn't really be applicable. Could you explain which bonds you mean(image notes).--Gauravjuvekar 12:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Not too simple in my opinion, but some of the bonds are far too long (others need minor correction). Please see notes. --Claritas 17:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed:redrew completely, please see now.--Gauravjuvekar 07:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support new version, nice work ! Drawing these can be hell. --Claritas 00:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Nuernberg UBahn Maxfeld 04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ticket machine in use --NatiSythen 04:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline The hand looks a bit unsharp. DimiTalen 08:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 18:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough, out of focus--Lmbuga 21:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Lmbug. --T137 11:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Two_Indian_women,_Umaria_district,_Madhya_Pradesh.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Two Indian women, Umaria district, Madhya Pradesh, India. --Yann 11:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Nice, but poor detail (see teeth): Noisy and poor DOF (f/4)--Lmbuga 11:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The DOF is short on purpose, to focus on the left woman. Also please consider the resolution. Yann 19:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, When I see the image with 682 × 1,024 pixels I can't see details of the mouth and eyes of the woman of the background, but I'm not sure, I only said a comment, sorry--Lmbuga 20:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 Oppose Poor DOF (second woman) and also, poor detail: the teeth and the face of the first woman. Discuss--Lmbuga 21:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I think a discuss is required; we have not enough people photos here. Jkadavoor 06:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think that I have written "discuss". Or you've been? I am sure my actions. I do not know what your words imply--Lmbuga 21:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes; you write 'discuss' but didn't change the decline to discuss. I just changed it; thats all - Jkadavoor 08:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Sorry, this is a problem: (español) Es posible que me haya olvidado de cambiar "decline" y escribir en su lugar "discuss", pero no lo creo. Por favor, muéstrame ese error, error no intencionado, al revés: Estoy seguro de haber escrito "discuss". Es una cuestión de talante que parece que estás cuestionando. Estás cuestionando mi talante?--Lmbuga 21:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC) I don't wont to have problems, sorry: I think that you are right--Lmbuga 22:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Dokumentationszentrum_Reichsparteitagsgelände3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nuremberg: Documentation Center Nazi Party Rally Grounds --Taxiarchos228 10:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 18:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate light. In shade. The branches are disturbing. Sorry, but it's what I think, and I think that other perspective or light is possible--Lmbuga 00:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Multiple issues (visible lens flare, unclean sky, distracting trees). See the notes. --Iifar 07:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Lmbuga and Iifar. Sorry. --T137 11:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Jamides_bochus_by_kadavoor.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jamides bochus, mating (retouched by Aleks G) -- Jkadavoor 06:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose-Antennae blurred(all four). Probably excellent for VI--Gauravjuvekar 07:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Strong and unnatural edges--Lmbuga 09:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • They are in a wrong angle (as in the image I had given as other version) so I try to insult them a bit expecting they a make a short flight and land somewhere nearby. But to my surprise, they climbed on my finger and continue their job. :) It was difficult to hold the camera in one hand and take a shot; so not much sharpness. :( I've no problem with the decline but didn't understand 'unnatural edges'. --Jkadavoor 05:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, You can see two notes in the image. I don't know if the correct words can be "unnatural edges", perhaps could be better "rare edges". When you want, you can delete the notes--Lmbuga 09:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem; I understand. It may be an issue developed by sharpening. I hope Aleks G will take care of it, if possible. Jkadavoor 15:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done Little corrections by Aleks G -- Jkadavoor 05:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)~
  •  Comment I don't now if I must vote "neutral" or "weak oppose": Nice image but I don't like the edges. Also, to me (IMO), the darks are very darks. Also, IMO, seems oversaturated. Not centered image. I would like to see the original image, sorry --Lmbuga 15:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question Is missing a piece of the finger? See another note--Lmbuga 15:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, you can see the original image as the first one in file history. And as I told earlier, I too agree with the 'oppose' because it was a difficult attempt; so not much quality. -- Jkadavoor 05:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose See above (I don't like the edges. Also, to me (IMO), the darks are very darks. Also, IMO, seems oversaturated. Not centered image) and sorry, the original image is not the first one in file history, and to me the image seems a composition--Lmbuga 12:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Fontaine de l'abbaye (Saint-Savin, Hautes-Pyrénées, France).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint-Savin Fountain Florent Pécassou 16:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good, with a very good light. Maybe a bit tilted (verticals are fine, not sure for horizontals...), QI anyway.--Jebulon 17:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, jpeg artifacts; for me this should be symmetric or a completely assymmetric view, but not close to symmetry. --Kadellar 14:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose - not a bad picture by any means, but composition is lacking in symmetry. More space needed on the right. --Claritas 00:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Plaque Vivaldi Vienne.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Here-lived plaque of Antonio Vivaldi in 1741, his death year. Vienna, Austria.--Jebulon 22:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion threshold of originality --Centovalli 09:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Plain data. Much too simple to get a copyright. --Yann 10:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC) and strong FoP in Austria.--Ankara 10:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC).
