Promotion Satisfies all of the criteria. Freedom to share 11:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Pallas Athene in front of the Parliament of Austria, Vienna --Anna reg 16:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC) -Can you crop it just a tad more on the left so it doesn't show the other statue (the part in the middle not the one at the bottom as that you can't get rid of with cropping). Also if you've got the means to apply some noise reduction it would help. Dori05:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn renominating edited version
Nomination North rose window of Reims Cathedral. Vassil 08:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Underexposed i think, and bad crop on the right --Pom² 10:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Ac Pom² + shadow on the right. --Lestath 22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Damage to the Westin Peachtree Plaza Hotel following a historic tornado. --Brianga 18:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good quality. Been in the revolving bar last year :-). --Dschwen 19:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination The Delta Routine playing at River Splash!, a street festival in Milwaukee, Wisconsin Dori 02:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good Quality --Simonizer 13:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Effects of the flooding in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, showing houseboats and an actual boat smashed up against a bridge. --Golbez 18:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good quality. --Dschwen 19:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Préparation de brochettes en vue de l'arrivée d'une manifestation (Paris, 10-June-2008) --Romanceor 01:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion I don't like the man with the stripped shirts behind. --Lerdsuwa 13:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC), technical quality is very good, and the guy in the bg is fine. --Dschwen 19:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Looking across Brooklyn, 23MP pano. --Dschwen 19:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion First, beautiful! and smog or fog? One spot -- it is to the right of the church spire. Also I saw seams in the sky, but not enough to have edited here without having seen the spot. -- carol 05:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC), Spot(s) removed. --Dschwen 22:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Its too bad the tops of the buildings are cut off. Unspotted smog is nicer. -- carol 04:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Ocean Drive Miami Beach, Florida. --Massimo Catarinella 20:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Subject is unclear. Car? Buildings? Street? -- carol 04:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Staten Island Ferry with Statue of Liberty. --Dschwen 19:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion At the risk of becoming the Ferry Spot Bot -- there is a spot in this image. -- carol 02:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC), Spot removed. --Dschwen 12:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Beautiful image. carol 04:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Fountain in Saxon Garden, Warsaw --Sfu 14:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
PromotionComment The sky is slightly artefacty and the shadows on the front are a bit disturbing... Otherwise, this seems fine. A second opinion? --Dilaudid 17:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC), Looks ok to me. --Dschwen 19:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination M62-1274 diesel locomotive, property of Orlen KolTrans company. --Sir Iwan 08:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Quality is ok --Simonizer 22:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
NominationThomisus onustus --Butko 09:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Your camera's lens doesn't handle these types of shots very well. Notice the chromatic aberration (blue fringing) in the lower right corner. I had a similar camera, works fine for everything except macro shots and more than around 7x zoom. --Calibas 18:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I find the left plant slightly annoying. Otherwise the crab looks good. --Lerdsuwa 12:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Ac Calibras + too wide crop with out of focus elements. --Lestath 22:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Three saddhus (holy men) at Kathmandu's temple square. --Dilaudid 17:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
NominationHardImpossible to convey in an image photograph, I tried it with a 10s exposure at ISO800: Fireflies in Illinois, USA. --Dschwen 01:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion This looks nothing like the real thing. It does look like the absolute highest quality of photograph that can really be taken of such an instant in time. -- carol 02:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Roofs in Wrocław (Breslau) --Pudelek 10:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Big size makes up for the detail quality. Here the perspective serves its purpose nicely. --Dilaudid 12:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Incorrectly named: there is no such city Breslau. --Sfu 20:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Commentcorrectly named: for me, for Germans and for many people in Europe and World -Pudelek 07:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Isolated metro wagon in Place d'Italie, Paris --Romanceor 01:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion The odd composition serves a purpose by giving an overview of the surroundings. --Dilaudid 19:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination French police waiting a demonstration (Paris, 19-June-2008) --Romanceor 11:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good for QI. --Dilaudid 19:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination A panoramic view from the yayla Sal on the Pontic Mountains, Turkey, by User:Noaa. --Tomer T 21:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Composition is good but I think there is a problem with sharpness --Pom² 18:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC) -- Sharpness is not very good at full resolution indeed, but just acceptable for QI though. -- MJJR 20:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Subway tracks on Williamsburg bridge, New York City. --Dschwen 18:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion This is done from a moving subway? Maybe a bit of blur/motion blur on borders, but it's better than get a short DOF. I like it anyway :) --Pom² 19:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC), Yes, moving subway, I'm not suicidal ;-) --Dschwen 19:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC) good shot, NYC subways are not the smoothest of rides ... --Ianare 04:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Think there's a problem with flashlight, background shadow is too hard and disturbing --Pom² 19:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC) idem--Ianare 04:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination: Monument to Aleksander Fredro in Wrocław (Breslau)--Pudelek 17:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Review needed
Nomination: Ogrodzieniec Castle, Poland - ruins. Note: Reposting not reviewed March nomination. --Piotrus 17:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Review Perhaps perspective should be corrected a liitle bit. --Mbdortmund 11:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Prof. Joseph Halpern, Gödel prize 1997 -- Rama 12:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Too much shine (hard light). Noise is also a problem. --Dilaudid 12:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Schröcken in Austria --Böhringer 11:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline A beautiful view. Those snow-capped peaks are hard to capture! Here they are burnt out. The strong CCW tilt should be corrected, too. --Dilaudid 12:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Fireworks in Milwaukee. Dori 03:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Composition. Left third is static, right edge is tense and the main subject (the explosion) is too small. --Dilaudid 10:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Water fountain.Dori 02:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion All ok. QI --Berthold Werner 06:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination hydrofoil in Pula--Orlovic 18:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Very nice, but unfortunately below the 2 megapixel limit. Please geotag this! --Dilaudid 10:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination superyacht in Pula--Orlovic 18:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Very nice, but unfortunately below the 2 megapixel limit. Please geotag this! --Dilaudid 10:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Germany, Trier, Church St. Paulin, inside --Berthold Werner 13:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion It's OK. Beautiful church. --Lestath 15:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination BMW X6 --Richard Bartz 10:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Well execution. --Lerdsuwa 17:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Parisian subway - Maybe missing some DoF --Romanceor 01:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion For me the quality is good enough considering the circumstances. Freedom to share 17:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Quite good actually. --Lerdsuwa 13:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Landscape with castle --Simonizer 22:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good quality. --Dschwen 23:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)That cloud over the castle is really weird. -- carol 23:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Central portion Miami Skyline, Florida. --Massimo Catarinella 20:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Poor weather conditions cause haze and challenging lighting. Also, I'd crop the bottom and the top. --Dilaudid 17:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your review, but I don't see haze (it could be my computer). Furthermore, yes, the lighting is challenging, but the picture is not too dark or overexposed. I agree with you that it could be better taken on a more sunny day, but since I don't live in Miami, I do not have that luxury.--Massimo Catarinella 17:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC) It's a beautiful picture, and it could probably be made better by adjusting the levels and adding contrast. Unfortunately Quality Images cannot be assessed according to our contributor's geographical locations :( I'm not easily able to go and re-take the picture I took of a Kea that didn't pass the assesment, either :) --Dilaudid 18:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Top of the Vilnius Cathedral tower --Sfu 14:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Not the best crop. --Lestath 15:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I`ve uploaded this because I do like the crop. Some other opinion? --Sfu 16:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Comment Lestath probably means that the weight gathers to the bottom edge, which is a weakness in this otherwise fine piece. --Dilaudid 17:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Boylston Street in Boston, Massachusetts. --Massimo Catarinella 22:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline What's the subject/purpose of this picture ?? --Pom² 18:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC) The subject of the picture is Boylston Street in Boston, which is one of the most important streets in Boston. The purpose of this photograph is depicting that street. But what has that got to do with the technical aspects of the picture? --Massimo Catarinella 20:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Needs perspective correction. Massimo: In the past, Quality Images have also been required to meet the criteria of importance and value. While I don't deny the importance of the subject in this photo, I do think that its value would increase if it would portray the subject more comprehensively. This could be achieved eg. by taking the photo from a higher elevation point if at all possible. --Dilaudid 18:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Old building near the Łańcut Castle, Poland. --Piotrus 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline It's a beautiful building, but the crop is unbalanced: too tight at the top and the bottom, while there is plenty of space at the left hand side. Also, the bright light causes a glowing haze at the borders of the building. --Dilaudid 17:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Sandomierz Town hall. --Piotrus 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Overexposed sky. --Lestath 15:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Monument of silesian eagles in Katowice. --Lestath 22:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Some chromatic aberration but it's not an issue for me since it's otherwise fine. --Dilaudid 17:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Flat "Pod Siedmioma Elektorami" on market square in Wrocław (Breslau)--Pudelek 21:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion It can be QI - good perspective correction. --Lestath 15:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Monument to Aleksander Fredro in Wrocław (Breslau)--Pudelek 17:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
DeclineComment The DOF could have been smaller so as to fade the background more strongly, as now the face seems to be mixing with the background somewhat. Otherwise very fine. --Dilaudid 18:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Very distracting background. --Lerdsuwa 13:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Polish coats of arms at Baranów Sandomierski Castle. --Piotrus 17:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Note: Reposting not reviewed June nomination.
