Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 2012

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Inscribed_giant_river-worn_pebble_-_ME_114399_-_British_Museum.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination In the inscritpion King Enannatum reminds the gods of his prolific temple building achievements in his city of Lagash. --M0tty 21:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Danrok 22:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am afraid the the DoF is not sufficient Poco a poco 17:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo. If you want to recognize the complete surface, you would need it flattened onto a plane or a 3D model. -- Smial 08:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco. --Makele-90 20:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as above. --Iifar 10:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No scale. --Ikar.us 15:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Makele-90 20:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Spit_of_Vasilievsky_Island_02.jpg

[edit]

what is tilted? --Moroder 18:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  New version available now
I do NOT use Photoshop for levels adjustment. Yes, new version with slightly less exposure is possible (image is not tilted). Specially for slightly captious critics. --Florstein 16:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nymphaea flower Botanical Garden Munich Nymphenburg IMGP1547.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nymphaea flower in Botanical Garden Munich (Nymphenburg) --Nikodem Nijaki 08:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Some comment like Carschten, if you lighten it up it is QI to me Poco a poco 16:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - seems ok to me. Mattbuck 15:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support ok -- Smial 08:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. -Gzzz 19:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice, but not correctly identified. --Iifar 10:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Cais_da_Ribeira,_Oporto,_Portugal,_2012-05-09,_DD_03.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Cais da Ribeira, Porto, Portugal --Poco a poco 08:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportGood quality. --Cayambe 20:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Too much perspective correction ? The building are distorted : the left building are tilted anti-clockwise and the right ones clockwise. --Gzzz 20:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 Comment I made a perspective correction Poco a poco 17:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice --Moroder 00:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0.5 oppose → Promote?   --Coyau 18:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_Julián,_Setúbal,_Portugal,_2012-05-11,_DD_01.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of the entrance of the church of St Julian, Setubal, Portugal --Poco a poco 08:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice, but needs some CA correction and improves a lot with level correction --Moroder 10:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
     Support - seems ok to me. Mattbuck 13:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    I fixed the slight CA and retouched the curves Poco a poco 18:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
     Support- QI for me. --JLPC 07:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0.5 oppose → Promote?   --Coyau 18:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Nørre_Nebel_-_Kirche7.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nørre Nebel Church --Taxiarchos228 07:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC).
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but the church tower looks a bit too crooked. --Iifar 19:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment this church is very old and it is so --Taxiarchos228 10:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment on your other image (File:Nørre Nebel - Kirche2.jpg) is the tower almost straight, so I think, that this one is distorted. --Iifar 12:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
      • you're right, I have rotated the image --Taxiarchos228 20:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support--Moroder 21:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looking at the tower, the right part of the church and the graves, the picture seems tilted clockwise... --Gzzz 20:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • please look at the new version uploaded just a few minutes ago --Taxiarchos228 20:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Coyau (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Père-Lachaise_-_Division_27_-_Théodore_Joseph_Napoléon_Jacques_09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grave of Théodore Joseph Napoléon Jacques, Père Lachaise, Paris. --Coyau 14:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Can you lighten it a bit up? --Poco a poco 17:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    The sunny part would be overexposed. I can nominate this one if you like. --Coyau 10:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
    I mean lightening up the darker areas to avoid overexposure, I made a try, but if you want to keep it we should ask for third opinion Poco a poco 22:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
    OK. --Coyau 01:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough and useful --Moroder 00:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Yann 06:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Coyau 18:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Water_museum_in_SPB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Water Museum tower in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 06:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 07:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Can the image be straightened, so central line of tower is vertical? Then I agree it is QI --Stu Phillips 11:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • OK, all done. --Florstein 12:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK, QI for me --Stu Phillips 08:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Florstein 14:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Wraxall 2009 MMB 10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A cat descending snowy steps in Wraxall, Somerset. Mattbuck 21:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Unfortunate perspective (cat seems very fat), static centered composition (try to place the cat at one third, walking towards the center) --Kreuzschnabel 20:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The fatness is not due to perspective, it's due to fatness. Mattbuck 22:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice fat cat. ;o) Yann 06:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support King of Hearts 20:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --King of Hearts 20:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Riksgatan_Stockholm.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view from Riksgatan, Stockholm. --Kallerna 05:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline I'm not sure about the color balance (looks very green). Otherwise ok for QI imo.--ArildV 21:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Made small changes, better now? --Kallerna 11:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - still green, and overexposed sky. Mattbuck 23:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Clouds are 255 white. -- King of Hearts 20:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Holmenkollbakken 14 march 2010.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination: Holmenkollbakken ski jumping hill in Oslo, Norway (by Bjoertvedt) --Blue Elf 12:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Some CA (I added a note) and the crop on the right (see partially cut out spectator) suboptimal Poco a poco 19:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support CA is minor, seems ok to me. Mattbuck 13:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Coyau 18:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Rosa_centifolia_14_07_2012.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination: Rosa centifolia. Previous unassessed --JDP90 12:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support OK. --Mattbuck 13:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose Shallow DOF imo, the borders of the flower are unsharp. --Gzzz 20:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Coyau 18:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Blåvandshuk1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blåvandshuk --Taxiarchos228 15:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very nice view, but left part is pretty blurry, horizon is tilted and image has notable perspective distortion. --Iifar 15:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC).
  •  Support Please ad geocoding --Moroder 21:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
    done --Taxiarchos228 19:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I agree, unsharp. Mattbuck 18:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Yann 10:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Estación_de_FFCC,_Embid_de_la_Ribera,_España_2012-05-19,_DD_02.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Train station, Embid de la Ribera, Spain --Poco a poco 19:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good perspective --Haneburger 08:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Notable green CA. --Iifar 06:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    CA corrected Poco a poco 18:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, much better now. --Iifar 19:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Taxiarchos228 19:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 19:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Bristol Balloon Fiesta 2009 MMB 34 G-UPOI.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bristol Balloon Fiesta. Mattbuck 12:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Poor composition. Julia W 18:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
     Support I disagree, the composition shows a comprehensible detail --Taxiarchos228 18:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
     Support -- JDP90 08:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 16:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-07-26 22-00-15-moon.ogv

