Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 2011

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Volvo N86 in snow.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Volvo N86 truck.--V-wolf 14:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support nice --Pudelek 19:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, for me the snow is overexposed --Croucrou 18:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version up. Still too bright? --V-wolf 21:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment sorry but your correction is worth than the original. You just turn the white in grey. I try to finds some details in the white but it's difficult without the raw fill. I upload à third version who still not perfect --Croucrou 12:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment I have no software to deal with the RAW format, so I shoot in jpg.--V-wolf (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
        •  Comment On the Exif of your pictures I can see that you use Photoshop cs2 under windows to edit your pictures. this is a good software for editing Raw. Shoot in Jpeg can be a choice but you must be careful with the highlight. In this picture, for me, there is to much burned zones and this is a pity because the rest of the picture is interesting --Croucrou 15:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
          •  Comment I think my camera is too new for the program, CS2 can't read the files. I will try to save some money to get a better version. Anyhow, thanks for the critique! --V-wolf 15:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
            • en:GIMP is free, and deal with RAW-format.--Ankara 10:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination --V-wolf 17:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-02-25-puits-ste-marie-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination An old mine, near Ronchamp, France. --ComputerHotline 20:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support A bit dull weather but technically fine. Qiqritiq 13:25, 26 February 2011
    •  Oppose Sorry, hadn't noticed the pixelation. Qiqritiq 07:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose this is a beautifull picture but the sky is too pixelated --Croucrou 17:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong pixelization of the sky, indeed.--Jebulon 13:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --ELEKHHT 07:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Lilla_Nyckelviken_februari_2011b.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lilla Nyckelviken. --Ankara 13:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very noisy, overexposured parts (the chimney), bad crop at right, framing too tight IMO.--Jebulon 15:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I dont agree. Its not very noisy, chimmey (a very small part of the image) reflects the sun, have to have a tight framing (trees, the house is located a few meters from the water). The choice of lens (normal 50 mm) gives a detailed picture of the house, and have minimal distortion.--Ankara 11:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 07:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Rattikelkkailua Yyterissä.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Snowracer in Yyteri. --kallerna 13:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Rakastan Suomi (i love Finland) --Ralf Roletschek 14:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I need other opinions about colors, levels, sharpness, noise, and other small issues I find disturbing, please let me put this picture in Consensual Review (but nothing personal against Finland...)--Jebulon 17:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral IMO, the colors are great, it is what makes the picture appealing to me. On the other side, sharpness is an issue that I can't get over. Also, there is weird noise on the black part of the snowracer and on the person. Overall, hard to decide. Letartean (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice atmosphere, but per Jebulon --Carschten 11:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose white balance imo off, sharpness problems --Mbdortmund 11:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 11:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

File:LIF-VIK block.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ice hockey situation in a game in the Swedish second league.--V-wolf 10:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Very noisy and unfortunately cropped at the right-hand side. --Qiqritiq 10:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support acceptable noise for me, QI --Ralf Roletschek 16:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed noisy and problematic composition (subject missing; left crop). --Elekhh 11:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Switch to  Neutral due to some improvement of composition. --Elekhh 00:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support STOP. Noisy, it's normal for this type of photography. An ice rink is a dark place. The subjects are highly mobile. An action photo - without noisy - in a rink is impossible. Ludo29 00:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC) 
  •  Question Would it look better if I crop away the player to the right (Fredrik Johansson)? --V-wolf 07:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I think so. (No offense meant to Mr Johansson.) --Avenue 22:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Me too. --Jebulon 00:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Fixed I also had some extra space to the left in the original file, so I used some of that.--V-wolf 17:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support now --Jebulon 00:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Me too. --Avenue 03:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 07:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Bürstegg Winter.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bürstegg by Alex.vonbun nom --Böhringer 20:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Vertical perspective distortion?--Lmbuga 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Nice, very sharp and well composed to my eyes, but why is the snow so grey ? --Jebulon 00:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Request Please white balance this. --IdLoveOne 06:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Grey snow stays grey :-(. Qiqritiq 18:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    Was fixed --Qiqritiq 07:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for me QI --Ralf Roletschek 16:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better.  Question : has the improver of the picture permission to support his own work ? Only a question, nothing personal.