Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 06 2013

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Plaque Frescobaldi Basilica Twelve Apostles Rome.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Plaque to en:Girolamo Frescobaldi in the Basilica of the Twelve Apostles, where he was buried. Rome, Italy.--Jebulon 16:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Compression artefacts on letters --A.Savin 18:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Sorry I don't see those artefacts.--Jebulon 20:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
    Nor do I. Mattbuck 10:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 23:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

File:2013.08.02.-14-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Suedliche Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Südliche Mosaikjungfer - Aeshna affinis, Männchen (male) --Hockei 16:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Overprocessed, there is halos around the legs --Christian Ferrer 15:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
    Fixed New version. I gave my very best to improve it. Hope good enough, but I'm not sure. --Hockei 21:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
     Support Better IMO --Christian Ferrer 11:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 23:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Camptopus lateralis MHNT Dos.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Camptopus lateralis--Archaeodontosaurus 17:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --JDP90 17:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Overflashed, not sharp, poor lighting. Further I remind you of your comment and vote to this picture. --Hockei 17:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
    I think you are not implying me for the comment of your photo. I have not commented on that photo. -- JDP90 18:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Not at all, not you. Archaeodontosaurus is meant. --Hockei 20:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 Oppose Overexposed --Christian Ferrer 08:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is partly true. Thank you for your level of requirement.--Archaeodontosaurus 11:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 23:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

File:2013.08.02.-22-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Distelfalter.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Distelfalter - Vanessa cardui --Hockei 20:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Blurred at the top. --Mattbuck 14:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
     Comment No reason to decline. I beg for votes from people they understand something from macro stots of insects in nature, in this case of butterflies in motion. Moreover it is a series from different perspectives to see this animal.--Hockei 20:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Per Mattbuck --Christian Ferrer 08:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 23:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