[edit]

  • Nomination A fly-by of the moon --ComputerHotline 10:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Belle prouesse technique, mais l'effet "subaquatique" causé par les turbulences atmosphériques gâche un peu le plaisir. -- MJJR 21:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 Info Malheureusement, on n'y peut rien. --ComputerHotline 08:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 Support Yann 06:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 16:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Barèges_65_Cabane_Aigues_Cluzes_2012.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Carschten 19:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dallas at Night - Young and Lamar.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Intersection of Young and Lamar in Dallas, Texas at night --Wadems 06:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Strong perspective distortion, messy composition/crop Poco a poco 07:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting urban landscape imo.--ArildV 20:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted imo... --Gzzz 10:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good. --King of Hearts 20:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 22:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support very good -- Spurzem (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --King of Hearts 20:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Bristol Balloon Fiesta 2009 MMB 10 G-LBUK OO-BKL.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bristol Balloon Fiesta. Mattbuck 15:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Please, correct the tilt --Poco a poco 17:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Mattbuck 17:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
    Better, but still needs 4,0" and some perspective correction Poco a poco 19:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
    I thought that was enough. My general hand tilt is about 1-2 degrees, I tilted it by 2.5, a 6 degree tilt seems unlikely. Also, no to perspective correction - the photo was taken from below, to try and pretend otherwise would be silly. Mattbuck 21:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fact is that especially the balloon on the right is tilted. I tried a correction bz myself, and came to an additional of 4" and applying a slight some perspective correction the result was not bad, see here. Poco a poco 21:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support looks QI to me Gnangarra 02:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeThe contrails in the background create a bad composition IMO.--Gauravjuvekar 17:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support the contrails avoid FP but not QI, good quality --Taxiarchos228 19:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Firilacroco 20:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The comp is not great (i.e. not FP quality), but QI for me. -- King of Hearts 23:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? King of Hearts 23:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Villisiat_Ähtäri_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wild boars in Ähtäri Zoo. --Kallerna 11:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Zoo pic. I'd support a similar pic of one in the wild, with location data - MPF 12:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Not a valid reason to decline. --JDP90 16:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Being taken in a zoo is not a relevant reason to decline. Yann 07:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support see Yann. --Ralf Roletschek 09:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, nice photo. -- Spurzem (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 18:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Cormorant-20070224-034.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Little Pied Cormorant --Ghouston 11:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Zoo pic. I'd support a similar pic of one in the wild, with location data - MPF 12:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Not a valid reason to decline. --JDP90 16:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Being taken in a zoo is not a relevant reason to decline. Yann 07:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Firilacroco 19:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Poron_vasa_Ähtäri_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Reindeers in Ähtäri Zoo. --Kallerna 07:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Zoo pic. I'd support a similar pic of one in the wild, with location data - MPF 12:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Not a valid reason to decline. --JDP90 16:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Being taken in a zoo is not a relevant reason to decline. Yann 07:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Firilacroco 19:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Ähtärin_karhut_24.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Brown bears mating in Ähtäri Zoo. --Kallerna 07:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Zoo pic. I'd support a similar pic of one in the wild, with location data - MPF 12:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    A picture being taken at a zoo is not a reason to decline.  