--Jebulon 00:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think there is a policy on this. I myself have avoided doing so in these cases just to be safe. But in any case, I personally think they should be allowed to for two reasons: 1) they don't really get credit for this, so there's no COI; 2) a dilemma occurs if someone (not the nominator) really really wants an image to get promoted. Do they vote "support" for it, or do they improve it in the hopes that it will convince a later !voter to support when he would have opposed? Allowing improve + vote eliminates this scenario, which reduces the overall quality of images because we are incentivizing people to not improve images in certain cases. -- King of Hearts 06:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, nice image, so  Support King of Hearts 06:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --King of Hearts 06:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Haustellum_brandaris_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Shell of a Purple Dye Murex, Haustellum (Bolinus) brandaris --Llez 11:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality, Sharp, perhaps the light is a bit flat --Croucrou 12:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am not very convinced. the shell looks old, weathered and a bit dirty. It is also not terribly sharp and the colors are a bit off. Your compositions are often very valuable and representative for the species. This is here not the case IMO. Qiqritiq 13:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Old and dirty?? This shell is from a living caught (dreged) specimen, which I prepared and cleaned, and I cleaned it again before making the photos. This picture shows a nearly perfect shell and the best preserved specimen in Commons we have. Please look at the Category, all others are more or less damaged (lacking the spines - abraded by the waves or by lying at the beach for some time, no complete aperture and so on), no other is in the original state --Llez 15:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I find everywhere on the internet shells with colors (yellow inside e.g.) and also the operculum (the door of the shell) is missing if it was a live one. Qiqritiq 07:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Please read the comment above, I spoke of a "living caught specimen, which I prepared and cleaned". I never said, that I photographed a living specimen. You're right, a living specimen has an operculum. I preserved this when preparing the specimen, too. Especially for you I made an annotation on the description page. Please have a look at it. Second, you are right, in the web you find shells with colours: whitish, greyish, yellowish, brownish or a even with a touch of orange. Nearly every shell has a quite different colour. This shell is within the colour range. --Llez 12:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, you seem to have a lot of fans that support your vision :-). --Qiqritiq 06:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. Please see annotation --Jebulon 16:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)✓ Done Many thanks --Llez 17:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it is a really perfect picture of a Murex shell Holleday 23:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Many of us do not realize, that for an image like this, it does more than half a workday. But, mostly, it is successful and it is useful. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 15:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Really good. Please see annotation. --Avenue 03:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks, correction done --Llez 16:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 03:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Old Kolomna town - Kremlin 03 Resurrection Church2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church in Kolomna Kremlin. A.Savin 09:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support--Taxiarchos228 09:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    Sky spots
     Oppose hard chromatic aberrations at the left, dust in sky --Carschten 22:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC
    the CA is not hart and for QI good quality, the dust in the sky I have cleaned --Taxiarchos228 09:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC))
  •  Support--Jebulon 14:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 15:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spot, blatant CA, unfortunate foreground. --Eusebius 18:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong CA, and lighting doesn't suit the angle this is taken from. The tree in the left foreground is nicely placed to block the people though. --Avenue 03:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, after a second review, I see that the CA are really blatant at left (columns...), I didn't notice this at first review, not careful enough. So I must change my vote.--Jebulon 11:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support CA is for me no an exclusion criterium --Ralf Roletschek 13:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA is very easy to fix. An image cannot become QI with such CA.--PereslavlFoto 14:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 03:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Rolf Hochhuth, McKinsey is Coming, Duisburg 2005.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rolf Hochhuth after a reading of his book „McKinsey is Coming“. --BlackIceNRW 14:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Nice and useful, but background is distracting, needs perhaps a little photoshopping!? --Mbdortmund 16:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Removed unwanted reflections in the background (left site; used Photoshop). ✓ Done --BlackIceNRW 20:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • My problem concerns the light just behind the head. --Mbdortmund 19:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I have not enough experience and patience to perform this task. Thanks for the review. --BlackIceNRW 10:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info I've tried something. Please revert to the previous version if you disagree.--Jebulon 22:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It's okay for me. Thank you. Let us hear, what other users say now. --BlackIceNRW 06:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Annoyingly inconclusive.  Neutral -- IdLoveOne 07:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support good enough for QI imo --Carschten 11:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry there is a problem with this nomination: as I remember, Mbdortmund never opposed to this picture in "Blue frame". He gave only a comment. I don't know how this image is in Consensual review now, but I think we have only one vote ("pro" by Carschten, just above). As I worked on this file, i didn't vote --Jebulon 14:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, the light behind the head is imo disturbing too much and its not so easy to correct because of the hair; I tried to get it better in PS but it would last too long --Mbdortmund 23:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition problem. I don't think it would be reasonable to try removing it in PS. --Eusebius 18:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Mbdortmund. --Till.niermann 22:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose background and flash --Ralf Roletschek 19:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 03:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Bettina Kenter Foto 52.