File:AGH Berlin 10-2013 img09 Andreas Otto.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Andreas Otto, deputy of Berlin Abgeordnetenhaus --A.Savin 13:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JLPC 17:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Perhaps it would be a good portrait if it were tighter cropped. But what we see here is boring like a lot of other QIs. -- Spurzem 22:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 19:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 00:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --A.Savin 10:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:AGH Berlin 10-2013 img34 Frank Jahnke.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Frank Jahnke, deputy of Berlin Abgeordnetenhaus --A.Savin 13:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JDP90 17:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
     Comment In my opinion it must be tighter cropped to be QI. -- Spurzem 23:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 19:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 00:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --A.Savin 10:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:AGH Berlin 10-2013 img31 Marianne Burkert-Eulitz.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Marianne Burkert-Eulitz, deputy of Berlin Abgeordnetenhaus --A.Savin 13:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good, and nice eyes--Lmbuga 19:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Perhaps very good, but there are hightlights on the forehead --Lmbuga 19:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment In my opinion the lady looks too unnatural strained for QI. I fear she will not enjoy this photo if she can see it. -- Spurzem 23:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, the criterion is not appropriate for QI, please read the rules of Commons: Image guidelines--Lmbuga 00:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I showed her the photo straight afterwards and she found it OK for her wiki article. --A.Savin 10:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Not good, very good --Christian Ferrer 19:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --A.Savin 10:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:AGH Berlin 10-2013 img44 Karlheinz Nolte.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Karlheinz Nolte, deputy of Berlin Abgeordnetenhaus --A.Savin 13:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good IMO--Lmbuga 20:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment The photo should be tighter cropped to be good. I am astonished that it is voted for QI. -- Spurzem 22:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
    • it doesn't have to be tighter cropped IMO--Lmbuga 00:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 19:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --A.Savin 10:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Holstentor-Lübeck-DSC 0429w.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Holstentor, Lübeck (Germany) --P e z i 23:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion {{o}} Perspective distortion is disturbing IMO. The detail of the walls of the building is not good--Lmbuga 22:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Comment thanks for review. For perspective distortion please look at lamp pole left of tower :-) --P e z i 09:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, see note about distortion--Lmbuga 11:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)✓ Done uploaded rectified and sharpened version --P e z i 00:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Dirtsc 17:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Lmbuga 23:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 13:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Sant_Corneli_i_Sant_Cebrià_d'Ordino._Andorra_202.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Corneli and Sant Cebrià of Ordino. Andorra-202 --Lmbuga 21:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment More contrast, please.--XRay 08:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support More contrast? There is very high contrast, and it is very well controlled. Nice view. The sun is not shining every day. --Smial 11:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
    •  Comment It's not the sun and not the contrast, you're right. But I have the impression the roof is sharp, the church steeple is not.--XRay 17:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
      •  Comment Visual sharpness is always a matter of contrast. All sharpening methods base on more or less sophisticated increasing of local contrast. You cannot get high contrast without tricks in the surfaces like in File:Gruensandstein IMGP6703 wp.jpg if the sun is not shining. So an image with very soft lighting as we can see here always seem to be less sharp than the same object in hard sunlight. Ok, the most right parts of the tower are somewhat softer, but this may be due to DOF; the background also is blurred, but this looks natural. I cannot see any severe issues. -- Smial 10:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 13:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:2013-10-30_15-51-04_cascade-savoureuse-lepuix.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Savoureuse river, in Lepuix, France. --ComputerHotline 19:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
The water is too blue.--Jebulon 20:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too saturated and unnatural colors--Lmbuga 20:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Cayambe 12:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Mountains_in_Ordino._Andorra_228.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mountains in Ordino. Andorra-228 --Lmbuga 18:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Comment You should change the copyright notice in the metadata I think --Hockei 18:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    NO. It's my choice: My images, initially, have all rights reserved, then I share them with CC-by-sa-3.0, sorry. "Discuss" please. (poor English) In the metadata, all my images have all rights reserved. That means that, unless the Commons page were indicated (the page of the images), they can not be used--Lmbuga 19:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
     Comment If I do not respect the rules of Commons, all my images should be deleted and I will think of abandoning the project--Lmbuga 20:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
     Question If the people of Commons has problems with my images, I can upload the images to flickr and, then, upload it to Commons from Flickr. If so, can you espress problems?--Lmbuga 23:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    IS THIS A QUESTION TO QIC?--Lmbuga 00:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I didn't want to upset you. The entry has struck me and I assumed it would be a mistake. I think it's not right but maybe I'm wrong? Anyone can use the photos outside of wikimedia as well and so the entry does not fit IMO. The license is independent from Wikimedia. Maybe other people can say more or clarify. It's your thing, but why don't you give the cc-license in the metadata? The quality is QI for me.  Support --Hockei (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
      •  CommentIn my world (Galicia, Spain) people tend to think that everything that is in the Wikipedia can be used freely, without conditions. Not so. If an image is used without mention of Commons, other person can copy the image from the new site and make a new copyvio. I do not want to provide such confusion or that new copyvio--Lmbuga 00:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
        •  Comment There are hundreds of copyvios of my images online. If I mount a company to denounce, I could make money--Lmbuga 00:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
          • I hope you can understand me. I'm sorry for having me angry... sorry--Lmbuga 00:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 12:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Mountains_in_Ordino._Andorra_227.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mountains in Ordino. Andorra-227 --Lmbuga 18:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
 Comment You should change the copyright notice in the metadata I think --Hockei 18:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
NO. It's my choice: My images, initially, have all rights reserved, then I share them with CC-by-sa-3.0, sorry. "Discuss" please, (poor English) In the metadata, all my images have all rights reserved. That means that, unless the Commons page were indicated (the page of the images), they can not be used --Lmbuga 19:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 Comment If I do not respect the rules of Commons, all my images should be deleted and I will think of abandoning the project--Lmbuga 20:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 Question If the people of Commons has problems with my images, I can upload the images to flickr and, then, upload it to Commons from Flickr. If so, can you espress problems?--Lmbuga 23:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
IS THIS A QUESTION TO QIC?--Lmbuga 00:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
    • See my notice at the other picture.  Support --Hockei 08:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 12:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Calles_de_Macao,_2013-08-08,_DD_10.jpg