Neutral. Mattbuck 15:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Being taken in a zoo is not a relevant reason to decline. Yann 07:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --JLPC 21:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, Nice picture. --Danesman1 10:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Mäyrä_Ähtäri_4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination European badger in Ähtäri Zoo. --Kallerna 11:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Zoo pic. I'd support a similar pic of one in the wild, with location data - MPF 12:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Not a valid reason to decline. --JDP90 16:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Being taken in a zoo is not a relevant reason to decline. Yann 07:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree, nice quality picture. --Danesman1 09:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Innsbruck_-_Dom_St._Jakob2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Innsbruck: Saint Jacob --Taxiarchos228 07:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 07:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much perspective distortion imo... --Gzzz 13:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as above. --Iifar 15:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality, please don't distort the image! --Ralf Roletschek 09:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Whatever you do will not look good due to too tight frame and shot angle Poco a poco 18:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Gzzz. -- Spurzem (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Cap_de_Nan-Vilanova_i_la_Geltrú.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Català: Cap de Nan a Vilanova i la Geltrú --Vcarceler 09:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Mask partly hidden and disturbing foreground. --Gzzz 10:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, the quality at least seems acceptable but maybe an English description could help to understand the context --Moroder 11:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor crop, sorry not QI to me Poco a poco 18:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Eidsvatnet,_Bjugn.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination ‪norsk (bokmål)‬: Eidsvatnet, Bjugn --TommyG 23:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Vcarceler 14:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown out sky (right upper part and left sky), bit noisy IMO. Please discuss. --JDP90 17:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as above. --Iifar 11:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Not too bad for a 360-degree panorama. King of Hearts 23:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sky is quite noisy. Also there are some black dots in the left part of the sky. Firilacroco 09:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Stanway House MMB 08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Man photographing the Stanway Fountain, Gloucs. Mattbuck 17:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - Good quality. --JDP90 16:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but isn't it a bit underexposed? --Kadellar 15:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    Brightened. Mattbuck 21:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 Neutral Thank you very much for reworking. I agree with Jebulon, composition is not so good. --Kadellar 18:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition: the foot at left is really unfortunate and disturbing, isn't it ? And the crop above the head of the young lady looks a bit tight--Jebulon 14:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Chromatic aberrations.--PereslavlFoto 14:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Where? --Kadellar 18:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Convolvulus_tricolor_-_Dwarf_Morning_Glory.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Convolvulus tricolor - Dwarf Morning Glory --Firilacroco 21:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment No location data - MPF 12:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    I've added location info. Firilacroco 19:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality --Ralf Roletschek 05:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeNot sharp enough, IMO. Btw, a location data is apreciated, but is not a mandatory nor a reason for decline in QIC (it is, in VIC).--Jebulon 14:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many blurry areas. --Archaeodontosaurus 05:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ----Jebulon 14:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Np-conf2012-0370.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination At the conference «The role and importance of botanical gardens and arboretums 2012» --PereslavlFoto 22:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood quality. --Cayambe 10:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose - unfortunate expressions and flash lighting. Mattbuck 15:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Are flash lighted images prohibited from being QI? I have already nominated flash lighted images and noone raised this prohibition.--PereslavlFoto 21:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose A good lighthing is relevant for QI and using a flash can cause problems like this, the crop on the right side with half a face is also a minus Poco a poco 18:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Das Bild sagt zu wenig aus; es ist kein Bezug der Personen zueinander oder zu einem Redner erkennbar. Die Farben wirken unnatürlich. -- Spurzem (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Hawthorn Crataegus sp., flowers.jpg