My remark was not about copyright, my remark was about declining the candidature. The photo is very trivial. --Centovalli 11:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Trivial is an out-of-scope and unacceptable (as irrelevant) reviewing comment. Is that picture technically good enough to deserve the QI label, or not ? That is the question (and only this one) reviewers have to answer.--Jebulon (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI and useful--Lmbuga 15:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support yes, QI and useful. --Ralf Roletschek 19:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Jebulon and supporters. --Cayambe 15:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Chital,_Bandhavgarh_National_Park,_India.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chital (Axis axis), Bandhavgarh National Park, India. --Yann 09:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Blurry, not sharp enough. Wrong colors to me or perhaps too hard digital manipulation, I don't know--Lmbuga 17:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no manipulation on that file, it is directly out of the camera. It is slightly overexposed, but I don't see "wrong colors". Could you explain please? Yann 20:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, no manipulation. Strange light or rare greens (green little saturated?, or too yellow) to be the image taken at 14:43 IMO. It seemed to me that the image was aged. I believe you. I prefer "discuss" because there are only one reason to decline --Lmbuga 11:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I try to reduce the yellow cast. Is it better now? Yann 12:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It's better, I prefer not to vote. Other users can comment more freely. Friendly--Lmbuga 23:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose Unsharp! --Iifar 11:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Unidentified_solifugae,_Umaria_district,_MP,_India.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Unidentified solifugae, Umaria district, MP, India. Yann 20:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good to me, but if unidentified, can be the image QI?, I'm not sure--Lmbuga 22:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose--Lack of focus, bad composition (background of almost similar colour as subject). --Gauravjuvekar 13:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The background is its natural habitat. It won't change it to please Commons reviewers. Yann 15:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Perfect background for me--Lmbuga 23:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Background ist OK for me. Could be QI, if the species is identified. Sometimes this is easily done in the internet. You may either ask people contributing to spider articles on wikipedia or you just google spiders of india. --NorbertNagel 09:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, this is not a spider. ;o) I already made a lot of research about this animal. There is very little documentation and very few good photos of this genius, where all species look very similar. Yann 09:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
      • This is probably Galeodes indicus. Yann 08:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As long it's unidentified. --Iifar 11:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Kiosque de l'Empereur Bois de Boulogne Paris 16e 001.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pavilion of the Emperor in Bois de Boulogne, Paris, France. --Moonik 11:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 07:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, I like the image but there's an unfortunate crop at the top of the kiosque. We need more opinions. --Kadellar 14:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info I nominated two other versions of same photo, with a wider crop --Moonik 07:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Kadellar. --Iifar 11:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Parc_Buffon_a_Montbard_DSC_0011.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Buffon park in Montbard, Bourgogne, France. --Pline 11:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
 Support Good quality. --Moonik 12:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 Oppose very nice view, but sadly lacking sharpness (f/18...) --Carschten 12:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 Info Sharper version uploaded.--Pline 15:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC).
 Support Sharp enough for QI !--Jebulon 16:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC).
 Support Good for QI Marianne Casamance 19:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 Comment I think I prefer the older one -- sharpening the image emphasized some JPEG artifacting as well. --Carnildo 23:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 Comment I agree with Carnildo. The sharpening job isn't too bad and it looks a bit better, but there are JPG artifacts now... Maybe a mixture between the old and the present version can be QI. --Carschten 09:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 CommentNew version. --Pline 15:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 Support Good enough for QI Poco a poco 20:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 16:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Old watermill in Maisons-Laffitte 003.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Old watermill in Maisons-Laffitte, France. --Moonik 09:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose brown cast, upper area looks too bright IMHO (both can be fixed) --Carschten 12:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done WB fixing. Is it better now? --Moonik 15:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Do have a RAW file of this image? --Carschten 09:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop needed almost until the male mallard, but the beast is overexposed, like other parts of the picture, I'm afraid...--Jebulon 16:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I miss a bit of sharpness for QI, sorry! Poco a poco 20:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 17:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Wahnerheide-fruehjahr-06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wahner Heath near Cologne. - A.Savin 19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overexposed clouds.--PereslavlFoto 19:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Portrait_in_blue_sari,_Gwalior_district,_Madhya_Pradesh,_India.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Portrait in blue sari, Gwalior district, Madhya Pradesh, India. --Yann 05:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry no, because of the strong flash shadow.--Jebulon 15:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Is it really that bad? Yann 16:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose} I agree with Jebulon, lighting could generally be better.--Claritas 22:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 17:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