[edit]
  • Nomination Streets of Macau --Poco a poco 08:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Smial 15:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Could we please discuss about the sky ? It looks overexposed to me, creating some "fog" in the upper part of the image.--Jebulon 17:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
New try Poco a poco 20:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose You can't save it Diego, the sky is gone. --Iifar 12:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cayambe 12:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Corse_tour_genoise_Capu_di_Muru.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Genoese tower of Capu di Muru, Coti-Chiavari, Corsica, France --Myrabella 23:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion

{{o}} The tower is blurry IMO: "Discuss" (perhaps I'm not right)--Lmbuga 23:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

  • This 17th-century tower is located on a cape and the stones of this building are now much eroded by wind and salt. But one can see the staircase on the side of the tower very clearly, even the metallic cables. I plead that the image is fairly sharp. --Myrabella (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 Comment Perhaps somewhat too strong noise reduction? Nice lighting and composition. -- Smial 14:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe need a little sharpening but ok for me --Christian Ferrer 16:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version uploaded, a bit sharpened. Better now? --Myrabella 16:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. -- Smial 22:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  weak support but nice--Lmbuga 23:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 12:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Honey_Bee_takes_Nectar.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Honey Bee taking nectar --Lewis Hulbert 01:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 16:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DOF not good and noisy IMO --Hockei 18:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Hockei, and in my opinion nothing is really in focus, (and bad white balance, but I'm not sure)--Lmbuga 00:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Hockei and Lmbuga. Also looks overprocessed to me. --JDP90 18:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --JDP90 18:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Bischofssitz_Limburg_Privatkapelle_des_Bischofs_-_private_chapel_of_the_bishop_of_Limburg_-_October_26th_2013_-_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Residence of the bishop of Limburg - private chapel of the bishop (after rebuilding during the tenure of Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst). --NorbertNagel 19:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Mensch Norbert, jetzt höre doch mal auf den geschätzten Business Class - Reisenden zu stalken :) Der ist sowieso im Moment in Rom. Good quality. --Tuxyso 21:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Comment Mal abgesehen von dem mehr oder minder gelungenen Scherz: Das Bild erscheint mir nicht gelungen, es ist insgesamt zu blass – als Anhaltspunkt siehe die Verkehrsschilder – und von der Gestaltung her für mein Empfinden sehr langweilig. -- Spurzem 22:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 Comment (no oppose for the moment) Mit Spurzem teilweise einverstanden. The image is a bit pale, not only the road signs, but the vegetation too. My advice, for free: try to isolate the sky, and add a little of vibrance and saturation to the rest. To me, the composition is good enough, but the images as it is now lacks of... episcopal shine (;\)--Jebulon 16:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Langweilig oder nicht, die Qualität ist gut. --Iifar 18:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 Comment I uploaded a new improved version. --NorbertNagel 18:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 Comment Das Blau des linken Parkschilds wirkt auf mich unnatürlich; wenn man das ins Tiefblaue verschieben könnte, würde ich gerne supporten. Ich würde für mehr Schwarzwerte plädieren, dann wird es knackiger. Die Komposition ist ok. --Cccefalon 20:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  SupportThanks for improvements. Good now. Bitte vergessen Sie nicht dass hier "Commons" ist , not the German wikipedia: a very few part of the community understand german language... Danke !--Jebulon 09:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support The improvement was helpful, thank you! --Cccefalon 11:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
    • @Jebulon: I usually write only in English here, but my sentence from above was a joke. I guess most of you had not understood it. The joke was related to the bishop who usually lives inside the chapel. For background information see German Bling Bishop. The chapel is part of an extraordinary expensive building project in Limburg. The bishop who also lives inside the $42 million building added again and again extra wishes to the renowing e.g. an holder for an Advent wreath for 100000 EUR. --Tuxyso 13:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks Tuxyso for english explanations. I personaly understood the joke, and the story is known in France (btw, I was in Germany when the bishop was "invited" to Rome). For the record, His Excellency is no more welcome in his diocese for the moment...--Jebulon 10:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