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination German actress de:Bettina Kenter --Ralf Roletschek 13:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Wollte ich schon promotet haben. Ausdrucksstark. --Mbdortmund 14:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The eyes are not sharp, and that IMO is a must for a portrait. --Qiqritiq 07:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support One can see her lenses ! Good picture IMO.--Jebulon 18:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good and expressive picture. Man sieht bei einer Linse sogar eine Katsche am Rand. Schärfe daher in Ordnung --Alupus 19:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support passt alles, very good picture. -- Felix Koenig 19:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm agree with Qiqritiq, The eyes are not sharp, the focus is made on the back of the head. --Croucrou 13:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, wrong focus. --Eusebius 18:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Eusebius 18:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Koret Söderbärke kyrka.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Choir of Söderbärke Church, Sweden.--V-wolf 19:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Needs correction of perspective. --Till.niermann 22:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Comment How to do that without ruin the frog perspective?--V-wolf 22:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)  Support As the point of view is not central, then the distortion is not so disturbing, IMO. I think it needs a discussion.--Jebulon 23:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   ---Jebulon 17:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Rheinfelden - Adelberger Kirche1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rheinfelden: Adelberger Church --Taxiarchos228 08:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • This is my first review here, but according to the guidelines I think advertisements are against the rules, and there's a noticeable one behind the otherwise pretty good-looking church. -- IdLoveOne 23:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No, there's nothing wrong with ads themselves. They usually aren't freely licensed, although here it is probably de minimis. It distracts attention from the church, but not too much IMO. A small perspective correction seems desirable though (right side of church not vertical). --Avenue 19:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --Ralf Roletschek 22:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still needs persp. correction IMO. --Avenue 20:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment The ads - a passing van actually - are no problem. But a perspective and tilt correction is needed indeed: especially on the right side, the vertical lines of the building aren't vertical... -- MJJR 21:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Advertisement red line to be retouched.--PereslavlFoto 14:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Advertisement is retouched now, and the whole picture is fine. What about perspective correction, that's not a real trouble. So I support.--PereslavlFoto 13:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment advertisement is removed --Taxiarchos228 09:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 11:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Petronas Twin Towers byN.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Petronas Twin Towers byN--Alex.vonbun 19:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment The perspective distortion is a stupidity, I think
  •  Oppose This image is of good quality under difficult conditions. But the distortion is too important gateway between two towers can not be curved. We could discuss. --Archaeodontosaurus 09:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't find the distortion too visually terrible, though the crop on the bottom corners is a bit tight. Still I just like the image. -- IdLoveOne 19:15, 24 Febrary 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with IdLoveOne -- MJJR 22:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad crop (per IdLoveOne) --Carschten 14:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose idem --Jebulon 00:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the bottom crop at all and the image is tilted (0.3° to the left, apparently). --Eusebius 18:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support tilt to right? to left? 0.3°? --Ralf Roletschek 19:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose crop. --Elekhh 07:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Eusebius 18:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Harpa_articularis_01.JPG

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination --Llez 13:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sestertius Hadrianus Roma Victory Cornucopia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A sestertius of roman Emperor Hadrianus (125 C.E.). Two sides of the same coin. Brass.--Jebulon 00:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 01:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment The black Background has been correct with a stamp tool in the right corner. This problem wasn't present if the original picture. --Croucrou 09:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I don't see any masking problem on the current version. The problem was on the previous version. Maybe could you purge the page cache ? Anyway, as you mention a very easily fixable issue, a message before an opposing vote should have been appreciated...--Jebulon 11:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem is on the current version
  • ✓ Done Thank you Croucrou, you were right ! --Jebulon 20:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support You correct the problem on the third version and now the black is deeper, good job --Croucrou 20:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Lanteglos DSC 8617.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gate to the churchyard of Lanteglos parish church, Cornwall --DKrieger 20:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Noise due to high ISO, small DOF, no geocode.--PereslavlFoto 21:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Noise is very minor, deep DOF isn't needed for this object and geocoding could probably be added easily enough, not that I even see a need for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdLoveOne (talk • contribs)