File:1_poskær_stenhus_kammer.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dansk: Poskær Stenhus' kammer set fra toppen af en randsten --Villy Fink Isaksen 19:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Uskarp, undskyld--Jebulon 23:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 Comment The background is unsharp, but the stones are sharp! --Villy Fink Isaksen 07:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I see it unsharp, but it is maybe due to high resolution. Let's see what others say in CR, OK ? Nice light, subject and composition, anyway.--Jebulon 08:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 12:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me also. --Ralf Roletschek 12:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice. --Selbymay 19:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Nothing very sharp: Acceptable quality (composition, light and color), but insufficient quality IMO--Lmbuga 15:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose lack of sharpness. --Iifar 11:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sharpness problem. --Carschten 20:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Girl_on_bullock_cart,_Umaria_district,_MP,_India.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Girl on a bullock cart, Umaria district, Madhya Pradesh, India. --Yann 11:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Very nice subject, but I don't like the composition. Bad control movement? (head of the girl is not sharp). To me, the background is disturbing because it's blurry and lack of quality--Lmbuga 11:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The background is blurry on purpose, to focus on the cart. Also please consider the resolution. Yann 19:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 Oppose See above. The resolution is low than 9 or 10 megapixels. I can't see the image with 2 megapixels. Sorry--Lmbuga 21:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean, the resolution is nearly 8.5 Mpixels. Yann 15:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support even it's not technical perfect, I like the composition and the subject of image --Moonik 09:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The girl is imo not sharp enough for QI. --Iifar 17:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Betula pendula male catkins.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Male catkins of the Silver Birch. --DimiTalen 17:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 06:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose The catkins of the right side is blurry(perhaps the image must be cropped). Poor detail to me--Lmbuga 11:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
     Info I uploaded a new picture that should make up for this one. DimiTalen 09:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Better, but not QI to me--Lmbuga 15:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose as Lmbuga. --Iifar 16:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Bled-staircase.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Staircase on Bled island --Žiga 07:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Looks a bit tilted. Óðinn 16:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its ok, QI --Ralf Roletschek 12:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Óðinn. --Kadellar 20:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I am no expert but gimp tells me the stairs are horizontal. The right-hand side of the foreground building, in the centre of the picture, looks more or less vertical. I cannot say more about tilting, and I am no expert about quality (nor about English, sorry). -- Aisano 21:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Aisano, look at the corners of the buildings, they aren't really vertical. At full resolution you can compare them with the edge of your PC screen. You might think it's not a big "error", but the eye can easily detect that kind of things. --Kadellar 11:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info new version uploaded with tilt correction. --Iifar 17:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support fine with me now. --Iifar 17:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support ok now. --Kadellar 14:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Kadellar 14:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Seljalandsfoss_-_waterfall.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Seljalandsfoss - waterfall, Iceland --Snaevar 00:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Insufficient quality. --Poco a poco 10:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    Personnaly, I think it is a good shot. A bit of noise in the upper part but normal in nightshot. Please explain your decline a bit more. Letartean 16:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    I think that the conditions are not good for a QI, too dark at the top, overexposed in the bottom and so much water steam around that gets the lower part blurry Poco a poco 17:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC) I think the picture can't pass anyway according to the guideline, because it's not by a wikimedian. Tomer T 20:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Rheinfelden_-_Schlosskirche_Beuggen16.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rheinfelden: castle church Beuggen, nave --Taxiarchos228 08:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Unbalanced shot composition. Leaves me wanting a slightly wider angle. --CTLiotta 21:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
    image can be cropped if requested --Taxiarchos228 14:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good enough for QI. Nice and interesting view. A symetric view looks to hollow. --Alchemist-hp 17:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO, the dissymmetry adds in this specific case, because of the pulpit, which gives a well balanced composition.--Jebulon 19:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Füssen_-_Klosterkirche_St._Mang31.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Mang Basilica Füssen: Reliquienkreuz --Taxiarchos228 08:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Very interesting topic and good picture. I'll promote after tilt and perspective correction (see the distorted chandelier)--Jebulon 10:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • here is nothing to correct because here is nothink distorted --Taxiarchos228 06:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC).
  •  Comment If the camera is pointing up (or down), it will result in perspective distortion -- frequently referred to as keystoning. --Iifar
  •  Info I uploaded new version, please compare. Revert, if you don't like it. --Iifar 14:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support to corrected version. --Iifar 17:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support too the corrected version.--Jebulon 19:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