        • The latest information is, that the Bling bishop would like to come home :) --Tuxyso 11:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 12:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Rievaulx Terrace MMB 13 Rievaulx Abbey.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rievaulx Abbey. Mattbuck 07:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose tilted (fixable), blurred (not fixable) --A.Savin 14:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Blurred? I'll accept it's slightly unsharp, but it's a long way from being blurred. As for tilt, the entire building's tilted, but yes I can fix that. Mattbuck 18:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  OpposePer A.Savin, sorry. It is really unsharp.--Jebulon (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cayambe 12:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Festung_Hohentwiel_3.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Fortress Hohentwiel --Atamari 23:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Severe perspective distortion. --NorbertNagel 18:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree Clearly intentional composition. --Smial 13:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support but only without distortion. --Ralf Roletschek 16:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 11:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Ordino_and_bell_tower_of_Saint_Corneli_and_Saint_Cebrià._Andorra_223.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ordino and bell tower of Saint Corneli and Saint Cebria. Andorra-223 --Lmbuga 22:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment No inspiring composition. -- Spurzem 22:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
    "Discuss", other users can opine --Lmbuga 23:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality --Christian Ferrer 06:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. -- Smial 12:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hockei 21:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 19:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:London_(UK),_Telefonzelle_--_2010_--_5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Telefone booth in London --XRay 12:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose too soft, artefacts everywhere --A.Savin 13:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
    • "Artefacts" ? Not so bad, IMO. I need a third opinion, please.--Jebulon 17:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • FYI: I just removed the needless upscaling to remove artefacts.--XRay 17:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, still not really satisfactory sharpness to me, but I'd just accept a promotion. --A.Savin 13:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK, then.--Jebulon 09:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me as well. --Hockei 21:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 09:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)--A.Savin 13:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Marylebone station MMB 27 165020 165031.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 165s at Marylebone. Mattbuck 08:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Ok --Poco a poco 20:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The woman and the cone are disturbing. --Hockei 21:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 18:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark, disturbing person. -- Smial 12:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose good sharpness, but underexposed, I'm afraid.
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Cayambe 19:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Nailsea and Backwell railway station MMB 44 150281.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 150281 at Nailsea & Backwell. Mattbuck 08:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good. -- MJJR 10:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose What should be good? The poor sharpness of the railroad car or the harsh shadow? -- Spurzem 23:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 Comment I will support if you remove the purple CA at bottom right --Christian Ferrer 18:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, if removed ok. -- Smial 12:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Fixed Mattbuck 17:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine! -- Smial 23:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 16:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 19:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Ilfracombe_(Devon,_UK),_Promenade_--_2013_--_1747.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Coast in Ilfracombe, Devon, England --XRay 08:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose missing sharpness imo --A.Savin 13:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I removed the downscaling and sharpend the image.--XRay 17:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I'm not really convinced. Let's see what other people will say. --A.Savin 13:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support last version. --Iifar 17:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 08:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 19:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:2013.08.02.-06-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Wespenspinne-Weibchen.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wespenspinne - Argiope bruennichi, Weibchen (female) --Hockei 20:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose As with your other images, lacking colour depth, see especially the legs at the bottom. --Mattbuck 21:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
     Comment This is a macroshoot with F13. The spiderwoman was really thick. So I think the unsharpness in direction to the backround is normal. I wish to discuss. --Hockei 21:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
    • The problem with macros is a physical. The dof you can reach with dramatic down stopping is only in a range of 2 - 3 mm!! -- Qflieger 08:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I wonder what you want to say with your comment. Is it good for QI in your opinion or not? --Hockei 21:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Qflieger 18:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose AS Matbuck. Not QI IMO--Lmbuga 20:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cayambe 19:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Bessen Berberis thunbergii.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Berries with raindrops Berberis thunbergii.--
