Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 2011

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:GEnx-Jet-Engine_Le_Bourget_20110624.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: GEnx Jet-Engine --Tieum512 19:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Tight crop of the bottom, but otherwise good quality --Gzzz 08:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Top and bottom cropped off, dizzy light. You should improve clarity and black level. --H005 11:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? H005 12:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Kolomenskoe Ascension Church and the bell tower of the George Church.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Ascension Church, Kolomenskoe, Moscow. A.Savin 20:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 08:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharped, visible light borders; CA. I have a sample of image declined with same CA. To avoid oversharpening bright borders you may use a separate layer with Lighten mode and less opacity (about 70%).--PereslavlFoto 15:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • The image may imho not be oversharpened when it is not sharpened at all. Also, there are no longer any significant CA's present. A.Savin 20:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Проверьте башню справа. Её контуры с цветными аберрациями. Мне зарубили фото домика в Рыбной слободе, на котором были гораздо меньшие аберрации, то есть я опираюсь на прецедент. Или можем подождать: я выставлю фото церкви Петра митрополита, и мы посмотрим, будут ли её рубить за ХА. А резкость вполне может задирать ваша фотокамера, эффект виден по светящемуся контуру над крыльцом и справа от Вознесенской церкви.--PereslavlFoto 11:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow. You make your desicion whether we have here a CA or not dependent on whether someone will find some CA on your own QI candidate? That's really what I call expert's knowledge. LOL. - A.Savin 07:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Я вижу здесь ХА и обозначил места на фотографии. Сравнивая с другим прецедентом, я вижу, что здесь ХА гораздо сильнее. Вы правильно рассудили, это именно экспертная оценка после обучения на прецедентах. Я согласен, что экспертные оценки вообще неразумны, однако других тут нету :-))).--PereslavlFoto 10:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Quartl 12:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Schwörstadt_-_Evangelische_Kirche1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Schwörstadt: Protestant Church --Taxiarchos228 07:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose distortions, lots of overexposed parts --Carschten 18:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Exposure is very good (garage door is a bit too bright, but unimportant) and distortions are not really an issue. --H005 21:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Quartl 12:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Bad_Bellingen_-_Evangelische_Kirche_Hertingen1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Bad Bellingen-Hertingen: Protestant Church --Taxiarchos228 13:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Review
  • The halo behind the clock tower is disturbing IMO.--Jebulon 09:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective: A good part of the building is covered by the tree and the building. Also all walls are in the shadow, despite the sun all around. --H005 20:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
    • the tree covers nothing significant and the tower is symmetric, everything in the shadows is visible cleraly --Taxiarchos228 13:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support For me this is a QI. I like the perspective. --Elektroschreiber 20:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? H005 17:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Moscow July 2011-14a.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Pashkov House, Moscow. View of the back side. ---- Alvesgaspar 18:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support OK --H005 21:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp and CA (see notes on picture). -Gzzz 10:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Gzzz + cutted lampposts at right and left --Carschten 11:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 11:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Thistle Closeup Falmouth.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Closeup of a thistle --Tyw7 13:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Bad framing.--Archaeodontosaurus 08:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    • What do you mean bad framing? It is framed according to rule of thirds. --Tyw7 09:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Too many blurred areas that could be removed. -Archaeodontosaurus 08:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 17:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Thistle macro.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Macro of thistle --Tyw7 13:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Tight crop at the bottom. --Gzzz 19:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I disagree isn't macro the closeup of the subject. The main focus is the subject and is positioned roughly using the rule of thirds (bottom corner) --Tyw7 16:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
      • The rule of the thirds is applied for a landscape or for a picture in which most of the image is sharp. In this case, the main subject (the flower), in my opinion, should be centered. Here are some examples -Gzzz 16:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 17:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Falmouth harbor.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of falmouth harbor --Tyw7 13:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose <2 mpx, unsharp, tilted. --Quartl 13:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I disagree It looks fairly straight and the camera is rated at 2 mps. --Tyw7 15:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Comments? --Tyw7 16:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Just look at the horizon, the image is tilted clockwise by roughly 1 deg. Rotating the image would further decrease image size and sharpness. --Quartl 07:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment I've rotated the img by 1 degree while maintaining the background. How is it? --Tyw7 16:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Sorry, there are now severe artifacts at the borders resulting from padding the emtpy space generated by the rotation. Look, for example, at the bottom right corner. You always need to crop an image after rotation. --Quartl 16:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad contrast, not sharp enough, and the landscape would be better without the fence. -Gzzz 13:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 17:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Thistle closeup.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Closeup of a thistle plant --Tyw7 13:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose <2 mpx, unsharp, lacks id. --Quartl 13:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
    • What do you mean lack ID? And how come it's les than 2 mps? The camera itself is rated 2 mps. --Tyw7 14:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment 1.997568 Mpx is close enough imho. ID by category, but I think it looks more like an Arctium sp. And a bit unsharp.--V-wolf 15:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I have sharpened the img, but I prefer the origional. --Tyw7 16:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