  •  Support Good picture, noise is not distracting when viewed in full size.--S nova 08:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon 17:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 21:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbdortmund 21:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 21:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Alpendohle, Pyrrhocorax graculus 4.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Pyrrhocorax graculus --Böhringer 19:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Only the back of the animal is shown. -- IdLoveOne 06:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    but a good quality, right? --Böhringer 22:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Well, yeah... detracts greatly from the educational value, but if you insist then this can be discussed. Switching to  Neutral IdLoveOne 20:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 21:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not shure, but it would be clearly better if the bird would turn his head .... --Mbdortmund 21:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Veratrum viride 6061.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Veratrum viride (Green False Hellebore), flower --Wsiegmund 05:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support DPF could e deeper, but good and useful. -- IdLoveOne 06:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, wrong focus plane. The yellow thingies (stamina?) are out of focus. Qiqritiq 07:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Yep, thanks, those. --Qiqritiq 06:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Qiqritiq --Carschten 19:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Carschten 19:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Crocodylus-krokodilskopf.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Qiqritiq (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Port de Trégastel.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Trégastel Harbour. ---LPLT 21:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support nice colors --Ralf Roletschek 19:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose For me a side of the house is overexposed, and the sky is a bite noisy --Croucrou 19:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
     Support IMHO the noise is not a big problem as it has no distracting effect when viewed in full size. Parts of the house however do seem to be overexposed - I still like the colours, though, therefore I'd go for support.--S nova 15:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose I too like the colours and mood, but the noise IS an issue for me, particularly the chromatic noise should be easy to remove. Also I think the composition is far from optimal. To the right there's just dead space that doesn't fit the rest. -- H005 20:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Due to the disturbing shadow in the left corner below, and the noise in the sky.--Jebulon 09:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 09:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Hrádek u Nechanic castle whole.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chateau Hrádek u Nechanic --Kozuch 11:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Tilt and perspective distortion can be corrected both --Archaeodontosaurus 14:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • perspective correction is done --Tlusťa 18:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I can't find anything to complain about, after the modifications. --V-wolf 04:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC) I'm a n00b regarding technical stuff, strike my vote after Carschten's remarks. --V-wolf 11:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noise, chromatic aberrations, something wrong with the colors imo --Carschten 19:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Colors, huge noise. --PetarM 16:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support good enough for me for QI --Ralf Roletschek 21:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Carschten + overprocessed --Mbdortmund 21:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noise, CA -- H005 20:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 02:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

File:IMG 0981.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination European shorthair cat. --FF23-fr 11:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose DoF too short IMO --Jebulon 18:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I actually think the depth is ok for the size of the image. -- IdLoveOne 08:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO depth of focus is inconvenient.--PereslavlFoto 18:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shouldn't have been a problem to create a much greater DOF under these light conditions. -- H005 20:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 02:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Beatrice Ask på Internationella brottsofferdagen 01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sweden's Minister for Justice (Lord Chancellor/Attorney General) Beatrice Ask.--V-wolf 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment The background is distracting (she appears to have wings); the skin has a pupplish tinge; and the flash shadow detracts a bit. The resolution is good. Wsiegmund 17:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment The wings and crown are part of the composition, compare to Sweden's "picture of the year" 1965, but I can see what I can do about the colour. I have also taken some pics from another angle.--V-wolf 20:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I understand, but in this picture, I think that the brilliant background colors tend to overwhelm the subject. --Wsiegmund 21:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Is this, new, version better? --V-wolf 23:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support nice composition. --Ralf Roletschek 21:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose face and hands look terrible --Mbdortmund 21:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose + disturbing flash shadow, sorry. --Jebulon 23:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose because of colours, particularly chromatic noise. -- H005 20:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   ----Elekhh 02:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Cymbidium-grandiflorum.jpg

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination--Holleday 14:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kandern - Evangelische Kirche3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kandern: bell tower of protestant church --Taxiarchos228 13:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline I feel it's a bit too high on the contrast, and possibly a bit oversaturated. Mattbuck 22:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose Bad perspective (and I think, that it is suddenly uncorrectable) — Jagro 21:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 10:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Falu fängelse 01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Former prison of Falun, Sweden.--V-wolf 19:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline *  Support ok --Carschten 18:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me the snow on the roof is over exposed and it could be discus --Croucrou 23:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Snow is very white, that's much better than that grey you often see, but the CA IMHO is inacceptable by QI standards. -- H005 23:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Immeuble building safety net filet protection.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Re-nomination after removing some CA and better perspective correction. A whole building protected under a safety net.--Jebulon 16:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline * Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 23:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - distortion on the left, overexposed sky. Mattbuck 09:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposed sky. --Jovianeye 05:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 10:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Alpmeister 600 Jahre Alpe Wöster.