File:12-04-06-boelkendorf-by-RalfR-03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Village Church Bölkendorf, Detail --Ralf Roletschek 22:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Imo the crop is not good at all (cropped window). --Iifar 07:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
    • the main object is the wall and the elements in the wall. Windows are'nt important. --Ralf Roletschek 16:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Iifar has a point, but the image is good enough for QI though. Nice light, good sharpness --Carschten 14:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Another point of view was possible, even without the windows. As they are in the picture, they are important for the composition. The tombstone (?) in foreground is disturbing too. It needs a discussion, please.--Jebulon 15:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC).
  •  Weak oppose as my opinion above (actually it's a shame, very sharp and good light conditions and the result...) --Iifar 17:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info I'm civil engineer, for me is the wall important - and the distance to the windows. --Ralf Roletschek 19:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Müllersches_Volksbad,_Múnich,_Alemania04.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Müllersches Volksbad, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 12:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Excellent lighting and sharpness. --Cayambe 15:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Yes, but strong chromatic aberrations on the numbers and dial hands. The dial should be a circle, too. (scale corection needed). But all is correctible.--Jebulon 09:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 Comment I have uploaded a new version with the hope to have addressed all issues, please, let me know what you think, --Poco a poco (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Now, excellent rework, no more issues, QI to me.--Jebulon 19:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Chang beer 1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A bottle of Chang beer. --kallerna 12:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose blown area on the bottle --Carschten 12:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think it disturbs in this case. Would be nice to hear another opinion. --kallerna 15:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • some little blown areas are not always a problem, but this is some kind of outdoor studio shot, so the overexposed zones are a valid oppose reason IMHO. --Carschten 09:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As promissed in annotation, sorry.--Jebulon 16:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support it disturbs no for me. --Ralf Roletschek 07:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposition in the top and unsharpness in the bottom, sorry! Poco a poco 20:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Victoria_Memorial_and_Buckingham_Palace_-_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Victoria Memorial and Buckingham Palace, London, England. --Kadellar 12:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good. --Carschten 12:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    Distortion of the Palace in background to be corrected, verticals are not... vertical.--Jebulon 13:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
     Comment The picture has no distortion but it has to be rotated --Taxiarchos228 13:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done straightened now --Carschten 13:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for reworking, I should have realized before uploading. Better now. --Kadellar 11:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 Support Yes it was distorted, as the fountain in foreground was perfectly straight in the first version (please see through a grid, as I did). No matter. Good now anyway.--Jebulon 16:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 Oppose There's no visual separation between the palace and the memorial -- they just blend together into a single object. --Carnildo 23:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 Support Good enough to me for QI Poco a poco 20:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