Decline Big tilt --Lestath 15:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Ruins of Krzyztopor Castle. Note: Reposting not reviewed March nomination. --Piotrus 17:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Full of JPEG compression artifacts. Use higher JPEG quality and this would be a QI. --Lerdsuwa 12:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Hostel on Ślęża mountain (Zobtenberg) - Pudelek 12:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good quality. --Lerdsuwa 13:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Review Great shot, but below the minimum resolution. Maybe we can ask the uploader for a larger version. --Dschwen 12:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Iphiclides podalirius. --Böhringer 10:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline I'am not accustomed to QI review but I think bokeh is quite hard. Maybe others version suit better, even if it's more classical compositions. --Pom² 19:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC) I feel it should be sharper given the type of camera used. Not sure what's the problem. It appears not to be focussing problem but maybe camera shake or shaking leaves and butterfly. --Lerdsuwa 12:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Moses statue in church in cistercian abbey of Rudy (Poland). --Lestath 14:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Please, add an unsharp mask (1,0, (50-100%)) - image too blury. #!George Shuklin 20:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC) #!It's sharp. --Lestath 00:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Obstacles in the lower left corner ruins the image. May be moving the camera a little bit higher could help. --Lerdsuwa 12:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Fountain on the main marketplace in Trier, Germany --Berthold Werner 07:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline The building in the background distracts heavily from the fountain. --Calibas 18:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Surely, but this is the scenery --Berthold Werner 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Too flat. This indeed is the scenery, a challenging one, and no way to change it, but you could have blurred the background by using a smaller depth of field. --Dilaudid 18:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I will try this next time, hoping that no one would say: Background is blurred ;-) --Berthold Werner 18:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Castle in Baranów Sandomierski (Poland). --Lestath 13:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion It`s tilted. --Sfu 14:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Corrected and promoted --Berthold Werner 06:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Science Museum, London --Nevit 12:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Inconsistent and bad exposure, unsharp. Sorry, Freedom to share 17:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Cologne cathedral and Rhine River, Cologne. --Massimo Catarinella 21:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline below the 2MP resolution limit. --Dschwen 21:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
NominationHerring Gull in flight, coast of northern Norway --Orland 14:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline I know it's a hard shoot with low light and movement, but picture is noisy, unsharp and a bit underexposed --Pom² 18:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Łańcut Castle, Poland. --Piotrus 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Tight crop, bad composition, poor lighting --Sfu 18:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Altar of St. Casimir's Church in Vilnius (Lithuania). --Lestath 14:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Could use a slight clockwise rotation. --Calibas 18:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC) #!Corrected --Lestath 00:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Promoted. --Calibas 18:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Synagogue in Zamość, Poland. --Piotrus 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Cut roof. --Lestath 23:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Barrel distortion. --Lestath 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Notice those anthers! --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline DOF should have been larger. Lycaon 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC) CommentYes, but then the emphasis would not have been on the anthers and the pollen. As it is now, some of the petals are in focus, so more DOF wouldn't have helped, in terms of increasing its value. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 09:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Banz Abbey, Germany --Simonizer 23:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion ? I promoted this already a few days ago. What happend? --Berthold Werner 17:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC) You forgot to sign your comment, so I deleted it --Simonizer 19:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Metro arriving in Cadet, Paris --Romanceor 16:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion The lighting is a little dull but excellent composition. A very active picture. --Calibas 18:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Aaron statue in church in cistercian abbey of Rudy (Poland). --Lestath 14:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion The brick background isn't very flattering, but not like that's something the photographer can change. A slight blur but otherwise well done. --Calibas 18:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Germany, Trier, Porta Nigra --Berthold Werner 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good one, colours, crop, sharpness and other elements are OK. --Lestath 08:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination The peak of the Gamsleitenspitze, Obertauern, Austria as seen from the west. --Freedom to share 21:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Was good for FP (wow), but has also the qualities of a QI (technical). Lycaon 21:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Acceptable quality for a studio shot. Freedom to share 13:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Race between Samson and Tail-Gator Monstertrucks during a Monstertruck event at UIUC Assembly Hall. Image by User:Dschwen, nom by Piotrus 17:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC). Note: Reposting not reviewed February nomination.
Decline cars are unsharp --Pudelek 17:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Non-HDR Panorama of Hong Kong night skyline --Base64 15:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good technical quality and sharpness. Freedom to share 13:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Skorpionfly Panorpa communis --Richard Bartz 12:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Wow! --Simonizer 14:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Skorpionfly Panorpa communis --Richard Bartz 12:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Wow! --Simonizer 14:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Skorpionfly Panorpa communis --Richard Bartz 12:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Composition could be better, but nevertheless QI --Simonizer 14:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Thomas Dold and Jenny Li, winners of 2008 Taipei 101 Run Up. BrockF5 17:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Acceptable quality. --Dschwen 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination William Klein, yesterday at the Cinémathèque française --Romanceor 03:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Underexposed. --Dschwen 14:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC) I know the black area on left bring the subject on the right "third line", but i think a little crop suit better for article illustration. And I also agree that a little more exposure could help. Else, nice shot. --Pom² 19:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Mused a bit with levels and sharpness, hope it helps. --Rama 08:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Helps, but this is no QI to me due to high noise levels. --Dschwen 12:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Alain Tanner awnsering André S. Labarthe, yesterday at the Cinémathèque française --Romanceor 03:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Underexposed. --Dschwen 14:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Mused a bit with levels and sharpness, hope it helps. --Rama 08:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Helps, but this is no QI to me due to high noise levels. --Dschwen 12:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination The Cinémathèque française recieving sheet music from Antoine Duhamel --Romanceor 05:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline I like this one the most but noise is quite high. --Lerdsuwa 05:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Mused a bit with levels and sharpness, hope it helps. --Rama 08:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Helps, but this is no QI to me due to high noise levels. --Dschwen 12:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Thai girl group FFK --Lerdsuwa 14:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Ok quality. --Dschwen 12:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Thong Babin barge of Thailand --Lerdsuwa 14:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Acceptable quality. More detail would be nice. --Dschwen 12:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Surface tension of water molecules forming a drop. --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Very beautiful in spite of the blurkeh. -- \mathbf{C} 00:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination:Thomisus onustus --Butko 09:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Review needed
Nomination:Thomisus onustus --Butko 09:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Review needed
Nomination:Thomisus onustus --Butko 09:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
PromotionCommentMaybe tiltet 1.2 degrees? --Berthold Werner 14:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC), Ooops, you're right, I didn't notice. --Dschwen 16:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Adjusted and promoted --Berthold Werner 18:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Spider Thomisus onustus and bee Apis mellifera. --Butko 08:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion DOF is a bit lowish, but still barely QI for me. --Dschwen 14:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Menudo by Kaihsu Tai. -- carol 05:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Soup not in focus. --Lerdsuwa 14:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination: flowers of Robinia pseudoacacia --Butko 13:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Review Image needs a more descriptive name. -- carol 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination: flowers of Chelidonium majus --Butko 13:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Review Image needs a more descriptive name. -- carol 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination: Sympetrum striolatum --Butko 12:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Review Image needs a more descriptive name. Wings and eyes are sharp, I have questions about that spot on the eye. -- carol 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Panorama of Hong Kong Night Skyline --Base64 08:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Very high quality, resolution and details. Good candidate for FP. --Lestath 23:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Awl flies Coenomyia ferruginea during copulation --Richard Bartz 09:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Bigger would be better, but this is a solid QI --Dschwen 00:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Box camera "Bilora Boy" --Berthold Werner 07:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Acceptable quality. --Dschwen 00:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination A romaine lettuce --Duchamp 23:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good QI. --Dschwen 00:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Enseigne de mercerie-bonneterie à Bruxelles --Romanceor 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Unacceptable sub-standard stitching. I recommend hugin/enblend, it's free. --Dschwen 00:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Info It has been done with The Panorama Factory v4.5. I'll try again with the v5.1 and hugin. --Romanceor 10:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Steel reinforcement rods. --Dilaudid 08:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Very nice. Good useful for encyclopedia. _Fukutaro 13:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Cotton buds. #!George Shuklin 23:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline White balance is off with slight blue tint. Cotton should look whiter. --Lerdsuwa 04:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Done, -100K in RAW. #!George Shuklin 20:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Opium poppy. --Lestath 14:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion QI quality Lycaon 20:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Is "Quality Image quality" a legitimate "Quality Image 'Quality Review'"? -- carol 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Statue of Horace-Bénédict de Saussure, in Chamonix, France. --Mbdortmund 23:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Main subject is very nice, though I'm confused by composition that a building at the bottom left and some paragliders are there. _Fukutaro 13:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination San Pedro de Rocas monastery, Esgos, Ourense, Galicia, (Spain) --Lansbricae 11:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline The sky is oversaturated and very noisy. sorry. _Fukutaro 13:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Galactites elegans untouched by Lycaon. -- carol 18:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Slight noise but I like it way more than the version below. Should be OK for an 8MP photo. --Lerdsuwa 05:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination (by Nevit) A glass of tea --Duchamp 12:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion The noise reduction artifacts are not my cup of tea : ) but overall, it's a solid QI. BTW, please link to the original author in your nomination. Thegreenj 14:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Detail of a peony --Simonizer 11:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Clear QI --Lestath 12:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination male flowering Cloudberry --LC-de 11:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Lovely photograph. -- carol 21:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Backyard of the Presidential Palace in Vilnius (Lithuania). --Lestath 14:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion In spite of a slight distortion of some horizontal lines, this is certainly a QI. Can you add a geocoding, please? -- MJJR 20:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination An old Soviet submarine --Anrie 11:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Horizon is nie reg nie. Lycaon 11:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I think it's a Zulu class. --JDrewes 23:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Open air museum in Ochla, Poland. --Wisnia6522 07:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Blur on the right side. --Lestath 12:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination flowers of Anethum graveolens --Butko 12:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Image needs a more descriptive name. -- carol 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Top and both sides of flowers are cutted off. Color is nice. _Fukutaro 15:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination The old Atocha Station, Madrid -- MJJR 20:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Did you erase that mans face? -- carol 22:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC), I guess it was the stupid camera noise-reduction (a.k.a. detail-reduction). --Dschwen 15:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC) -- I did not erase that face at all: I guess it's simply the head of a blonde lady seen from the back. Please consider the whole image, and not a detail of 0,01% -- MJJR 