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Alpmeister der Alpe Wöster. --Böhringer 22:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support whow! --Ralf Roletschek 22:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I have a problem with the left part of the beard and the boundary with the "masking", sorry. Please let discuss. --Jebulon 18:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Jebulon there is masking problem on the beard and on the shoulder --Croucrou 22:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good apart from the masking problems though. --Avenue 22:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per Croucrou. -- H005 23:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 10:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Samarovo-2006-roof.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church in Samarovo village, dome from inside. --PereslavlFoto 21:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I doubt white balance is properly set, the angle of the camera is not good, the octogonal base of the dome is cropped, the image is noisy, not so sharp, and there are blown lights. --Eusebius 17:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't saw problème with the WB, I like the angle of the camera, don't saw noise, perhaps it's a bit unsharp but enough for QI --Croucrou 23:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sure about the white balance and noise and sharpness are acceptable IMHO, but I also dislike the angle. -- H005 23:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Color temperature too high. The composition is disturbing --Archaeodontosaurus 14:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 20:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Interiör Söderbärke kyrka 01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Söderbärke Church, Sweden.--V-wolf 19:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion The image inclines --Taxiarchos228 19:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)  Comment New version up. Is it still distorted? --V-wolf 19:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose needs further correction, look at the horizontal lines, they are tilted/distorted ccw --Mbdortmund 19:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)  Comment Third try (I'd better go and rest my eyes after this).--V-wolf 20:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)<seems to be difficult to repair, see annotations. --Mbdortmund 23:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC) I've tried something, not perfect, but looks better IMO...--Jebulon 23:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

 Neutral/ Support Perspective is good now, but there's tooo much colour noise. Its removal should be a no-brainer. -- H005 20:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC) (Only temporary support to give you a chance to fix it before time's run out. -- H005 20:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

  • Colour noise reduced by 30%. I thought that value was a quite good compromise between noise removal and detail preserving. --V-wolf 20:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 12:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-02-22-modellbahn-by-RalfR-19.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Illustration of the "Model-Trains-Effect" for Wikiversity --Ralf Roletschek 16:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose exaggerated diffusing, poor masking (übertriebene Weichzeichnung, schlechte Bearbeitung) --Carschten 17:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Warum soll zur Darstellung eines Effektes genau dieser Effekt nicht überzeichnet werden? Grundgütiger. --Taxiarchos228 18:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think that the effect is that there are oversized blurring and not correct out-cutted persons (see annotation btw) on an image. --Carschten 13:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good idea but masking is too imprecise --Archaeodontosaurus 14:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - border of the people is very bad -- Pro2 18:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand the intention of the blurring. It's strange and I'm inclined to oppose. -- IdLoveOne 08:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 01:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Schweiz Karte Baedeker, 1913.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A 1913 map of Switzerland. -- H005 21:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Wow! --Llez 17:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Our guidelines say that we only promote works of wikipedians --Mbdortmund 22:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info From the guidelines: Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible. -- H005 11:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support No problem and very interesting work --Archaeodontosaurus 14:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support very good, a very high resolution scan of an interesting map. —innotata 23:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 01:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Strix aluco juvénile.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Strix aluco young in night --Falcoperegrinus 12:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very noisy, little detail, uneven light. --H005 17:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't saw noise, the picture is a bit unsharp but for me it's enough for QI --Croucrou 23:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Relatively low quality, but the circumstances were difficult and the expression of the bird is excellent. --Archaeodontosaurus 14:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Même si t'as probablement raison sur les circonstances difficiles, c'est le résultat final qui compte. Thus I agree with H005. --Qiqritiq 12:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor quality. As others. Color noise, noise, lack of definition and clarity of the detail--Lmbuga 18:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 21:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Harpa_articularis_02.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Shell of an Articulate Harp, Harpa articularis --Llez 14:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very good--Holleday 16:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeSadly again not sharp enough. Especially the image at the right bottom --Qiqritiq 12:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment (to me) I like the image, but the image is 5,000 × 3,864 pixels and, really, the image is a composition with five images. Each image is 1000 x 750 pixels. Considering this, the quality could better be, but I think that it's a good image, but also a little poor--Lmbuga 18:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Is not FP but is QI --Archaeodontosaurus 13:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --David Perez 18:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 19:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Minaret mosque of Paris.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Minaret of the Mosque of Paris, blue hour.