File:BAB4ElerNight.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Photo of the german highway A4 taken by night --Grunpfnul 21:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeBad composition, the left sign, otherwise very good.--Gauravjuvekar 12:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Église Saint-Eustache Paris 1er 001.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint-Eustache church in the sunset, Paris. --Moonik 13:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Shame of the disturbing people (kill'em all !), but great !--Jebulon 15:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very strong yellow cast. Could be corrected. Yann 15:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 Info It was a natural yellow color of sunset and that will be a damage to lose this superb light and effect --Moonik 19:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me Poco a poco 20:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support ok with me. --Iifar 17:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 16:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

File:St_Peter_Church_Lindos.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St Peter, one of several small Greek Orthodox churches from the 13th century in Lindos, Rhodes, Greece. --Saffron Blaze 22:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice! --Moroder 22:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC).
     Comment Dust spots should be removed before promotion. --Iifar 15:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Saffron Blaze 16:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 13:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Parumala_Church.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Parumala Church in Parumala, Kerala, India. --Jovianeye 22:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Overexposed, esp. the sky and the top of the building Poco a poco 11:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC).
  •  Support Looks ok to me. --Iifar 12:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    I dont believe it is over-exp. The sky had white clouds. --Jovianeye 13:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Tomer T 15:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Tomer T 15:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Stadtkirche_Annweiler.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Protestant church of Annweiler am Trifels as seen from the Marktplatz --Martin Kraft 21:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Overexposed sky (difficult lighthing conditions) --Poco a poco 10:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    I reprocessed the image an got some more blue into the sky. --Martin Kraft 09:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Poco a poco about the lighting conditions, but it seems acceptable now.--Jebulon 08:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough now, Poco a poco 08:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 19:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Château de Maisons-Laffitte 001.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Château de Maisons-Laffitte, France. --Moonik 13:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment something really strange happened to the sky: unnatural colour, oversaturated, strong compression artifacts. --Carschten 14:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Decline per above. I'm afraid this château needs another shot...--Jebulon 15:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I worked the sky and to me if would be acceptable now --Poco a poco 09:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The colors are still very unnatural... DimiTalen 05:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Softer version uploaded. Is it better? --Moonik 06:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Color much better now. A little noise in the sky, but not too bad for me, and the exposure and focus are good. —David Eppstein 07:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportVery solid collaborative work and improvements ! Good now.--Jebulon 10:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 Comment Hi, I detected a slight tilt. It needs a correction ACW Poco a poco 19:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I tried once again fix tilt and dust. Is it OK now? --Moonik 10:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The tilt still there, just look at the picture in full size and go from right to left taking something as reference, you will see that on the left side it is always at a higher position, Poco a poco 19:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info I didn't succeed to correct more. After fixing that slight distortion it's even more tilted but this time at the bottom. --Moonik 08:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Good as it is, IMO. I confirm my "pro" vote if needed.--Jebulon 15:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Agilkia_Trajankiosk_02.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Trajan's Kiosk of Philae, Egypt --Oltau 23:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Perspective should be corrected. (Perhaps using shiftn --Berthold Werner 17:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the perspective should not be 'corrected', the top is further away than the bottom and should therefore look smaller. -> Discuss --AleXXw 16:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose Perspective should be corrected. As Berthold--Lmbuga 16:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective so is ok, please do'nt distort. --Ralf Roletschek 19:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective is full OK for me. --Alchemist-hp 19:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In my opinion it does need a perspective correction. To me it does not really look natural, sorry, Poco a poco 20:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective correction is needed. --Iifar 17:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
     Info I tried a perspective correction, my result: it looks too bad for me. --Alchemist-hp 17:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportSlight correction applied, please purge and review. -- Smial 23:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  CommentNow we have "contra" meaning "pro", and "pro" meaning "contra". A withdraw and renomination should be more understandable IMO.--Jebulon 16:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC).
  •  Neutral Better now, but I'm not sure, perhaps QI --Lmbuga 15:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Parumala_Church.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Parumala Church in Parumala, Kerala, India. --Jovianeye 22:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Overexposed, esp. the sky and the top of the building Poco a poco 11:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC).
  •  Support Looks ok to me. --Iifar 12:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    I dont believe it is over-exp. The sky had white clouds. --Jovianeye 13:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Tomer T 15:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Tomer T 15:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