[edit]

File:View_to_Saints_Peter_and_Paul_Cathedral_in_Peterhof_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Peter and Paul Cathedral in Peterhof --Florstein 16:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JDP90 16:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO oversaturated --Berthold Werner 18:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  New version Uploaded new version with a bit more quiet colours. --Florstein 17:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support At correction of balance of white color become slightly quieter (uploaded new version). --Aleks G 00:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Firilacroco 20:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. In Englisch kann ich es schwer ausdrücken, deshalb auf Deutsch: Die Farben sind „oversaturated“, das heißt, die Sättigung ist zu stark. Außerdem erscheint mir bei der Schärfe unnötig stark nachgeholfen worden zu sein. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Florstein 07:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

File:View_to_Saints_Peter_and_Paul_Cathedral_in_Peterhof_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Peter and Paul Cathedral in Peterhof --Florstein 16:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JDP90 16:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO oversaturated --Berthold Werner 18:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  New version Uploaded new version with a bit more quiet colours. --Florstein 17:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Firilacroco 20:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Florstein 07:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Angoulème_Balcon&cariatides_2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Balcony and caryatids (XIXth century), rue Hergé, Angoulême, France. --JLPC 18:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    I think it needs a barrel correction and noise reduction in the sky (there are artifacts) Poco a poco 20:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    QI for me--Lmbuga 23:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Sorry, I've not seen the words of Poco a poco: QI to me, others can think--Lmbuga 23:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    * New file uploaded. --JLPC 13:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Perfect now! Poco a poco 17:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 19:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JDP90 13:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 19:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Ailurus fulgens Cerza.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Red panda (Ailurus fulgens) in the zoologic park of de Lisieux (France). --Gzzz 22:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Zoo pics of this species are 3 a penny; this one is also in habitat not even remotely resembling its natural forest habitat. *I'd support a pic of one in the wild, but Commons has none. - MPF 12:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    A photo being taken in a zoo is not a relevant reason to decline. This is quality images, not valued images. Mattbuck 15:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Why so?? It means for example, that its subspecies is not determinable, making the image zoologically worthless; also it is subject to morphological and behavioural, etc., abnormalities brought on by conditions in captivity, which make it atypical of the normal appearance of the species; it can't be relied on as a good example of what the species looks like under natural conditions. - MPF 20:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Again, this is about technical quality of the photo, not its inherent worth. Those might be FP or VI oppose reasons, but they are not for QI. We don't care if the image is useless, as long as it is a good image. Mattbuck 21:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    I second that, the argument would be a good opposition for a VI. --PierreSelim 07:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Being taken in a zoo is not a relevant reason to decline. Yann 07:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Firilacroco 19:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Technically good, good identification, sufficient caption, good file name: QI.--Jebulon 14:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 14:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Columba_guinea_04-08-2012_(1).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Pigeon Columba guinea --JDP90 13:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • No location data - MPF 12:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not a valid reason to decline. --JDP90 16:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • At the moment nobody has formally voted negatively. Without locating this image has no encyclopedic interest. The simple name of the city would be sufficient. A geolocation is not essential. --Archaeodontosaurus 15:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Geocoded. -- JDP90 17:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 05:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- JDP90 16:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Columba_guinea_04-08-2012_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pigeon Columba guinea at Burdwan --JDP90 13:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion No location data - MPF 12:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Not a valid reason to decline. --JDP90 16:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Why don't you just indicate the city or at least the country? --Leyo 12:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Geocoded. -- JDP90 17:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- JDP90 16:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Detail window Paris city hall July 14 2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A decorated window at the Hôtel de Ville of Paris (City Hall), with the CoA of the town, Bastille Day 2012.--Jebulon 13:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI to me. --Florstein 16:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Several areas with chromatic aberration (especially near shadows). --Firilacroco 08:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JDP90 13:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez 07:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- JDP90 13:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Colonel Alain Puligny commandant régiment cavalerie Garde Républicaine.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The colonel commanding the cavalry regiment of the french "Garde Républicaine".--Jebulon 13:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Underexposed, plus lacks sharpness. --Firilacroco 19:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    I disagree, and ask for other opinions.--Jebulon 19:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support A discussion is needed : QI for me. --JLPC 21:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JDP90 13:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Subject in shadows. -- Jkadavoor 09:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reviews. The light came from the left. The back of the subject is not in shadow. But I understand what you mean, usually, subjects faces the light, and it is not the case here. Seems to me acceptable in full size. Let reviewers decide...--Jebulon 15:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The face is not relevant --Moroder 17:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Light comes from wrong side. The head of horse is too dark. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable quality, I guess. --Florstein 07:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Florstein 07:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Geranium1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Geranium Zonal Emilia hanging basket plant (Pelargonium x hortorum). --Danesman1 13:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion