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC) I am not going to promote or decline this -- right now, all I can do is look at the '0,01%'. Hair pulled back with a tie on another person, very clear. Stripes of pattern on a shirt near by, almost clear. It is the front of a person (easy discerned from the details of the body and stance) and there should be more detail on the face instead of smudges. It is all I can see, so no decision from me. -- carol 15:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Mediocre technical quality, but large size and good composition makes a borderline QI. Thegreenj 14:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Excellent quality! --CWii 16:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Germany, Trier, Church Sankt Paulin, ceiling fresko, crucifixion --Berthold Werner 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Too much chroma noise, even when judging a downscaled version. --Dschwen 01:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC),New version uploaded. Please check again. --Berthold Werner 07:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC), Sorry, but the new version is too blurry. There also seems to be camera shake, is this a different photo? --Dschwen 13:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC), This a combination of three photos, made with tufuse. Perhaps a make a new photo. --Berthold Werner 14:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC), Tufuse is a cool idea. Maybe you can get some sturdy support for your camera when you reshot, so that the frames line up perfectly. --Dschwen 14:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination: Common seal (Phoca vitulina) --LC-de 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Review Subject is a bit too small, and behind the focus plane. --Dschwen 12:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Cruise ship Norwegian Dawn (as seen on the Lower Manhattan pano below. And, no, it didn hit us, although it hit a pier earlier that day). --Dschwen 00:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Litoria caerulea (Green Tree Frog) in Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia --Bidgee 15:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion I am promoting this cute thing too, to keep the real frog looking at the frog mascot on board the cruise ship in the archives. -- carol 00:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC), Plus the quality is good. --Dschwen 01:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Etangs d'Ixelles vus de la place Flagey à Bruxelles --Romanceor 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline as "File:Parc Montjoie à Bruxelles de nuit" --LC-de 20:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Night panorama of the park Montjoie in Brussels --Romanceor 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline I like the idea, but the pic has to many flaws: it's very noisy in the darker parts and heavily overexposed and eroded in the lights. --LC-de 20:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Organs of Bernardine Monastery in Leżajsk, Poland. --Piotrus 11:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Unsharp, tilted, overexposed parts --Lestath 09:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Ceiling of Bernardine Monastery in Leżajsk, Poland. --Piotrus 11:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Distortion --Lestath 09:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Columbine (Aquilegia caerulea) taken in backyard --Staka 03:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline No detail but fuzzy artifacts. --Dschwen 16:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Ok quality. --Dschwen 22:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination A immature male of Azure Damselfly (Coenagrion puella) --Richard Bartz 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion This fly seems terrified. -- carol 14:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC). Maybe it saw this picture.. --Dschwen 14:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC), This image is pretty good. Looks like it would have lots of reserves even in a non-downsampled version. --Dschwen 16:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion QI for me. --Dschwen 22:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Market square in Zamość, Poland. --Piotrus 22:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Quality is ok. Why don't you try making Panos? This image stitched from three to four portrait shots slightly zoomed in would be a sure QI. But your single frame shots seem to have a rather hard time here. IMO the combination of aggressive in-camera noise reduction and soft focus lower the effective resolution quite a bit. Panos would be the way to compensate (that's what I did with my old camera). --Dschwen 22:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Ac Dschwen + composition and no geocoding. --Lestath 09:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Ruins of Krzyztopor Castle. --Piotrus 22:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Barrel distortion and tilted --Lestath 09:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Polish coats of arms at Baranów Sandomierski Castle. --Piotrus 22:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Crop, tilt --Lestath 09:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Drying Stockfish in Norway --LC-de 23:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good quality. --Dschwen 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Liberty Cap of Yellowstone Thegreenj 23:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Look nice, but it seems to be digital altered (merging two layers and handcleaned part of one layer). Is it so? #!George Shuklin 14:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC) There are four pictures actually (a 2 by 2 panorama), and the stitching isn't quite perfect, but it's pretty good, IMO. The stitching hasn't been manually altered at all. Thegreenj 20:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC),Acceptable quality, but you should really use a different stitching program, Autostich produces blurry seams, and it shows in the upper vertical seam. It is a bit of a waste of good picture material. --Dschwen 16:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
NominationMycelis muralis. --Wisnia6522 14:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Too small, too little DOF. --Dschwen 01:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Lock on Młynówka canal (Oder river) in Oppeln (Opole), Upper Silesia --Pudelek 22:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Same here. --Dschwen 22:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination A macro of a Gilette razor blade. /Daniel78 22:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC) CommentDOF is not enough (top and bottom parts)... #!George Shuklin 22:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Comment A smaller aperture made the blades softer. /Daniel78 23:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline OpposeDOF --Nevit 11:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination: The Schloss Nordkirchen, Statue on the Venus-Island in the north of the main building --Mbdortmund 16:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Review needed
Nomination: Telesforówka hostel in Beskid Śląski mountains --Pudelek 15:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC) I think you should fix a white ballance - too much green #!George Shuklin 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Review needed
Nomination: Field and tree in Beskid Śląski mountains (Upper Silesia) --Pudelek 18:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Review Underexposed. --Dschwen 15:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Info i uploaded new version --Pudelek 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Fountain and symmetry. -- Peripitus 06:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Clear, sharp and kind of weird (in my mind) for a botanical garden fixture. -- carol 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Xiangqi players and onlookers, Manhattan. --Dschwen 16:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Slightly more forward shot position to put the viewer in the audience would be nice but this is a nicely done shot - Peripitus 22:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC Did you offer that man a light after getting the 'graph? -- carol 17:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC))
Nomination: Bee orchid. -- Lycaon 06:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Review CommentThere is a motion blur of 6 pixels at 80 degrees. I can fix it if you wish. (EXIF will be lost.) --Nevit 07:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC) CommentFree to try. I can reinsert EXIF afterwards. Lycaon 07:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC) CommentI did a try, but sharpness still a question. --Nevit 08:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination: Polish coats of arms at Baranów Sandomierski Castle. --Piotrus 00:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Review needed
Nomination Sandomierz Town hall. --Piotrus 22:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Photo is tilted. Bidgee 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Mammoth Hot Springs. Thegreenj 00:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Seems OK. EXIF and geocoding would be appreciated.--Nevit 07:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC) EXIF is in a template; I've added geocoding. Thegreenj 14:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC), that homebrew template is a pretty bad idea (introducing non-standard dataformats when an accepted standard already exists always is). the information that is contained cannot be used automatically. --Dschwen 22:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I have no way of preserving EXIF; I use an old version of Photoshop that does not support EXIF, plus this was stitched with Canon's Photostitch, which strips EXIF. Thegreenj 01:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC), Stitched?! The image is tiny! What am I missing here? --Dschwen 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Uh... downsample... It's 11.2 MP full size. Carol has kindly offered to re-attach EXIF, so it should be on soon. Thegreenj 00:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Thats done. -- carol 10:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Reconstruction of the Battle of Berlin by User:Cezary p. --Sfu 06:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Lycosa singoriensis --Butko 12:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline A bit to noisy and bad artifacts. --LC-de 16:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Eurydema dominulus --Butko 12:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion It's a nice image and love to support it but it's not the minimum 2 megapixels Bidgee 13:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC) re-nomination: I upload bigest version --Butko 05:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC) seems good to me. --LC-de 16:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Value of an image. --Nevit 22:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline I find the drawing very minimalistic, not aesthetic and it could be a bit clearer (more room around text labels). Benh 16:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Front lawn of the White House, Washington, DC. --Dschwen 17:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion SupportSeems OK. --Nevit 19:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC) OpposeThere's a stitch error on the right part of the grass. One of the source pic was blurry, and the next one is sharp, hence the limit being vsible. Benh 19:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC). Comment Ok, I see what you mean. This is fixable. I'll upload a new stitch later. Thanks for pointing it out! --Dschwen 22:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC), Uploaded a restitch. --Dschwen 22:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC) SupportLooks much better ! what did you change ?? Benh 16:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC), Manually adjusted the blend seam to include aread with best focus for each frame. --Dschwen 16:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Lexington Ave and 59th station, New York City Subway. --Dschwen 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Most of the pic is blurry :( and it's not motion blur Benh 19:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC), uhm, low DOF due to low light conditions. Use of a tripod is forbidden in the NYC subway. Feel free to downsample for review purposes... --Dschwen 22:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC) I tried, but that doesn't seem to be enough. I've shot at wider aperture than f/4 with sharper results which is why I think this is "shaking" blur. Benh 22:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC), Hm. Well, your pic is not even half as big as mine, and the key issue is the focal length. At 17mm you'll always get more DOF. --Dschwen 00:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I don't know if you get more DOF at shorter focal length (maybe it looks so because background is less "compressed"), and I think my 17mm is equivalent to your 28mm (1.6 factor), but even downsampled down, your picture looks a bit more soft than the one I showed you, and you were shooting at f/4. Benh 16:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Perspective in the Sacra Conversatione by Giovanni Bellini in San Zaccaria of Venice, --Romanceor 13:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline The mixed light makes this a difficult shot, but the colour balance of the painting seems way off (comparison). --Stefan Vladuck 14:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Question What about this version ? --Romanceor 16:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Very nice subject. But the right pillar is overexposure, there is slightly artifacts of whole may from poor lighting, and composition is disordered by peoples heads and was cropped. _Fukutaro 14:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Odensjön, a lake in southern Sweden --Formul 16:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion This is a very beautiful image. It should be in a gallery or category and I would support it -- carol 21:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Done Categories added (by a friendly soul) -- Formul 23:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC), Acceptable quality. --Dschwen 22:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
NominationThree lilies. --Rlevse 16:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Needs identification. Lycaon 16:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
NominationThree lilies. --Rlevse 16:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Needs identification. Lycaon 16:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Reine i Lofoten --LC-de 13:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
PromotionCommentPlease geocode and retain exif data. --Dschwen 18:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC) InfoI'd added the geocode, but I neither have the tools nor the fancy to retain the EXIF. Didn't even know why this should be a criterion. --LC-de 19:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC) SupportNice image. --Nevit 21:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good! Lycaon 12:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Could you add geolocation please? And maybe also reinsert EXIF data? Lycaon 13:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Done Geocode added --LC-de 19:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Dense-flowered Orchid, a tiny species. Lycaon 23:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good quality. DOF could be a tad larger. --Dschwen 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Late Spider Orchid. -- Lycaon 23:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good quality. Do you also have a non postcard-sexy shot of the full plant for documentation purposes? --Dschwen 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC) check this gallery ;-)). Lycaon 21:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