          • I could be lenient about the 2 mpx, and the id is now there, but the image lacks overall sharpness and this cannot be repaired. --Quartl 07:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unremarkable picture ; and a bit unsharp... -Gzzz 10:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 12:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

File:CH_Caterpillar_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Caterpillar of the Spurge Hawk-moth, seen in Kriegtal near Binn, Valais, Switzerland at approx. 2000m altitude --Raghith 15:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The image is covered with spots --Archaeodontosaurus 20:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree...I believe the spot is part of the caterpillar.... --Tyw7 16:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Archaeodontosaurus (we are talking about the little black stains, not the spots on the larvae). Maybe correctable, though. --V-wolf 21:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 Comment I have removed most of the most alluring spots using the clone tool. But I think it may be dirt on the lenses causing the spots.--Tyw7 16:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 Comment Thank you kindly acknowledge. There are several hundred spots including the animal itself. This image not yet possible not to be improved, except to a very heavy work.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Archaeodontosaurus. -Gzzz 20:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 17:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Vappu 2011 Helsingissä 2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Havis Amanda during the 2011 1st of May celebrations in Helsinki. --kallerna 06:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The balloons hide most of the scene and the main subject is cut on the left. --Gzzz 20:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment I would like to hear another opinion, IMO it's very good image of typical finnish "vappu". The statue is in focus, in background celebrating students and balloons all over. --kallerna 11:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-07-21-cactaceae-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rebutia minuscula --ComputerHotline 20:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Carschten 09:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The red base is very disturbing --Archaeodontosaurus 19:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing back- and foreground. --Quartl 07:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Quartl. -Gzzz 10:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 17:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Wirtshauschild Gerlingen.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Inn sign --Harke 14:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --H005 17:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted. Gidip 13:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment No tilt --Harke 06:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Difficult to make the difference between a tilt of the picture and a tilt of the sign... and impossible to tell from the houses. Anyway, the picture is good. --Gzzz 20:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Gzzz --Archaeodontosaurus 15:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support - good quality and very typical of this nice region. -- Felix Koenig 18:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 17:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Fly on plant (far).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Macro photography of fly on plant --Tyw7 12:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Neither fly nor plant is identified or sharp. --Quartl 17:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I disagree The fly is right there on the stem of the plant. The plant is clearly identifiable so is the fly imo --Tyw7 17:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
      • At least one of flower and fly have to be identified in the description and categorization. --Quartl 17:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
        • By to identify, he means "to write the insect's and flower's specific latin names". -Gzzz 17:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm assuming its a common house fly. And do we need to know the flower's latin name for QI? If so can a biologist help me? --Tyw7 17:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
            • Please read the guidelines. --Quartl 17:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
              • There is nothing mention regarding providing the latin names of the plants/animals --Tyw7 17:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
                • Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms. --Quartl 18:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
                • ... and whatever species the fly actually is, it isn't Musca domestica (see, for example, the wings) and I doubt it can be determined from this image. --Quartl 12:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Missing identify isn't the only problem, in this picture. Macro standard for QI is too high --Cesco77 08:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Quartl --Archaeodontosaurus 07:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 09:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Río Avía en Ribadavia - Galiza (Spain).jpg[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Quartl 17:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dornach_-_Goetheanum_-_Fenster.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Goetheanum: window --Taxiarchos228 08:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Carschten 13:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The middle bar in the window is not vertical as seen on Goetheanum von Süden.jpg. If you agree this can be easily fixed. --Elektroschreiber 16:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • it is also not vertical in File:Goetheanum von Süden.jpg --Taxiarchos228 18:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
      •  Support Taxiarchos is right. Apart from that it is totally irrelevant if the bar is exactly vertical or not, this image lives off the clouds mirrored in the window. De728631 17:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? De728631 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Kolomenskoe Falcon Yard.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kolomenskoe Museum, Moscow: Falcon Yard. A.Savin 19:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Sfu 20:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Colour moire at the climat controlling machine face panel.--PereslavlFoto 23:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as above and also quite a bit of CA. W.S. 09:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --W.S. 09:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Klabund - Dichtungen aus dem Osten (im Regal).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Klabund: Dichtungen aus dem Osten, 1929 -- H005 14:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Wrong WB (too yellow), small DOF (even the title name is not sharp). PereslavlFoto 23:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    •  Info Both is on purpose. I used a golden reflector to achieve that colour (IMO it fits better to old books than plain light), and wanted the books to the left and right as blurred as possible with the text on the book in the middle still being easy to read. But of course I accept that different people have different taste. -- H005 22:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment OK, now I am not opposing, while small DOF is a problem. Let others judge the case.--PereslavlFoto 13:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support to me it is QI, especially with the given explanation from photographer H005 - usefull for wikipedia de as well --J. Lunau 13:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support per J. Lunau. De728631 17:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)~