--Jebulon 00:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • The perspective effect just makes this look unnatural. --Mattbuck 12:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for review, but I don't clearly understand. Do you think that the perspective is overcorrected, or that there is something wrong in the correction, or something else ? Is it improvable (as I still have the original file)? What about the light (it is my first attempt for a picture by night) ?--Jebulon 14:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • for the blue hour the point of time was a little bit to late so that the sky is to dark. picture of blue hour should look like this File:Paris - Sacré-Cœur - Kuppel zur blauen Stunde.jpg or File:Dreilaenderbruecke 002.jpg --Taxiarchos228 14:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support On first sight I also thought, the perspective is not correct, but the borders of the tower are perpendicular. I don't know exactly, what leads to the first impression, perhaps the ornamental pattern of the wall produces an optical illusion. Let's discuss --Llez 15:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support no techical problem --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 11:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Testa pavone.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Head of a peacock --MaryG90 11:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Grainy background, and the description should name the exact species. OK if fixed. -- H005 17:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose - I think it's too unsharp. Mattbuck 10:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed.--Jebulon 10:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version. Better? :) --MaryG90 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 11:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Laguna de Terminos.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Laguna de Términos, Mexico. --Marrovi 05:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose tilted --Carschten 18:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support wenn so lange keine ernsthaften Bedenken kommen: good enough for QI --Ralf Roletschek 15:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment the picture is tilted and easy to correct before promotion --Croucrou 22:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted. --Lmbuga 18:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment To me, inappropriate vignetting and light--Lmbuga 18:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

All votes under the line4s are after atfter the maximum CR time period of 8 days and are thus void. --Carschten 19:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still tilted 20 days after nomination...--Jebulon 00:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 19:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Pseudotsuga menziesii trunk Oliwa.JPG

[edit]


All votes under the line4s are after atfter the maximum CR time period of 8 days and are thus void. --Carschten 19:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - too bright. Mattbuck 20:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Carschten 19:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Guildford MMB 03 University of Surrey.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: The University of Surrey's stag in Guildford. Mattbuck 07:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 13:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry but this guy is very distracting. --Eusebius 17:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    That was my first idea, too, but than I thought that he gives an idea of the dimensions of the sculpture --Mbdortmund 20:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I believe there's enough reference for size in the image. But what worries me even more is the composition, the central position of the sculpture. -- H005 23:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

All votes under the line4s are after atfter the maximum CR time period of 8 days and are thus void. --Carschten 19:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral To me the boy is not distracting (as H005), but, to me, the image is too sharp (perhaps I know little of photography)--Lmbuga 18:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition: boy distracting as it faces the camera and partially covers the first letter. --Elekhh 01:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I understand all the objections, but imo it meets clearly the QI status though --Carschten 19:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good scale. --Marrovi 21:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    • QI criteria includes composition, and this one has an elementary flaw. --Elekhh 21:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Carschten 19:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

File:2009-12-26-berlin-by-RalfR-28.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Part of the TV-Tower of Berlin --Ralf Roletschek 15:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality, very nice lighting. A.Savin 17:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment there are a lot of dus spots which should be removed --Carschten 18:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
OK --Ralf Roletschek 18:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 Comment the dust still there, it must be correct before promotion --Croucrou 11:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
the dust still there --Croucrou 23:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I have deleted the remained dust spots, now QI --Taxiarchos228 15:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral you done a good job but stay some mark on top left corner and on the right side --Croucrou (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Now all the dust is removed --Croucrou 23:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment To me, too tight crop, not QI--Lmbuga 18:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbdortmund 02:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I just don't like the crop. It needs to go over the protuberance at the top, and needs more space on the left. Mattbuck 20:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Mattbuck. Good, but composition looks careless.--Jebulon 09:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 09:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Herten - St. Urban - Glockenturm.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rheifelden: Bell tower of Saint Urban church --Taxiarchos228 09:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose composition: tower hooded at bottom, the roof is disturbing to me. Should be discussed --Carschten 15:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Carshten Mattbuck 20:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 22:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Sinustrombus sinuatus, Bohol, Philippines.