NominationDoronicum orientale in Grudziądz, Poland. --Kosiarz-PL 17:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Empire State Building as seen from the Rockefeller Center. --Dschwen 14:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Very slight lean on the building - but the centered composition works well and exposure is good. Love the smog - Peripitus 13:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Church Santa Caterina, Livorno, Italy --Lucarelli 23:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion For some reason in full size this image appears rotated 90deg CW to me. --Dschwen 17:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC) -- On my screen the image does not rotate. Acceptable quality IMO. -- MJJR 21:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC) The white pixels in the lower right corner really lower the quality of any image. -- carol 14:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Oh yes, uploaded cropped version - --Lucarelli 15:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Soft focus, lacks detail, blown facade. --Dschwen 15:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Comment A question: would it look sharp enough if I resample it to the lower resolution? --Sfu 15:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC), don't do that please. I reevaluated. For the given resolution the softness is ok. Downsampling is mostly BS. I'm still not too excited about the exposure. --Dschwen 15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Does it looks better now? --Sfu 15:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC), It sure does! --Dschwen 18:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Roma, Piazza del Popolo --Berthold Werner 12:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline This image should be reviewed by someone who does not have a bias from the user name. I decline myself to review this image. -- carol 15:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC) I think you should have made one step to the right to get the obelisk exactly in between the Churches. Bryan 21:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC), Small size leaves no leeway for lacking detail and soft focus. Sorry. --Dschwen 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Thanks for comments --Berthold Werner 18:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Los Angeles skyline with snow-capped San Gabriel Mountains--Nserrano 07:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Flowers of a Common Bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) --LC-de 21:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good DOF, no noise, good composition (may be leaf must be moved slightly away from flower...). QI. #!George Shuklin 22:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Chlorophorus varius on flowers of Anethum graveolens--Butko 12:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Unfortunately too small (needs to be 2megapixels or larger) -- Peripitus 13:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC) re-nomination: I upload bigest version --Butko 05:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I like this now. The small DOF works well with the subject angle - Peripitus 06:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Ceramic tiles ceiling decorating a vault at the Nasr ol Molk mosque in Shiraz, Iran, Qajar era. --Pentocelo 07:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion CommentI suggest rotating this image 180 degrees. --Nevit 07:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Done Thx for suggestion Pentocelo 10:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC), I like it (would benefit from better symmetry though). --Dschwen 19:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Old wardrobe in Przypkowscy Clock Museum. Piotrus 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline Barrel distortion, too soft, to dark, bad WB. --Lestath 08:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Cards for "Geography" game, 17th century. Diocesan museum in Sandomierz. Piotrus 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline No, really, the quality is quite bad... Sorry --TwoWings 08:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Quality is sufficient for QI. Not a spectacular motif, but IMHO some people here need a reality check on what QI means... --Dschwen 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Menander (poet), Roman copy after greek original. Hermitage. #!George Shuklin 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Ok, quality, DOF is a little low and there is slight noise, but I think it still is a QI. --Dschwen 17:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Praying room of the Nasr Ol Molk mosque at Shiraz, Iran. New version with bigger size than a first image refused that didn't pass the quality standards for being too small --Pentocelo 18:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
DeclineNot a work of wikimedian. --Nevit 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Info I am the author: I am wikimedian Pentocelo and Flickr user dynamosquito see my profile on flickr and the info page of the picture File:Nasr ol Molk mosque inside colorful.jpg I believe in that case, the wikimedian creator condition is filled In this case a work of wikimedian. The preceeding unsigned comment was added by --Pentocelo Although I do not like the cutting of the front arc, I will not vote. Withdraw my opposition. --Nevit 19:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Shows signs of heavy noise reduction, making the pic look like a painting. This seems to be more of a candidate for COM:VIC though! --Dschwen 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Acceptable Quality. --Dschwen 15:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Church St. Paulin in Trier, Germany --Berthold Werner 18:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good quality. --Dschwen 15:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
NominationLeiocephalus carinatus armouri --Ianare 05:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Composition is good and find the photo unique. Bidgee 13:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Madrid: Palacio de Velázquez -- MJJR 20:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Acceptable quality. --Dschwen 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Hakone-Ropeway, Kanagawa, Japan. --Σ64 16:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good quality considering the resolution. --Dschwen 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Two big trees in a remote French forest--Berrucomons 20:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline Lighting does not work well. Either needs the shot from the other side of the trees (with the bright sky behind) or fill-flash to bring up the foreground - Peripitus 13:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination: Eye exercise for speed reading--Nevit 18:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
ReviewQuestionDoes the exercise have a name or a particular origin, or did you invent it yourself? – Ilse@ 19:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Info I saw the exercise in an introductory course to speed reading. They did not mention a name. --Nevit 20:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Retiro Park, Madrid: the lake and the monument of Alfonso XII -- MJJR 20:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline Noisy & too much jpeg artefacts.--Nevit 20:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC) -- Perhaps some noise is inevitable with that type of camera. Where do you see jpeg artefacts? The picture was taken with the lowest compression (best quality). Is making QIs only possible with SLR cameras from now on? -- MJJR 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination The church of Nossa Senhora da Nazaré (Our Lady of Nazareth), west coast of Portugal. -- Alvesgaspar 23:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Like the colour and composition - Peripitus 13:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Seabird colony with Razorbills (Alca torda), European Shags (Phalacrocorax aristotelis) and a Common Guillemot (Uria aalge) --LC-de 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Nice image. --Nevit 20:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination The freighter 'New York' in front of Westin hotel --Ianare 04:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good photograph and a pleasing composition for some audiences -- carol 22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Ellis Island. --Dschwen 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Seems Ok. --Nevit 10:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination A Blowhole at the Pancake Rocks in New Zealand --Chmehl 07:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good sharpness, exposure. Just the right amount of dynamic motion blur for the water. --Dschwen 14:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination: Plaza de Oriente in Madrid -- MJJR 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Review needed
Nomination Cessna 310 mounted as an airport sign -- Peripitus 13:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Excellent sharpness, good composition although more sky could be shown above the wing, but a solid QI nonetheless. --Freedom to share 06:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination The Pancake Rocks in New Zealand --Chmehl 07:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Very good: QI --Berthold Werner 18:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Madonna in church in Rudy. --Lestath 10:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline I quite like photo and it is of a good subject, but it is slightly tilted, which could easily be corrected. If the tilt is corrected, I will support it. Freedom to share
Nomination: Sunset over North Carolina --Ianare 04:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Review needed
Nomination: Independent Presbyterian Church --Ianare 04:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Review needed
NominationPlatanthera chlorantha, Belgium - La Calestienne. -- Lycaon 21:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Blade of grass obscuring plant. -- carol 08:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC) I do not condone of removing other plants in a nature reserve, just for the purpose of taking a picture of a rare species in its natural habitat. On the other hand there is no leave obscuring the main topic. The rest is called nature. Lycaon 10:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
NominationPlatanthera bifolia, Belgium - La Calestienne. -- Lycaon 21:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion A little noisy at full resolution but a good closeup nonetheless --Ianare 06:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Is that the right name? -- carol 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC) yes it is Lycaon It is named differently than the image which seems to be the same plant as the nomination made at the same time by the same photographer. -- carol 04:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Id is correct. Lycaon Yes it is, but I came here to change the vote -- unfortunately, I was not able to do what I wanted because it was what? changed for me? I will change it soon enough. -- carol 10:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Handle by User:Pko --Sfu 20:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good subject and great detail - Peripitus 10:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Morchella conica by User:Beentree --Sfu 20:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Absolutely QI - Peripitus 10:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Building of Poultry-yard in Sylvia park (Gatchina) --Art-top 16:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion The lighting is a little bit unfortunate: the picture could be better if taken on another (probably earlier) moment of the day. Nevertheless even now acceptable quality. -- MJJR 16:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Very detalied --Lestath 18:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Madrid: Palacio de Cristal -- MJJR 20:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline Very nice image when viewing in low resolution, but it`s too noisy in full resolution. --Sfu 20:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Statue of Giuseppe Garibaldi in Rome --Formul 12:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline Too tight crop. --Lestath 18:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Unfortunately I was standing in front of a smoke machine -- Bryan 12:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline Like the picture but there is far too much noise - an unfortunate feature of point-and-shoot cameras in low light -- Peripitus 13:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Close-up on an Orchis purpurea inflorescence. --Berrucomons 20:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Great shot, but maybe try portrait layout next time. Lycaon 21:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC). The portrait shot is blurred. Sorry. --Berrucomons 20:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Beautiful work, artistic value--Szilas 06:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination They were standing in the dark whole the time, but eventually a light flashed and I was able to take this picture --Bryan 12:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline It's too noisy, sorry --Ianare 00:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination The inner side of the tunnel connecting the bay of S. Martinho do Porto to the open sea, west coast of Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 23:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Excellent composition, a tad noisy but no harm. How about a more descriptive filename? Fvasconcellos 14:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC) -- I have several pictures of each subject (and places), this is a way to keep track of them. Anyway the image is properly categorized -- Alvesgaspar 09:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC) I promoted this and the links to the reasons for the promotion (presentation) broke the template, but I left them in anyways... -- carol 15:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC) For present-ation. Not one of the usual reasons, but it was beautiful to see from here and today, I would rather support yours than to be sad that my attempt to do this same thing failed. -- carol 15:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination: Observation tower on Altvater moutain (Praděd) --Pudelek 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Review needed
Nomination: Observation tower on Altvater moutain (Praděd) --Pudelek 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)~
Review needed
Nomination Reed at the Mindelsee, Germany --Dany3000 12:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline It is beautiful, it has caught my eye since it was nominated. It is very noisy though. -- carol 06:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Wi-Fi hotspot in the parc de Bercy, Paris, --Romanceor 16:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion the better of the two --Ianare 00:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline I am not so qualified to review this, if you want to discuss it, perhaps more qualified will look at it. I think I saw a seam in the sky, I also think I saw a cloud formation which was time lapsed from another cloud formation. Not as technically easy to produce this as an acceptable 'graph of a pile of beer cans huh? -- carol 06:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination The beach at Hoek van Holland, Netherlands. Photo by User:Ziko-C. – Ilse@ 18:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Very pleasant and impressive picture.--B.navez 02:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Mercedes racing engine, artistically adjusted. -carol 17:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline Obvious artifacts in top and bottom and an obvious cut in the center, but a quite interesting image. – Ilse@ 19:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Head of a fly (Calliphora sp.)--Richard Bartz 14:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion It should be not easy to it for shaving every morning. --B.navez 03:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination A FS electric loco --Orlovic 15:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline The image is not bad, but the light and composition are not especially good either. – Ilse@ 19:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Ilse de Lange op Bevrijdingsfestival. --Bryan 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline Ilse zonder voeten... Jammer ;-). Lycaon 09:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Yes, as she doesn't sing with her feet picture could be reframed, it would seem less odd but size would be then under 2 Mpixels.--B.navez 20:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