File:P-anuhovsky-7258.jpg

[edit]

File:Anna Unterberger.jpg

[edit]

 Comment Recommend submitting email for OTRS then submit as candidate at VI and perhaps FPC. Saffron Blaze 17:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teguise_-_Plaza_-_Iglesia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Plaza de la Constitución and Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe, Teguise, Lanzarote --Llez 06:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment It needs a perspective correction, further I am not sure about the main object of the picture, could it be that a part of the square is missing? Poco a poco 10:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment The photo was taken from the western end of the place towards east. It shows nearly the complete place. What do you mean by perspective correction? It was not possible to make this photo with a single shot, it is a panorama composed of four pictures (to get nearly the whole place), this leads to the light bending of the wall in the foreground. The main subject of the picture is not the place, but the location of the church at the place. --Llez 11:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, the perspective distortion topic was on a different picture, this one is fine. Still, I am not really convinced about the crop and some clouds are a bit overexposed. I would like to hear more opinions Poco a poco 17:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nothing really wrong, IMO. Slight overexposition in the clouds is acceptable, and the red CA could be reduced a bit (on white parts), but QI all in all...--Jebulon 15:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    * Info CA corrections done --Llez 19:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. -- Smial 13:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some CA and small stitching errors needs to be corrected. See the notes. --Iifar 12:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine with me now. --Iifar 15:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Stitching errors and CAs corrected. --Llez 15:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 15:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