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Shell of a Laciniate Conch, Tricornis sinuatus --Llez 16:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 16:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Useful and valuable no doubt, but yet again the quality fails. For such fixed objects you should really try for perfection. sharpness (DOF) is not good. especially on the top right shell now. IMO sharpness mitigation is for action shots and moving objects. Qiqritiq 12:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Question Is the user "Qiqritiq" (sounds like citique) a sockpuppet? His user page and talk page are very interesting. Has he the right to vote with only two edits (since June 2010)? --Llez 19:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment The interrogation of Llez is legitimate, personally I have already said. An investigation to be requested.--Archaeodontosaurus 20:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. --DPC (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 20:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Hamburg-20110317-0005-Hafen^-Speicherstadt.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hamburg HafenCity detail --Mbdortmund 22:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good interplay of forms; crisp detail without CA --Daniel Case 05:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I find the angle with the tree branch and some structure hanging in in the lower left corner (composition) as well as the window reflections in the backround (lighting) not QI. --Elekhh 22:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support - I like it. Mattbuck 19:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 22:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Camden Lock3.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Camden Lock - London --MaryG90 12:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good to me. --Jebulon 16:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - large area of overexposure takes eye away from the lock. Mattbuck 20:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version :) better now? --MaryG90 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    No, not really. The overexposure is a problem with the original photo, you can't fix it simply by playing with the levels to make white into grey. Mattbuck 21:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I know. I was just trying to crop a bit on top :) --MaryG90 14:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to insist, but I think really that this picture is a QI...--Jebulon 09:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   ---Mbdortmund 00:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Minsk Protection church.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Mattbuck 12:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graz - Kunsthaus1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Graz: art museum --Taxiarchos228 20:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion The composition is somewhat messy with all the bare trees. Mattbuck 11:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support in summer you could not see the lower parts of the building. --Mbdortmund 13:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
That's really not relevant, the issue is whether THIS photo is QI, not whether it's possible for a view to be QI. Mattbuck 20:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 Support Fine quality and interesting view.--PereslavlFoto 16:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Blancpain Endurance Series - Audi R8 LMS - 017.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Audi R8 LMS --Thesupermat 13:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Tilted -- Jovianeye 02:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC) C'est volontaire -- Thesupermat 12:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
     Support It's a good photo, and the tilting makes it more dynamic. Mattbuck 11:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support This picture is not tilted by error, but as a deliberate composition choice. You can like this, or not. For me, it's a good picture. -- MJJR 22:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, technically a good picture (given the camera it ought to be :-), but I can't see any advantage in that composition for any *pedia project. In my opinion it lowers its educative value, but then that's not a QI criteria. Just because it is a deliberate composition choice, that doesn't make it a good composition choice for Commons. :-). --Tony Wills 08:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tilt and upright format are imho not appropriate for wikipedia. --Berthold Werner 10:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 16:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Canada_Goose_(Branta_Canadensis).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Canada Goose swimming. --Jovianeye 01:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Below minimum size requirement! --Mbdortmund 17:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    It does meet the minimum size. Its 2064480 pixels. --Jovianeye 18:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    The voting tool says 1760 to 1173px, result 1,97MP at 0,51MB, this should be repaired, still the picture is very small --Mbdortmund 05:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    I dont understand the issue of size since it meets the 2Mpix criteria. The image is not downscaled it is a 100% crop. --Jovianeye 05:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes the QI suggest size is 2Megapixels (2000000) not a binary number near equivalent (2097152), and it is not as though there is some magical cutoff point. The QI guidelines are just that, guides, not fail/pass rules so even if it was 1970000 bytes one would surely not fail it unless there were other real problems. --Tony Wills 21:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 00:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Silvretta Stausee Bielerhöhe.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Silvretta Stausee Bielerhöhe --Böhringer 21:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support - Good quality. --Richard Bartz 17:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose - large overexposed areas. Mattbuck 19:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Matt. --Yikrazuul 18:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 15:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Digitalis ferruginea-IMG 9992.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A bee approaching a Digitalis laevigata. --C T Johansson 19:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment - Very Noisy --Archaeodontosaurus 16:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeDecline on noise grounds. Mattbuck 12:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I have reduced the noise and struck out the votes above since the noise issue has been fixed. --Jovianeye 23:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Unstruck. I'm not sure you can cancel others' votes? Qiqritiq 18:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support good correction --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Far better now --Llez 21:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Nicely caught moment. Grand-Duc 20:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbdortmund 04:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 15:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)