NominationMelaleuca quinquenervia bark --Ianare 04:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline Bark is overexposed, otherwise foliage behind doesn't belong to Melaleuca (rather Syzygium) and makes the picture a bit confusing. --B.navez 02:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Skulptur im Schloss Nordkirchen. --Mbdortmund 23:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
PromotionSehr gut :) Fvasconcellos 14:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
NominationTrifolium stellatum, Sardinia. Lycaon 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Good quality. – Ilse@ 09:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination The head of a Speckled Wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria) -- Alvesgaspar 20:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion OK for this magnification. --Nevit 20:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion I think that having the focus just on the stamen and stuff is really effective in this photograph. If some lens blur could be applied to the leaves I will support this image. -- carol 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC) I think the original is better than the edit (no offense). Lycaon 09:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC) None taken, which edit, btw? -- carol 13:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Finnish author Sam Inkinen. --Dilaudid 06:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion good portrait --Mbdortmund 17:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination ceiling of the tomb of persian poet Hafezh at Shiraz, Iran --Pentocelo 23:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Nice shot. Needs a slight CW rotation though -- Alvesgaspar 07:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Chapel of the Hospital Spedali Riuniti, Livorno, Italy. --Lucarelli 20:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion sharp and exact --Mbdortmund 17:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Church Santa Maria del Soccorso, Livorno, Italy. --Lucarelli 18:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion The verticals are not exactly vertical (perhaps you can try to correct them with ShiftN), but acceptable quality for QI though. -- MJJR 20:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion good details, interesting object --Mbdortmund 17:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination: Wi-Fi hotspot in the parc de Bercy, Paris, --Romanceor 16:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Review needed
Nomination Wooden bell tower near Švýcarna hostel in Jeseniky moutains (Gesenke)--Pudelek 10:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline The thumb looked pretty good, but at full size the shadows are harsh -- harsh enough to hide the bell. The little sign post looks like it could have been moved for the photograph and I am left wondering what the purpose of the bell is. If you want to discuss the photograph, it can possibly be easily upgraded with some adjustments. -- carol (tomes) 01:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Tourist in Riesengebirge (Karkonosze) --Pudelek 10:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline Declined for composition. Visually, wide angle and from a lower angle so that 1/3 or so of the image would be sky would have been nicer to view. This is a good snap shot. -- carol (tomes) 01:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Close up of the wild orchid Neotinea lactea in Sardinia, Italy. -- Lycaon 05:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion QI. -- carol (tomes) 01:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Polish Lowland Sheepdog, by Pleple2000. Arria Belli 02:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion Cute subject, simple but correct composition and cropping, good colours. -- MJJR 20:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination: Water droplets on Asteraceae --Böhringer 19:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Review Asteraceae is like half or more of the flowers in the world (might be an exageration...), it should have a more specific identification. This image was disappointing to me after I saw the white flower in the thumbnails, holding the drop of water outward with the reflection of a lot of other flowers in the drop. I am unable to judge this one fairly now; the other was extraordinarily beautiful to me. -- carol 03:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Even if I would decline it. -- carol 03:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination:Pimelia modesta . Tenebrionid beetle near Ampolla, Baix Ebre (Catalonia), Spain. Lycaon 16:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Review
I was, in fact I do decline this, but to save Lycaon some typing I jumped right to discuss. If Lycaon accepts my decline, he should change the status.... -- carol 06:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Rear part is soft, back leg is cropped, lighting is harsh. It is difficult to take photographs of black bugs in bright light. -- carol 13:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Precisely because it is difficult to take photographs of black bugs in bright light, and this is a good one :) The DOF actually works for me. Fvasconcellos 13:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Foliose lichen on rock. More precise ID anyone? --Dschwen 18:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
PromotionComment isn't it a bit dark? ABF 18:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment It looks a bit like a Parmelia to me, but don't quote me on that ;-). Maybe this might help? Lycaon 19:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Unless there is a problem with the category "Unidentified lichen". -- carol 05:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I don't find this sufficient. Of course we are not all lichenologists, but those specialist are readily available through the internet, and specialists tend to be quite helpful, i've experienced (e.g.). Lycaon 09:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
How come you didn't nominate that image? -- null 13:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Cause I don't think it is good enough for QI. Lycaon 23:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Support For me Parmelia is great enough because identification and even definition of lichen species is so uncertain that we have to consider a Parmelia lichen is an identified lichen. It could be certainly Parmelia sulcata. --B.navez 14:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I just suggested Parmelia, I'm not at all sure about it, the image description does not yet reflect that tentative suggestion anyway. Lycaon 23:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion is not over Lycaon 06:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe discussion is not over but the 48 hours that are allowed to vote are.
Final total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose, promoted -- carol 07:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Total of days without discussion (discussion of discussion doesn't count): 3 days -- carol 04:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
NominationGallinula chloropus, eggs and nest --Ianare 03:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline
Oppose Unethical nest photography. Lycaon 05:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please explain how this unethical, the eggs and female were not disturbed, she left on her own to get food, and I took the opportunity. --Ianare 13:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ethical conduct is not always about one selves, but also about an ethical example function. In this case you may have acted correctly, but the photo doesn't tell that story, and might instigate others making similar snaps, while not acting correctly. Lycaon 09:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment By this reasoning, we would have to discard basically all wildlife photography, because you can harldy ever tell from a photograph if it was obtained in an ethical manner. I don't agree with this reasoning. --Stefan Vladuck 12:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Can you expand that logic? To me you are saying 'if you do not allow speeding 10mph over the speed limit, then you do not allow the driving of vehicles.' -- carol (tomes) 22:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the analogy. Rather, Lycaon's argument sounds to me like "I can't tell if you are speeding or not, therefore I'm forbidding you to drive at all." By this logic, we might as well reject his rare flower shots, because he might have acted correctly, but the photo doesn't tell that story, and might instigate others making similar snaps, while trampling down lots of rare flowers with their clumsy feet. Where is the difference? --Stefan Vladuck 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
What doesn't work with your analogy is the consistent lack of support for nest images previously here. I stick by my analogy and I actually like the definition of ethical and the previous consistency it was applied. -- carol (tomes) 04:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The fact that it was done consistently doesn't automatically make it coherent. This whole thing strikes me as rather murky: if those images are unethical, why is there no written rule against them? And what's more: if they are unethical, why aren't they deleted? Isn't it a bit hypocritical to on the one hand keep and use them, but on the other hand not recognize the work of the photographer? --Stefan Vladuck 08:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Since I have been watching none have been promoted. Which images are you referring to? The thing about all of the 'rules' everywhere, some make sense and get followed easily by many, some don't make sense and don't get followed as often, some seem to be there entirely to make a warlike situation, I like the rules which really seem to make sense 2MP images don't (a 1600x1200 pixel snapshot, when a good one can be gotten is fine by me) but this one seems to be a very good and easy one to follow. I can find example of non-promotion via the name of a photographer, not the month. If you find one that was promoted since I have been observing, I am going to be asking some questions about the new "EXIF Bot". EXIF is an incredibly easy hack if you have access to the original upload (or before it is uploaded). -- carol (tomes) 09:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think that everything about this photograph perhaps was ethicial as stated previously, the same way I think that most drivers can drive 10mph over the speed limit safely. It is an easy to understand line that requires not too much reading of things to understand. -- carol (tomes) 09:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You are ignoring my question: If nest photographs are unethical, why don't we delete all nest photographs from the Commons? Please explain. --Stefan Vladuck 10:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Define delist which is the word that was used, and probably for the same reason that they do not delete images that are not large enough for this review system. Your questions are quite boring. -- carol (tomes) 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
And your replies are first-class non-sequiturs. Image size is not an ethical issue. It seems that you are saying that there is no ethical issue in uploading and storing nest photographs on Commons, for everyone to see and ready to use across all Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia which happens to be one of the top ten most visited websites of the entire internet. But acknowledging when such an image happens to be technically a quality image on the other hand is unethical. Doesn't strike me as the most coherent stance. --Stefan Vladuck 13:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
NominationGallinula chloropus, female on nest --Ianare 02:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline
OpposeUnethical nest photography. Lycaon 05:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ethics? I thought we were judging quality. Quality can come from "unethical" situations, so that's not a valid reason. I know quality's subjective, but talk about morals. Rocket000 13:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
InfoPlease explain how this unethical, the female was not disturbed. These birds are used to me, I feed them and built the nest box, and if you look she is not in defensive mode (feathers puffed up and making a creaking sound - like they do when a cat comes near) --Ianare 13:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OpposeThe photo seems overexposed to me. --Nevit 06:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment The difficulty lays in the eye, it is almost the same color as the head and at a higher shutter/aperture it was barely discernable. Also the white spot on top really is white, it's a piece of PVC (in Florida sun) which the nest is built on. I suppose I could clone/crop it out --Ianare 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment To the best of my understanding, they have discussed the ethics stuff (possibly more than could be read in a single day or two) at another time and have narrowed it down to nest photography is not acceptable. All photography is by its nature unethical as it is quite often injective (the person taking the photograph does not want a photograph taken of him/her). It is a good generic rule, in my opinion, as it possibly prevents more invasive photographs to be taken of similar subjects. -- carol (tomes) 22:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Full of noisy artefacts. Lycaon 07:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment I scoffed at your review and then (eventually) uploaded an improved version of the improved version into the proper namespace where it now awaits further review, etc! -- carol (tomes) 10:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
OpposeComment One word, blurkeh! -- carol (tomes) 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Long-nosed Potoroo. Shallow DOF but focus is on the eyes – Peripitus 10:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline
Oppose Poor lighting. --Nevit 11:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Lighting seems fine to me, but foot is cropped a bit. Would support if crop fixed. --Ianare 01:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There is an overall blue/cyan tint. --Nevit 06:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added the most below the foot I can (and adjusted levels up a bit) - I can't see the tint Nevit has mentioned though either in the shot or in the level histograms - Peripitus 08:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I see what you mean after looking at other pictures of the same animal, it should be a bit more brown. I test adjusted the color balance with GIMP and it looks like about +25 red -25 cyan, +20 yellow -20 blue would do the trick. Of course Peripitus should do the adjustments since he saw the animals firsthand -- Ianare 17:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment as seen from the combined shots on the right (at least 1 shade and 1 bright sun shot), perhaps the colour is ok. It may be that the underfur is redder so from some angles the colour is different to what I saw on the day ? - Peripitus 04:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination «Topaz» factory in Donetsk --Butko 07:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline
Support Composition is good, photograph is crisp. -- carol 15:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC) I was thinking about how the right and the left of the building are cut off. -- carol 04:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
OpposeSorry, but all the branches seem to have those whitish (oversharpening/processing?) haloes. Lycaon 09:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with Lycaon. --Lestath 18:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination A snipefly (Rhagio scolopaceus) --Richard Bartz 11:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion
Comment super! --Mbdortmund 17:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Super soft.... -- carol 14:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Info Maybe i should downsample it --Richard Bartz 14:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Itemized list
When does 'bokeh' become 'blurkeh'? I think that there is a line and this image crossed it.
I read a review elsewhere about the awkward crop -- and 'technically' it is an awkward crop.