    Famberhorst 05:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support OK I guess. --Mattbuck 23:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I look at this picture more than one times. Branch and pedicel are too dark and the berry as well (Too much shade). As far as I can recognize, CA on the top of the leaf. Not really sharp. The waterdrop has overexposed parts and CA as well on the edge (?). Not QI for me --Hockei 20:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much of CA (violet fringes and violet-blue areas), sorry. --Cayambe 09:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above. --Vamps 18:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Cayambe 22:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:13-08-07-hongkong-by-RalfR-24.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hong Kong, Bus-station near tunnel terminal --Ralf Roletschek 13:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment see notes --Rjcastillo 13:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC) OK --Ralf Roletschek 14:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
It's rather tilted. Mattbuck 19:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Not done Mattbuck 08:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, where is it tilted? --Ralf Roletschek 08:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support New version uploaded, see upload comment. -- Smial 13:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 09:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 09:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Minaret_of_Samadhi_Mandir_of_Srila_Prabhupada,_Mayapur_07102013_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination One of the minarets of Samadhi Mandir of Srila Prabhupada at ISKCON, Mayapur. --JDP90 08:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Tilted to the right and a bit too noisy --A.Savin 12:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Both corrected. Please have another look. JDP90 18:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
OK for tilt, but I'm not really sold for the noise correction, as there are some artefacts (softening?) on the facade, let's wait for further opinions I would say --A.Savin 18:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine with me. --Iifar 18:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support For me good --Hockei 21:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 19:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Bildstock bei der alten Wasserbassaine.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination The Austrian town 'Hofkirchen im Mühlkreis' in August 2013. --User:Notvoteable
  • Decline
{{o}}  Comment CAs, overexposed areas...(see notes)--Lmbuga 21:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I find it good enough. Nice catch of the Upper edges over the Danube valley in Austria. --High Contrast 13:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's improvable (see above)--Divesgallaecia2012 20:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Flaws (CA, OE, dark) irrelevant --Moroder 21:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose could be QI, if the CA will be removed. --Vamps 18:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Heavy CA (green and violet fringes). --Cayambe 13:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have commented about (on?) this image, I haven't voted against of the picture. No one must transform my comments in a vote--Lmbuga 20:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Cayambe 18:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Grotte - Balcone torre campanaria 181013.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Balcony--OppidumNissenae 10:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support --XRay 14:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition doesn't work for me at all- foliage clutter is very distracting (and dark), the angle is very steep and the railing totally obscures the window. It's not awful, but given the very high standards applied to other QI candidates, this doesn't strike me as anywhere near good enough- any thoughts from more experienced reviewers? -- Yottanesia 21:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support The balcony with rail is the main object but not the window. Therefore QI for me. And if you will compare: Look to many other QIs with terrible backgrounds and you will be astonished. -- Spurzem 10:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 Comment Perhaps, but this is foreground detail- and part of the reason I found it distracting is the way it overlaps that railing. The way the balcony's curves already overlap themselves on the left hand side (when viewed from that angle) is quite complex- add those leaves, and it's virtually impossible to make the balcony from them. It merges into a mass of detail. Not meaning to force my case through- it's still just my 2 cents- just wanted to explain my reasoning. -- Yottanesia 13:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Messy composition, per above.--Jebulon 10:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Yottanesia. --Vamps 18:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Cayambe 18:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Kal_David_(Lindenbrauerei_Unna)_IMGP1216_smial_wp.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kal David 2013 in der Lindenbrauerei Unna (by Smial) --Achim Raschka 03:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment The biggest problem for me are the artifacts (see note). It's a bit noisy. The detail of the head is not good, but the detail of the center of the guitar is good. In my opinion can be QI but it must be improved--Lmbuga 15:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
     CommentI forgot to say that it's very nice--Lmbuga 15:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