File:St_Katharina_(Unna)_IMGP5470_smial_wp.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Katharinenkirche Unna mit den Portalskulpturen von Josef Baron --Smial 22:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Coloring seems false and perspecitve (shifted) - no QI for me --Grunpfnul 23:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Wrong colours? Do you know the objekt and the lighting situation? -- Smial 09:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • let us discuss! --Ralf Roletschek 09:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't know the object and situation, but i know that sky is most of it's time, as far as fog stays home, is some kind of blue (not with a violet stich, but this could a kind of color profile error on your, or my side) ;-) and if i take a look a this pictures http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6889858 it seems like a complete different building --Grunpfnul 23:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment You do not need to search for external links, Category:St. Katharina (Unna) has enough examples of the funny colours of this church :-). I'll try to explain. First: The sky is not violet, this may be an optical illusion based on the colour contrast to the greenish facade. The sky has RGB values somewhere between (202,208,238) and (100,120,150), which is blueish grey. There was no blue sky that evening. Second: This church is, as many other houses or churches in the Hellweg area, built of green sandstone (which in fact is not really a sandstone, but is traditionally called so). The "real" colour of this stone varies from green-brown to bluish green, and blue. The appearance of this material depends very strong on the lighting circumstances, as easily can be seen, if you look at the many other images of buildings from Hellweg region. -- Smial 10:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong perspective distortion, + messy composition IMO.--Jebulon 23:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment This image was taken as additional illustration, not as overview. -- Smial 10:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good illustration of the sculptures, nothing distorted. --Ralf Roletschek 12:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Jebulon and as Ralf Roletschek (wrong colors IMO)--Lmbuga 20:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Reworked. Still wrong colours? -- Smial 21:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Marktkirche_Bad_Bergzabern.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Market church Bad Bergzabern from south east --Martin Kraft 11:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeOversharpended (HDR Halo?) tree, perspecitve error, flaw contrast --Grunpfnul 23:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    Where do you see halos, perspective errors, oversharped parts or flaw contrast? >I'm not shure, if we are talking about the same picture?! IMHO colors and contrast of this (non-HDR) image are well balanced (in histogram and look), the perspective is correct (although ultra wide angle) and I don't see any halos? --Martin Kraft 13:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I made some annotations --Grunpfnul 08:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI have to agree with Grunpfnul, sorry. One can see a (due to sharpening ?) clear line (halo) in the sky all along the roof and trees, with some CA in branches furthermore.--Jebulon 15:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Grunpfnul --Taxiarchos228 14:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 12:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Rosary-Madonna-Mersa.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Virgin Mary, wooden polychromed sculpture in Urtijëi - Jungfrau Maria vom Rosenkranz in der Pfarrkirche von St. Ulrich in Gröden --Moroder 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeToo tight cropped on upperside --Berthold Werner 08:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC) --Berthold Werner 15:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Cropped a bit more: the focus should be on the statue not on the frame --Moroder 11:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Those partly cropped frames looks always a bit randomly to me. --Berthold Werner 15:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
      • The purpose of the crop is to mantain the same frame (same size, white with golden decor.) around the sculpture. As you can see from the first upload of the image, I cut out all the rest of the structure of the altar in order to focus on the sculpture. Thanks for your review --Moroder 16:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support great. Tomer T 15:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support ok -- Smial 10:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   Promotion--Iifar 05:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Narva_Triumphal_Arch.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Narva triumphal arch in Saint Petersburg, Russia --Florstein 09:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --S nova 09:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too toght cropped on upper side. --Berthold Werner 15:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Plus more space, as you wanted. --Florstein 15:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    • IMHO it should be like here: File:Narva Triumphal Gate.jpg --Berthold Werner 15:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
      • We have to shoot this arch in according to one single template? Of course, I could be expand the upper space, but I won't --Florstein 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
        • No no, I won't make this a template, I wanted to show how the composition look better imho. --Berthold Werner 17:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it. - A.Savin 16:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. --Iifar 06:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

File:2010-11-26-szczecin-glówny-by-RalfR-68.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination SM42 in Stettin central train station --Ralf Roletschek 12:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Vcarceler 13:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment The train itself is a bit too unsharp Rony null 19:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support sufficiently sharp to me. Tomer T 15:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Verwackelt. -- Smial 12:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO too unsharp, sorry. --kallerna 13:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of sharpness. --Iifar 06:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

File:NVIDIA GeForce 7300 LE.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination NVIDIA GeForce 7300 LE graphics card --JDP90 10:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Overexposed background. --Kyro 11:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    This is a product shot. The background is completely removed. Background is not overexposed, there is no background at all. --JDP90 11:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The background produces an (ugly) white halo on the top of the card. Kyro 15:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Is it OK now? --JDP90 16:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't like removed backgrounds, but QI does not mention this as criteria. -- Smial 23:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose White halo is still there. --Iifar 06:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-04-15 16-04-49-ft-vezelois.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Inside the fort de Vézelois. --ComputerHotline 08:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Smial 11:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Prominent flare. --Tomer T 12:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Prominent flare. As Tomer T--Lmbuga 20:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment The concept was brilliant though. Saffron Blaze 14:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    True. Also, the picture is quite nice, I like it, but it doesn't follow critertia for QI. Tomer T 22:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment But, if the flare is intentional ? (how could it be unintentional, btw...?)--Jebulon 08:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment As above: Lens flare is not always a reason for decline if it supports image atmosphere. -- Smial 18:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as above. --Iifar 06:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 12:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-04-15 16-27-48-ft-vezelois.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Inside the fort de Vézelois. --ComputerHotline 08:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overdose tone mapping. --Smial 10:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It was a bad weather. --ComputerHotline 07:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Smial. DOF. Noise (see the sky). --Lmbuga 20:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Waiting for a better weather!--Reinhardhauke 16:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 12:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