There is a secret bot that counts the hours and minutes since the proclamation "Because I am Makro Freak" in tainted english has been proclaimed; might I suggest it is that the photographer is as soft as this image and that is the reason the bot is counting months now instead of minutes and hours. -- carol 16:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Obviously a QI. --Calibas 06:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
NominationLeiocephalus carinatus armouri --Ianare 05:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline
Oppose I'm torn, it looks good, but only the head is in focus, which is a fault for a quality image. I wonder what the wildlife shooters over here would think. Benh 19:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose DOF is insufficient. Lycaon 05:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Swamp Wallaby with large joey. -- Peripitus 06:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion
SupportSlightly blured (and sharped), but QI. #!George Shuklin 10:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose QI needs to be sharp. --Nevit 10:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I think that at 2mpx it's quite sharp though I'd prefer not to downsample to simulate this - Peripitus 11:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not a fan of downsampling. You can do and try your chance. --Nevit 20:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think he means judging the image at a 2MP standard, which makes sense. Actually uploading a downsampled image on the other hand would make no sense at all. --Stefan Vladuck 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes that is what I mean. I've seen many uploaders downsampling (like this) for various reasons, and much argument about doing this to achieve apparent sharpness and low noise. At 100% this process always makes the image look sharper and cleaner though when printed or viewed at the same size as the original the loss of information is clear. - Peripitus 04:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Support. Given the size of the image it is sharp enough. It really frustrates me that people blindly review at 100% without thinking one second about the size of the images. This is especially unfair to people with 12.8MP cameras uploading at full resolution... ...which would be me for example... ...yes, this is a rant, probably misplaced, but I'm annoyed! --Dschwen 15:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Good composition. Not a fan of downsampling either. :) --Lerdsuwa 13:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
NominationPlatanthera bifolia, Belgium - La Calestienne. -- Lycaon 21:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion
Oppose The blade of grass in the foreground ruins the composition. -- carol 03:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment I do not condone of removing other plants in a nature reserve, just for the purpose of taking a picture of a rare species in its natural habitat. Lycaon 21:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Defense: You make it seem as if the blade of grass will be damaged if it was gently bent to remove it from the frame. I am certainly happy that you did not remove it from where it was growing, place it on a cardboard or paper and take a perfect photograph of it that way, but I think it grows among these gentle grasses for reasons -- the flexibility of the neighbors being one of those reasons. -- carol 08:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Support I could use a little more contrast and the blade of grass is a little distracting but I still feel this is a QI. --Calibas 04:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Support That grass leaf is a slight distraction. But I prefer the nature scene to be left intacted. Not FP material but a QI. --Lerdsuwa 13:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Statue of Liberty, vertical panoramic. --Dschwen 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion
Support Come back when it is life-sized. -- carol 19:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that is a legitimate reason --Ianare 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, it was a joke. Other jokes I thought about including in the review were about identifying the camera being held by that man on the observation deck and/or something about looking up her skirt. Then I asked the photographer about how much the camera helps because the point and shoot I have has a moderately useful hack that blocks off new frame and shows the last frame to make the alignment of the camera easier -- but it only works horizontally. So, not only did people look at the image right away because of the stupid reason I gave, but when they looked at this image, they saw not only manually lined up images in the shot taken but also stitching which was really well done. Meticulous at each step of the process. I like to think that software can assist, but sometimes the assistence is a stupification of the people who are being assisted. I haven't used hugin, but it must involve some human skill as well to make it work well. The joke should have been obvious. Let me know if it wasn't. Offensive jokes might have included things about the French, I didn't bother with that and it isn't what is great about this image.... I opted for absurdity. -- carol (tomes) 06:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Seems OK. --Nevit 20:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Where do you see any tilt? Please note that this shot is slightly on angle, thus the edges look slanted due to the perspective. --Dschwen 00:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I can not see any tilt. Measure from base & horizontals. Not the statue itself. --Nevit 06:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Dolphins (Delphinidae) at Loro Parque Dolphinarium. Cropped version with help of User:CarolSpears, original by Piotrus 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline
Oppose Nope. A bit blurry. Not that big enough. And I don't like the composition. -- TwoWings 08:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I think it is sharp enough, bigh enough to show the subject (jumping trio of dolphins), and one likes or dislikes are not relevant here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 10:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If it weren't big enough to show the subject it would be a sub-standard image. This one is a standard image, but not quite a QI IMO. hence Oppose. --Dschwen 15:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If size is a problem, I have both a bigger and a smaller version (added).--Piotrus 22:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose For image at 2Mpix, I expect it to be perfect. This photo is a little bit short of perfection. --Lerdsuwa 13:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"I don't like the composition". "This one is a standard image". "This photo is a little bit short of perfection". On Wikipedia, we have a simple response to that: see here. Sigh. --Piotrus 19:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination: Florida Box Turtle --Digon3 16:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Review
I've uploaded an edit that addresses some background cut-out issues. Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with it. Thegreenj 01:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit, it looks a lot better --Digon3 15:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Downsampling is not an acceptable way to improve an image. -- carol 05:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
What? I can name quite a few Featured Pictures that had been downsampled for sharpness (or other reasons) and there is no rule against it. Declining for downsampling is not a valid reason unless the image is downsampled under 2 megapixels. Digon3 15:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the fact that others have been doing it doesn't mean that it makes sense. Images don't get sharper by downsampling. The downsampled image may look better at 1:1 on screen, but that's because you are looking at a smaller magnification. The purpose of high resolution files is not for viewing at 1:1 (pixel per pixel) on screen. Try printing both a high resolution file and a downsampled one at the same size (large). The downsampled one will look worse due to the lower resolution. --Stefan Vladuck 16:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. It is plenty big enough to be considered for a QI and QI's are not evaluated on how good they look on paper but how they look when you click the link (and FPs for that matter). That is not the way it should be, it is stupid, but thats the way it is. It is also big enough to look like a high quality photo on a full size piece of paper. And I am getting really sick of being lectured about it being downsampled. Either decline it for a technical or image quality problem with the current image, or don't. --Digon3 17:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
"it is stupid" - well, why should we keep doing something stupid? Why not do things in a more sensible way? Besides, there are several reviewers who already try to judge the images by actual quality. See for example Ram-Man's comment in this FP discussion. --Stefan Vladuck 18:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Meets QI standards --Ianare 06:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Love it. --Lerdsuwa 16:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, not because of alledged downsampling but for for me too shallow DOF. Lycaon 06:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The downsampling is not alledged, it really did happen -- anyone can see this in the file history. So it would technically be more communicative of this particular situation to type "Not because of the actual downsampling" -- carol 14:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OpposeGiving it was shot in controlled conditions, with such static subject, smallest aperture, and wider zoom settings should be used to make the whole image sharp. --Nevit 06:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment It wasn't a static subject, it was a fast moving subject. Suprisingly fast for a turtle. The larger DOF pictures I took were blurred and focus bracketing was not an option either. What do you mean by wider zoom settings? I should of zoomed out? Digon3 14:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Getting closer with wider zoom should give you more DOF. --Nevit 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't significantly change DOF. Subject size and framing are the major factors in calculating DOF. Wider images sometimes appear to have greater DOF, but it's usually because the framing is larger than a telephoto image. If one were to take a picture at 200mm while 10m away from the subject, then at 20mm while 1m away from the subject, DOF would be roughly equivalent (though perspective—and thus background blur—would be very different). Thegreenj 22:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Panorama of a district in Hong Kong, called Wan Chai. --Base64 10:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion
Support Seem ok. No it's phantastic. --Kolossos 18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Interesting use of a star filter also -- not over done. -- carol 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually no star filter was applied, it's directly from RAW. --Base64 02:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I never thought I would ever say the words "nice use of a star filter", btw. I moved the discussion here because I have questions about the technical parts of this image. The few starred lights were that way on the RAW image or you put them there via a software filter while converting from RAW to jpg? Also, this goregous image looks like nothing I have seen that is real. While looking at it with 100% view, I was thinking about Bladerunner and the mood/atmosphere seems similar. -- carol (tomes) 12:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm 100% sure that I did not add a star filter (I don't even know how). My lens has 8 Diaphragm Blades, and the segment is shot at f/5.6 at 70mm. Here is my proof: Link. About the atmosphere, your concern is similar to the opposers in Another image. --Base64 13:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Not a concern for me -- I read where they don't like the clouds or something. Benh has a really good eye for stitch errors in panoramas; I have been able to see animations having a frame that is one pixel off, tables lined up unevenly and dust spots in gradients of blue and orange. Whatever any of these skills are worth.... I have seen lights reflect from low clouds -- just not such a view of such a large city and that happen. The image doesn't look unreal, but it reminds me of an unreal thing first because I have seen that. The plugin for GIMP which makes stars works on lights of a certain intensity -- I don't know if I am using the proper terminology. This photograph seems to have this same thing, where only certain sizes and brightness of lights are rayed. Probably the lens star filter is not so selective. And just because I think it is (or can be) a little 'tacky' doesn't mean that I would not use the filter or effect if it was available. It is really nice in this image. -- carol (tomes) 16:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose After I got over the beauty of this image, I saw the repetitive marks in the sky. -- carol (tomes) 16:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I can't vote now -- carol (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'm so sad that after many hours a work on the image, a dust is found on the CMOS. I'm depressed when seeing this. I'm going to send my camera back to Canon Customer's service center soon. The dust spot is about 0.6851mm x 1.8271mm in size. May I ask is there any way to clone it? --Base64 06:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I just did this, The spot on the far right was more of a challenge than I thought it would be. Do you want me to upload it into the namespace or to my web site so you can upload it if it meets your approval or whatever. The repetition with the photography problems is interesting as well. One pretty sunset image with a spot or two on it and then a whole bunch of images with similar spots appeared here. I blamed that on the dull midwest winters, it would be nice not to have the same repetition with people ;)
I await further instructions on what to do with the cloned image. It is a beautiful image, no matter if it gets any of these templates pasted on it. -- carol (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thank you so much. Can you please upload it to your web site first? If no big changes are observable except the change in the dust spots, uploading it to the same namespace later is the best option, as it's sort of confusing when having separate images that have flaws. --Base64 08:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It is located here. It is a beautiful image and it was very nice to work on. It is also nice to be asked to work on an image. -- carol (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I've uploaded to the same namespace, as other parts were identical. You are the most helpful person that I have ever known. I've also added a "retouched" template to the description. Nice to have you editing, much appreciated. --Base64 14:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