    I don't understand 'artifacts'. There is rather much noise because of colour correction. The original photo is completely red -- Smial 17:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, I should not have comment--Lmbuga 18:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
    If you want understand, you can understand: see notes--Lmbuga 18:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
    {{o}} Artifacts or strong noise (see note). Bad detail or blurry (face), bad control of the movement (hand): Poor quality IMO--[[User:Lmbuga|Lmbuga]] 21:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)<br> Better "discuss", see my talk page--[[User:Lmbuga|Lmbuga]] 23:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC) *It's a nice image and I don't want to vote against.--Lmbuga 01:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

 Support Good image taken in difficult conditions. --Cayambe 19:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

  •  weak support--Lmbuga 00:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Info Somewhat denoised version uploaded. -- Smial 10:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 19:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Turdus merula-male-DSC 2041k.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Turdus merula (male) foraging for food --P e z i 22:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support --JLPC 12:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice, interesting, but blurred and with a bit of noise--Lmbuga 15:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • 'weak  Oppose sharpness could be better. --Vamps 18:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cayambe 18:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

File:MIBF2013 img 05 Roman Zlotnikov.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow Book Fair 2013 --A.Savin 19:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Eyes not really sharp.--XRay 18:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --King of Hearts 18:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No particular quality: The dof is not good, b&w is perhaps not good (IMO). It can be more sharp. --Lmbuga 23:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 06:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose f/4,5 was not the best choice. --Vamps 18:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --A.Savin 08:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

File:DKW F91 Cabrio, Bj. 1953, gesamt.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination: Inside of DKW F 91 Cabriolet built by Karmann in 1953 at museum mobile -- Spurzem 18:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support --Alberto-g-rovi 11:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp at full view and clipped whites at the top --A.Savin 07:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 Info The „clipped whites“ are reflexions of spotlights in the ceiling lightin. They are reduced now. What about sharpness: I think it is not optimal but good. -- Spurzem 19:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose notable noise. --Vamps 18:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

 Comment Wenn „Rauschen“ eins der wichtigsten Kriterien bei der Bewertung von Fotos ist und Bildgestaltung keine Bedeutung hat, dann lobt weiterhin fotografisches Mittelmaß hoch! Im Übrigen: Wo wenig Licht ist und nicht mit Stativ fotografiert werden kann, ist Rauschen kaum zu vermeiden. -- Spurzem 21:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

  •  Weak support Somewhat unsharp at corners and some slight noise. Good lighting and composition, good sharpnes in most parts. -- Smial 14:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --A.Savin 22:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

File:SM_Boguszyce_Matki_Boskiej_Nieustającej_Pomocy_(25)_ID_596359.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Our Lady of Perpetual Help church in Boguszyce --SMilejski 19:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Alberto-g-rovi 09:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp --A.Savin 07:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
     Support For me sharp enough. -- Spurzem 07:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong noise, distortion--Lmbuga 00:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above. --Vamps 18:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Cayambe 10:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Ford Evos IAA 2011.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ford Evos at IAA 2011 in Frankfurt, Germany -- Der Wolf im Wald 18:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality IMO. --NorbertNagel 20:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Comment In my opinion the rear wheel is not sharp enough for QI. -- Spurzem 20:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
    I ask for discussion. -- Spurzem 12:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality is imo satisfactory. --Vamps 18:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 17:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

File:2013.06.30.-06-Vosswinkel-Distelfalter.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Distelfalter - Vanessa cardui --Hockei 18:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Pretty but lots of posterisation. --Mattbuck 15:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
    Fixed New version. I hope good now. -- Hockei 17:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
     Support I would like a bit more contrast but the image is good for me. -- Spurzem 20:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Mattbuck. not better IMO--Lmbuga 21:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I looked at the raw-picture closely and could not find out what you mean what posterisation should be in these pictures. Maybe you see lost color pigments? Please mark one or two spots that I can understand and get sure that we are talking about the same thing. --Hockei 16:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for marking Mattbuck. Now I think I know what you mean. What I found in Wikipedia about posterisation is this in English and this in German. Anyway, I checked the other (Butterfly-)QI-pictures. Without making other pictures bad, I ask not to apply double standards. --Hockei (talk)
  •  Support Overall good enough to me. --Cayambe 17:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I beg for another objektive votes. It cannot be that a certain small group of people say what is good for QI or not. --Hockei 21:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support per Cayambe. --Vamps 18:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 18:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)