File:2012-04-15 16-29-49-ft-vezelois.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Inside the fort de Vézelois. --ComputerHotline 08:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overdose tone mapping --Smial 10:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Waiting for a better weather!--Reinhardhauke 16:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad weather; greenish colors. DimiTalen 16:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the image and the composition. The weather is just right for such a subject. --Elektroschreiber 20:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elektroschreiber 20:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Onni_Yyterissä_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dark bay Finnhorse gelding with rider in Yyteri beach, Pori, Finland. --kallerna 06:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Overexposed sky. --Iifar 16:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
     Support Sky exposure is fine for me (no lost details), other quality aspects as well. --Tomer T 12:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
     Support Nice composotion and focus. Exposure is suitable. --Kadellar 10:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 12:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Acqua alta in Piazza San Marco.jpg

[edit]

Original picture from the camera
  • Nomination Flooded Piazza San Marco in Venice --Moroder 17:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 12:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose Artefacts, CAs. --Tomer T 12:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    I'm afraid: difficult to fix it's an old pic, but has some encyclopaedic and imho aesthetic value!? --Moroder 21:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, I don't like the detail of the image (blurry?, artifacts?). The vertical lines of the right side are not straight. Halos, perhaps to make the image sharper. CAs. Noise--Lmbuga 20:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 CommentI can straighten the lines (easy), if you please, but CA is not due to sharpening, which I hate, but to the old camera as I said and I hardly know how to fix it :-)) --Moroder 21:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
À propos, Jebulon mon bon ami, you find all my images blurry etcétéra. Do you really think it matters so much? How about colors, composition, dynamic range, content? (It's nice to discuss things with you.) --Moroder 21:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
CAs aren't due to the sharpening, but the halos of the edges (to me, IMO) are due to the sharpening. I have no doubt that the cause is the camera, but the image is not QI to me--Lmbuga 21:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Nice image. Not QI to me.--Lmbuga 21:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
This is the original picture as it came off the camera --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)]]
Sorry, Lmbuga, not Jebulon. I get confused with all these nicknames! I still consider you a friend --Moroder 22:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Please, cher docteur, don't involve me in some naval wars I don't know ! ;)--Jebulon 13:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Je suis désolé --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Fixed perspective --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 12:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


File:Stadtkirche_Annweiler_Kirchplatz.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Protestant church of Annweiler am Trifels as seen from the Kirchplatz --Martin Kraft 21:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good, despite the cars. - A.Savin 22:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too strong distortion IMO, in this very wide angle view the distinctive building parts are bad to see --Taxiarchos228 11:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, this is too strong distorted. --Ralf Roletschek 07:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image, with a good perspective correction.--Jebulon 15:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Imo meets the criteria. --Iifar 06:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose low sharpness, overexposed (blown whites) and missing contrast, distorted (the sign should be almost round). --Carschten 14:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose very wide angle view the distinctive building parts are bad to see--Reinhardhauke 15:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)}
  •  Oppose As Taxiarchos228 and Carschten. Sorry. --T137 11:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Taxiarchos228 and Carschten. Sorry. --Lmbuga 01:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Anillo_y_hotel_Charles,_Múnich,_Alemania2.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination The Ring and the Charles Hotel, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 20:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Noisy. --Tomer T 12:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
     Support I disagree. Noise is not really an issue with this image. I removed CA and fixed tilt&shift, so it should be acceptabel as QI. --Smial 13:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sky is too noisy imo. In addition, there is some kind of halo around the pole. Tomer T 16:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
    I updated a new version with reduced noise. Smial, thanks for your initiative!, Poco a poco 20:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment <sigh> Now the noise is blurred, but artifacts have grown, also CA and tilt have come back. -- Smial 13:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Rowing back to Smials version...Poco a poco 20:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support A nice perspective and IMO the technical quality is good enough for QI --Martin Kraft 08:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Oppose because it's noisy, support because of a really good perspective, weak oppose because not geo-located--Gauravjuvekar 17:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I just added the geodata, Poco a poco 21:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Noise. DimiTalen 16:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support per Martin Kraft. --Cayambe 10:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 12:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)