At this moment in time, I think GIMP has the best jpeg saving; one of the developers did the "impossible' and figured out how to get information from the file that they said could not be done. gimp-2.5 is able to determine what quality level the jpeg was originally saved at and presents this quality in the save dialog. Most certainly, other applications will accept the free ride and use this impossible thing in future versions of their application as other people involved with GIMP also seem to enjoy this free ride. I often wonder lately if the level of helpful is a way to determine whether people "came in through the front door" or were "wedged in through a backdoor". Not changing the other parts of the image 1)GIMPs jpeg save abilities 2)not messing with perfection! It is really a beautiful image and I thank you for making it available here. -- carol (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Support nice pic. --Dschwen 17:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Panoramic of Lower Manhatten as seen from the Staten Island ferry. --Dschwen 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion
Support Who's insisting on downsampling? I don't think this affects this particular nom, since you haven't lost detail as far as I can tell between original and downsampled versions, plus both versions fall clearly into QI, but if you're willing and prefer to provide a higher-res image, why don't you do so? One user has a nice and correct (AFAIK) page on it, so at least not everyone is out to get you... Thegreenj 16:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't need everyone to be out and get me, a few rotten apples are enough to spoil the fun. I am willing to provide high res, and I do so, thus I don't quite understand your question. And I am well aware of Stefan's page. --Dschwen 16:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm just saying, if you don't want to downsample, don't do it. Thegreenj 17:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry it doesn work that way. If the reviewers penalize original size, they'll get a downsampled version. Whether it will accidentally be replaced with the full-size after review is a different question... --Dschwen 18:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose "Dust spot" above that other ferry that was aiming to hit the one you were on. carol 17:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean the cruise ship? I can see the ship engines exhaust which might resemble a dust spot (but it is in both overlapping frames, and a tiny helicopter (also in both frames). --Dschwen 17:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I am going to circle it and upload it into the same namespace, okay? -- carol (tomes) 17:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
But please don't overwrite. --Dschwen 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Separate namespace image is uploading. If I clean my monitor, I might be able to find even more of these (it is easy to determine spooge from spots on images, the spots on the images move with the image). Also, I can try to repair it but that always ends with me replacing the sky.... -- carol (tomes) 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Carol, you scare me. I honestly did not see these. I'll have to get back to the original TIFs to fix those spots. --Dschwen 18:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It is worth it though, the photograph is so close to being perfect. That clipper ship (or whatever the boats with the multi-sails are named) was really cool and I liked wondering if the other boat hit the one you were on. The city there also, so many windows on so many buildings and only one window covered with green plastic; the city seemed to be perfect as well. -- carol (tomes) 19:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This morning I uploaded File:Lower_Manhattan_pano_2.jpg, taken a few minutes after this one. I spent some time looking at it (lots of seagulls, helicopters, sailboats, etc. ), plus it has Governors Island on it. You'll certainly find some dust on that one as well. I haven't been scrubbing my images lately. --Dschwen 19:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Just one, but my eyes are tired and the room is bright and the image of the trained dolphins is kinda disturbing.... This image was also less contrasty (and not so beautiful). My dad used to use a can of air to remove dust from sensitive places without leaving lint and more from the cleaning. How long were you where ever you were taking photos? -- carol (tomes) 20:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, please don't do this to a camera... the propellant will get on the sensor. Thegreenj 02:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Heheh, thanks, I know. Methanol works best. --Dschwen 02:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Info. Dust spots removed. (I was in NYC for five days) --Dschwen 23:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I looked at some maps, and it looks like all of these panos were taken on/from Ellis Island, so the statue was behind you for these Manhattan images. How long were you on that island? -- carol (tomes) 11:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, the panos were taken from the (moving) Staten Island Ferry. You can see its trace in the water. --Dschwen 13:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
That seems not possible. -- carol (tomes) 16:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Beautiful panorama. I particularly like the deep blue sky and the sharpness of the buildings. -- carol (tomes) 11:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Great panorama that meets everything to be a QI. Bidgee 13:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It was among the clouds in the left of the image, a darker area. This one is not nearly as sticking out as the other one. -- carol (tomes) 17:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Really good composition. --Pymouss44 10:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --LC-de 14:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination "Bas-relief" of the Statue of the Genius of the Navigation, Toulon, France--Esby 22:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion
To me, a clear QI... when it will be downsampled. I don't think this will take away any details. Maybe some unsharp mark would help as well (but before downsampling). Benh 16:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Downsampled it a bit and checked the AR again, added a note about AR in talk page. Esby 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Support. The downsampling does not increase the image quality. And the low amount of downsampling (thank god it wasn't more) seems to be more of a reviewer-appeasement anyways ;-). That being said, the image quality is certainly sufficient for QI! --Dschwen 15:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination 33 Megapixel enfused HDR panorama of the Empire State Building. Check full size. --Dschwen 20:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion
Support Excellent picture, too bad the sky wasn't blue. However, the horizon on the left appears tilted, or does earth just look like that?--JDrewes 13:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I find the picture very sharp, for sure. But it is so washed out that some details seem to have gone away. Perspective should be corrected on the horizontal lines IMO. Benh 16:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC).
Comment You just have to be f*ing kidding me!!!! This image has way more details than most other pictures on this page and perspective correction of the horizontal lines would look ridiculous given the large vertical viewing angle. --Dschwen 19:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Support I'm promoting this photo. You can see that it's smoggy (reason for the sky not being blue which I'm sure NY like any city of it's size has), Large image size and it has good detail. Bidgee 19:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Nothing wrong with the details IMO. Lycaon 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Neutral -- Composition is cluttered and congested. -- carol (tomes) 08:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Support - very good photo -Pudelek 09:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Casuarina Coastal Reserve. --Bidgee 16:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion .
Oppose Needs tilt correction, and for the subject it is a little on the small side. Most of it is sky and water. There is little detail in the frame. --Dschwen 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment It was taken on a sand bar and it's a photo of an Estuary mouth which forms part of the Reserve, also how is the image small? Bidgee 15:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Support I like the way it is, full of blue color and it gives the idea of peace. Enough for Ql --Manco Capac 07:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Needs tilt correction Lycaon 11:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I can't fix it until someone points out where it's tilted. So the area it was taken isn't flat (Sand bar may make it look as if it's tilted) Bidgee 11:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment sorry, you can't vote as editor. Lycaon 22:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC). I went ahead and uploaded a rotated version. (btw I answered the tilt question on my talk page :-). --Dschwen 22:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I didn't see an oppose from you. Checking the diff, there was none! This would have made me the sole opposer. I fail to see how the simple mechanical act of fixing a problem should make me ineligible for voting. This looks like a case of taking the rules a bit to far. Well, if you still have a problem with the image its place should be in CR, but please don't paint me as a rule violator in the edit summary. --Dschwen 23:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to paint you as such. Sorry if I gave you that impression and my oppose was here. Lycaon 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Hm, then it should have been moved to CR much earlier. The way I saw it was that I was basically just reverting my vote. No hard feelings. --Dschwen 23:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Crispness not optimal, tilt is gone though. Lycaon 22:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Technical quality perhaps not optimal, but good enough. Thegreenj 00:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --LC-de 14:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Carapils bier cans, --Romanceor 13:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline
Support The photograph is good and the events that cause these photographs are often good as well. What I don't support, however, is under-age consumption of alcohol and in the blurry parts of this image, such questions arise. Heh. It is very good to have a foundation of fun without external assistence first. -- carol 05:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Info Uhuh... there is no underaged consumer in this picture, and neither arround the cans. --Romanceor[parlons-en] 16:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Those are man-legs, aged 15 to 25 years. Typical man-legs thicken after the age of 25, sometimes before. -- carol (tomes) 11:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose it seems jpg artifacts on the red part. And somehow, very complicated. _Fukutaro 14:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Question I just don't understand what's complicated ; is that the composition that disturbs you ? --Romanceor 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Unneeded noise in the out-of-focus parts. Lycaon 05:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Info I tried to reduce the noise by JPEG compression by 5%, but I'm not sure what means "Unneeded noise" : how is it possible to have a needed noise ? --Romanceor[parlons-en] 10:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Unneeded or unnecessary or could/should have been avoided. Lycaon 12:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Grand Moutier Cloister, Fontevraud abbey. --Berrucomons 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline
Support Seems ok. --Nevit 06:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Why don't you try hugin or some similar software. The manual approach leaves some weirdly tilted columns. Lycaon 09:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Could be a very nice picture, but stitching was done unproperly. you could use line guides or set your anchor point better. Benh 16:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Looks nice.--Piotrus 01:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Wavy roof on the middle building. --Lerdsuwa 14:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Oconaluftee river, North Carolina --Ianare 05:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Promotion
Support: Sharp rocks and the motion blur of the water are really nice; the trees are all leaning the same.... -- carol 22:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the trees leaning is natural. Maybe a rotation would help. -- carol (tomes) 17:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment The trees are leaning towards the center of the river to get the most light, however if you look at the top section of the bigger tree it is straight. I had to rotate the image before uploading (standing on a rock in the middle of a river w/ no tripod will do that ;-) ) --Ianare 17:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. It is really a beautiful image and almost unbelievable that you took it without a tripod! To me, it should be what a Featured Picture should be; I don't know if I understand what that means to others though. Also, please do not geolocate this place; it should remain this beautiful a little longer that way. -- carol (tomes) 20:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose (just) Too much CA on the rocks and the water. Composition is good though. Lycaon 08:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Support: Sharp rocks--Beyond silence 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Nice and sharp image Bidgee 16:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Not so. Good composition but poor image quality: blurry and plenty of artifacts. The QI bar for insects is much higher than this -- Alvesgaspar 17:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Question Do you think that QI level must be the difference among some category? _Fukutaro 15:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Ok for me. --Nevit 17:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
CommentI find the composition of this one much weaker than the other portrait below, and the overexposed sky doesn't help it either... --Stefan Vladuck 21:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OpposeCentered subject. --Nevit 06:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
CommentOthers have been declined for not being centered. -- carol 14:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Stop declining pictures just because they are centered: centered is not always wrong! For this portrait it's the right choice. But the overexposed sky is rather unfortunate indeed. -- MJJR 19:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Support -- This is QIC, not FPC -- Alvesgaspar 15:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Support. Clear QI. I can overlook the sky in light of the good quality of the main subject. --Dschwen 12:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Nice sharp eyebrows. --Lerdsuwa 14:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Support The main subject is the (serious) kid, the bluryness of the background and centered subjet contributes to the photograph. Esby 19:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Sheep. --Dilaudid 16:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion
Support Focused and captures a baa moood. -- carol 16:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Composition: The round shape at the lower part of image (half cut head of another animal?) seems disturbing to me. --Nevit 17:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination N train cockpit, New York City Subway. Please take the difficult conditions under consideration. --Dschwen 14:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion
Support There is some noise in this image, behind the reflection. -- carol 00:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