 OpposeNot categorized.--Jebulon 19:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Good category now, opposition removed.--Jebulon (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I am new to this, please can you assist and tell me how to change this so that I can continue to do it correct in future, thankyou. --Danesman1 20:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
You need to add a category with the species of the flower. Yann 16:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello thankyou for your help with this, I think I have now done this. --Danesman1 18:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Species name should be properly identified. Only genus name is not the complete identification. Complete identification needed. -- JDP90 18:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Believe now completed .--Danesman1 19:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done for the good level category :Category:Pelargonium Zonal Group (redirected from Category:Pelargonium x hortorum)--Jebulon 15:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 Support Looks good now: identification, category, and technical quality of the picture. QI, IMO.--Jebulon 15:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- JDP90 19:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Ralt RT 1 (F3), Bj. 1976 (15.06.2007).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ralt RT 1 Formula 3 in 1976 at Nürburgring. Sharp enough? -- Lothar Spurzem 19:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
 Support picture is definitly sharp, it's also noisy but for a sport photography good enough for QI --Taxiarchos228 18:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC).
 Comment I agree, if the notable green and purple chromatic aberration will be removed. --Iifar 14:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the comment above a formal "oppose" vote too ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 Support CA acceptable to me.--Jebulon 14:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Yann 04:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Vista_de_Huérmeda,_España_2012-05-16,_DD_01.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination View of Huermeda, Spain --Poco a poco 07:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Are strongly noise suppressed, picture plastic. --Aleks G 20:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    I have developed this picture the same way like all others, but anyhow made a new attempt, do you like it better? Poco a poco 19:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)  Comment Tried to correct a little, I will not tell that turned out well as initially in the photo there are a lot of indistinct places.... (the file is updated). ;-) --Aleks G 00:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    I think that both versions are good, but let's get a third opinion Poco a poco 17:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 Support Only minor flaws for this one (sharpness in edges...), but good enough for QI.--Jebulon 14:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 Request A geocode would be apreciated...--Jebulon 14:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
✓ Geodata added Poco a poco 15:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks !--Jebulon 14:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. --Florstein 07:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Florstein 07:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Large Brown Cicada 23aug12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Large Brown Cicada --池田正樹 04:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Quality is good but description of subject not Poco a poco 07:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Cleaned noise a little... --Aleks G 23:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support ID added with the help of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects --Jkadavoor 09:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JDP90 18:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Pity that this beautiful photography used to anything, because its caption gives no indication of the place of shooting. --Archaeodontosaurus 06:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Yann 04:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Azolla_caroliniana_15-09-2012_02.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Water drop on Azolla caroliniana --JDP90 18:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion It is not really sharp Poco a poco 07:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    Probably due to denoising. I've uploaded the non denoised version. -- JDP90 08:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    I think that it is not really enough for QI, the drop is really nice but everything else not and if you crop the wather drop will be too small Poco a poco 10:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
     Support I think the non-denoised version is much better. --King of Hearts 22:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --JDP90 05:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Goddess_on_elephant,_Crafts_Museum,_Delhi.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Goddess on elephant, Crafts Museum, New Delhi, India. --Yann 18:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Bad composition, hard shadows, coloured too much yellow -- Lothar Spurzem 01:20 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I made a color correction. It might not be good enough, but please note that the light condition is very difficult there. --Yann 10:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Agreed. Light conditions are very difficult in some museums (I've visited the Indian Museum at Kolkata and seen dim lightings there). -- JDP90 18:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I can't see anything good in that photo. Light conditions ain't a good excuse. SkywalkerPL 18:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad composition. --Till.niermann 13:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 14:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)