After looking at the image and the murky reflection there -- I took off to look at the documentation because I had heard a story where the author felt weird about riding in NY subway trains that did not have a driver (they put one of those toy steering wheels up and worked it for comfort). I learned that only some of the trains are like this and I also forgot to come back to support the image. I could clearly read 'Buzzer' and 'Zone Light' on some of the panels.... -- carol (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. You should consider the image size. This can be reviewed at 50%, then there is essentially 0 noise. --Dschwen 22:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You disagreed or you are disagreeable? -- carol (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Control panel out of focus #!George Shuklin 13:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Uhm.. ...no. I can understand that you want to close this nom after ten days on this page. But I cannot let factual inaccuracies stand. There is focus in front, behind, and on the panel. --Dschwen 15:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Look at head of screw in the door opener (sorry, do not known english name for ручка) and to the buttons on pannel. Huge difference. Look at note "Alston" on pannel - it blured at the far end. Text under buttons (white board) blured and half-unreadble. Focus come to the door opener and DOF is not enough to take intresting part to focus. #!George Shuklin 17:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This stands exactly for the things I was complaining about. The screw is not out of focus. Smaller Pictures with this sharpness get promoted here all the time. This is unfair punishment for uploading a 12 Megapixel image. If I downscaled it to 2MP it would pass without any discussion, but at 12MP there are some regions which offer even more sharpness than that screw on the door opener, and suddenly the rest of the image is deemed out of focus. --Dschwen 22:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Reflections. --Nevit 18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline
Support I have to say what this image quality: sharpness, noise, lightness, are not good. But above all, it is very typical reflected image. _Fukutaro 12:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Artifacts, lack of contrast. Nice idea though. --Dilaudid 16:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as Dilaudid --LC-de 08:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Zamość, Poland. Part of the former Zamość fortress, now a marketplace ('Hala Targowa'). Piotrus 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline
Support Acceptable quality, but odd framing. --Dschwen 19:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually there is a slight clockwise tilt even considering the sloped walls. Neutral. --Dschwen 14:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose tilt! --Pudelek 07:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC) --
Support I don't see any tilt: old military constructions of that kind have sloping walls! -- MJJR 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Then why didn't the photographer straighten the building before taking the photograph? And while he was at it, he should also have removed the hill in front of the building with a bulldozer. How can you expect to make a quality photograph without such minor corrections? --null 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ac Pudelek --Lestath 09:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination church in Lindos. --Böhringer 10:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion
Support Clear QI. --Dschwen 14:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Isn't it a little off on the composition? It is half sky and half stuff.... -- carol 15:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Support It is not super quality and technically, but enough to QI. Half composition is not such wrong thing, though I feel that a little distracting composition from what the artificial cape behind the close below of the roof. This image is separated into half literally. _Fukutaro 15:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Serge Toubiana animating the yesterday's discussion about "Was May 68 filmed ?" at the Cinémathèque française --Romanceor03:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Microphone and hand are not the subject of the photo, and their blurness contribute to the effect of dynamisn of the picture, which name is Serge Toubiana "animating". --Romanceor05:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Yes I know ; it's a catastrophy... But I've been told that's VERY expensive. May I ask where do you see it in this picture ? --Romanceor10:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not expensive. You need lint-free paper tissue and Methanol. I've done it twice before (and I'm overdue too :-) ). Spots are all over the bg.--Dschwen12:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you were speaking of lenses that's not the problem : it really is the dust arrived on the sensor in Ouagadougou (a very dust&dirty city, true horror for SLRs, overall when you need objective changes). But in fact I'm just discovering the "Dust correction" tool in Capture NX which will permit me to wait until I have the 25€ asked by Nikon to clean the sensor... 'cause yes, I prefer to let doing it by professionals : to risky. Thanks anyhow. --Romanceor12:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm talking about the sensor! First time is always the scariest. But then again, I had a nicely equiped lab to do my cleaning in. --Dschwen12:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Male white-legged damselfly (Platycnemis pennipes) --LC-de 16:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline
Oppose Detail/forcus is not much for closeup-shot. It seems just like was upscaled to me...? _Fukutaro 13:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand your statement. Where do you want more detail and how do you define it? Btw it wasn't upscaled. --LC-de 14:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Not upscaling, O.K. But it seems to focused on nowhere. The insect's head and back are a bit blurred. I think that is not enough for QI even if approve what the tip of tail is out of focus. Not upscale, then, that may over edited. Lighting, I can see some overexposued points. Color, good. Composition, very good. _Fukutaro 15:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Australian magpie posing. -- Peripitus 06:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline
Oppose Subject too small. --Dschwen 12:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I like it. -- carol 18:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Sharp, interesting photograph. The branch across the upper portion of the image really makes the composition. -- carol (tomes) 14:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Smallish and unfortunately lit. Lycaon 08:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Corner building at the ul. Sienkiewicza/ul. Dąbrowskiego in Katowice. --Lestath 14:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline
Oppose Dark composition, too cluttered.--Piotrus 16:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This building is dark, but exposition is good and this is necessary for QI. Cluttered - why? Main theme of this photo is that building and I don't know where do You see any element of clutter. --Lestath 22:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose White balance problem, sharpening fringes, yet not very sharp. Lycaon 08:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Swabs less blue photograph by George Shuklin. -- \mathbf{C} 20:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline .
Oppose What a poor and sad composition. Has background any link with the topic ? --B.navez 08:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Nah, it was an easy repair and I was having a good day. Good day to you, sir or ma'am. -- \mathbf{C} 19:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Hello MathbfC, this is still not what I have in mind. I expect the cotton to be whiter, i.e. RGB with value closer to 255,255,255. Here the cotton still looks gray. --Lerdsuwa 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I am confused by the original decline of this image. It was uploaded at the same time that I 'engaged' my stereo, and whatever "poor and sad composition" that is being alluded to here eludes me. -- carol 23:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded a new version of the file with the swabs greatly whitened, I would appreciate further review.
I am also wondering what composition B.navez perceives is a problem here
What the hell does cotton swabs have to do with carol using hisher stereo?
It should be obvious that I am female -- several decades of being a female and I should be getting good at it by now. -- carol (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is what I have in mind. The brightest part of the image should be around 255,255,255 (cotton's color in bright light) while the details, texture, shadow are retained. --Lerdsuwa 04:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I have uploaded a version which is an attempt to address the composition problems mentioned by B.navez -- \mathbf{C} 06:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem of balance but of composition : change the background (why such an ugly grey cloth not even ironed?), don't put 3 swabs so regularly in a flat position, give some pieces of context. In two words : change all.--B.navez 04:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I really really really wanted to replace the swabs in the original image with pickles and use the clone tool to 'iron' the surface, but I was not in the mood to manage (consume) the new subject after the photo-op; I have added an attempt to "change all" but unfortunately, with all changed, it is incorrect here to upload the new image into the old namespace. Is this what you were after? -- \mathbf{C} 22:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
By my count, there should have been four pickles, not three. -- carol (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Pietro Tenerani - Portrait of countess S. Shuvalova (Hermitage) #!George Shuklin 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion
Shadows are a little noisy and the base is a little soft, I would like more opinions though. -- carol 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree about noise, not only in the shadows, and the contours are soft. Due to the rather DOF nothing on the pic really has a crisp focus. However, at 7.5 Megapixels the image provides enough quality for QI. (I'm going to refrain from a vote here, to make my WP:POINT slightly less obvious ;-) ) --Dschwen 00:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Female bush-cricket nymph in the 2nd last stage of genus Great Green Bush Cricket (Tettigonia viridissima) on Timothy-grass (Phleum pratense) --Richard Bartz 08:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion No doubt, QI --Romanceor 09:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
This female is interrupting the composition of the image simply by being in it. Also, shouldn't it be rotated so the grass is straighter? -- \mathbf{C} 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Support No, it shouldn't :) To me the composition is impeccable. --Dilaudid 08:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Absolut QI --Berthold Werner 12:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Support obvious QI Ianare 04:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Altar of cathedral Saint-Étienne --Pom² 15:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Promotion
Support Ok, quality. --Dschwen 14:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Beg to differ. Crispness and details are insufficient IMO. Lycaon 19:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
?! This is a 9MP image, and in most regions of the image sharpness is perfectly ok. Even after a 50% downscaling the image would be above the 2MP limit, and it would look super crisp. So just thank the uploader for not downsampling and wave it through. --Dschwen 16:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Hi, i had a bit of sharpness to the raw, but its the best I can do as its the original 10MB picture of my D80 (was slightly re-sized before, maybe it had some blur too) --Pom² 19:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Sharp enough for the resolution. --Calibas 18:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment For info, as it's the first time I post for QI, do you think this can be a FP candidate ? (if it get QI approbation) --Pom² (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment The two have not that much to do with each other. Images can and have gotten the whatever (the boot or the template) from both. I suggest that you read the stuff about what makes a commons Featured Picture -- unless you were talking about one of the other Featured Picture Candidate reviews available elsewhere in wiki-world. -- carol (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
CommentAny picture can be a FP candidate :) (It doesn't have to be a QI.) Go for it and see what happens! –Dilaudid 19:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Clochard à Bercy, Paris --Romanceor 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline
Support I like this picture more for its composition rather than its technical qualities. The lighting conditions were tough, and there is considerable clipping in the highlights, as well as alight noise overall. I'm supporting it, it still is a good pic. --Dschwen 00:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose It has problem so that, I think it needs discuss and some opinion. _Fukutaro 15:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment The sky is slightly artefacty and the shadows on the front are a bit disturbing... Otherwise, this seems fine. A second opinion? --Dilaudid 17:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC), Looks ok to me. --Dschwen 19:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Info It has been done with The Panorama Factory v4.5. I'll try again with the v5.1 and hugin. --Romanceor 10:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
![]] is always appreciated! --Dschwen 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Info location is done --Pudelek 10:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Canal_lock_in_Oppeln1.JPG/120px-Canal_lock_in_Oppeln1.JPG)
]] is always appreciated! --Dschwen 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
OpposeDOF --Nevit 11:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
SupportSeems OK. --Nevit 19:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC) 
Question What about this version ? --Romanceor 16:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Very nice subject. But the right pillar is overexposure, there is slightly artifacts of whole may from poor lighting, and composition is disordered by peoples heads and was cropped. _Fukutaro 14:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Done Categories added (by a friendly soul) -- Formul 23:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC), Acceptable quality. --Dschwen 22:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
_-_2.jpg)
.jpg)
![]] is always appreciated! --Dschwen 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Info location is done --Pudelek 10:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)](/wiki/File:Canal_lock_in_Oppeln1.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
Neutral Lighting seems fine to me, but foot is cropped a bit. Would support if crop fixed. --Ianare 01:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
I withdraw my nomination Serge Toubiana is too much blury, even if he has a very expressive face on the picture. --Romanceor [parlons-en] 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