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --J. Lunau 13:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Czech_Soldier.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Czech Guard soldier -- Raghith 11:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Visible colour noise (behind the head), not sharp (cap badge), not geocoded, lacks detailed description, too tight crop (at the top). PereslavlFoto 23:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as above. W.S. 09:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Somewhat unsharp and the roof of the shelter should have been visible. De728631 17:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? De728631 17:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Rödkull2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rödkulla (aka SRB, Svensk Röd Boskap) a traditional swedish breed no longer used in commercial production. --Ankara 13:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support False side and unsharp tail tips, otherwise good. More opinons? V-wolf 20:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC))
    • It is a natural behavior, they use the tail to protect each other from the insects. --Ankara 06:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The same as V-wolf. Also the red houses are disturbing. No real contrast to the brown cows. --Elektroschreiber 07:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed parts, perspective distortion, blurred tail. --Carschten 13:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The red huts are disturbing. De728631 18:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? De728631 18:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Monaco_BW_2011-06-07_16-04-17.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Monaco, Building at the Avenue Saint-Martin --Berthold Werner 10:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --H005 21:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective looks overcorrected... Gzzz 11:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I cannot find anything wrong with perspective. PereslavlFoto 00:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support, but the perspective is in fact very narrow. De728631 18:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? De728631 18:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Tower 185.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tower 185 in Frankfurt, Germany -- Der Wolf im Wald 23:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - Good quality. --Raghith 05:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - overexposed sky. Mattbuck 00:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see how the sky is a problem, it's even this stark contrast between the almost white sky and the darker tower that makes this image valuable. De728631 17:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Mattbuck. Sky should not be white: RGB(255,255,255). W.S. 18:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Skies are not always blue, e.g. when the sun is located right behind the building you'll have diffuse light and scattering. This is probably a natural phenomenon and should not be digitised away. De728631 01:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed sky, CA on right part --Archaeodontosaurus 14:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 06:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Tamias_striatus_juilllet_2011.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tamias Striatus --Letartean 16:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality, interesting perspective. De728631 22:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the image has a greenish cast. --Quartl 08:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I tweaked the colors, better? Letartean 11:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Hm, I'm not convinced, the colors still seem to be off (too yellow?). For reference, take a look at File:Tamias striatus2.jpg. --Quartl 12:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Maybe something like File:Tamias striatus juilllet 2011-CN.jpg is better? --Carschten 14:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
          • This version has better colors, but also a disturbing light hole in the background to the left. Maybe crop it away? --Quartl 15:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
            • I'm strongly against cropping it. First of all I don't think the left bright spot is disturbing at all but it adds a good contrast and illustrates the natural surrounding. And cropping it away would leave you with a single light hole above the head which would then really be disturbing. And moreover you would totally loose the perspective of a tiny chipmunk on a big green background – that is really what makes this image special because you get an idea of the relation of size between the twig and the animal. Carschten's modifications look good though. De728631 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose White balance is definitely off (File:Tamias striatus juilllet 2011 HH.jpg). And crop would be nice. W.S. 18:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Now that really looks artificially whitened. And the one big light hole is much more distracting (what I feared above) than the two separate holes on the bigger image. De728631 01:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Wetenschatje's version is the best so far (just a bit too tightly cropped to the left). --Quartl (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 05:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Schliengen_-_St._Leodegar3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schliengen: Saint Leodegar Church, view from forecourt --Taxiarchos228 14:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose very clear perspective distortions. Vielleicht kann die de:WP:FWS helfen, denn die Qualität und Komposition sind ansonsten sehr gut und schön. --Carschten 12:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    • distortions arn't avoidable in this angle, don't see whats the point against QI --Taxiarchos228 12:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
      • The point is that they look unreal and could be corrected. --Carschten 13:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
        • can't see s.th. unreal --Taxiarchos228 13:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Ich sehe da kein Problem mit der Verzerrung. De728631 17:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs perspective correction IMO. W.S. 21:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 05:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Forsthaus Oberwaiz.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination historical building "Forsthaus Oberwaiz", former hunting seat from "Plassenberger", now used by evang.-reform.-curch, built 1776 --J. Lunau 23:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Having quite good composition, the photo lacks sharpness and clarity, too "soft".--PereslavlFoto 05:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment thank you for the review. I don't understand, why you decline because of "lack of sharpness and clarity". Photo was taken on cloudy day and the mood of light was exactly as shown. Building itself is made out of sandstone, maybe this looks "soft" to you?. I will check, if I can make any improvements (higher saturation, sharpening) on the shoot and than I 'll ask for other opinions. --J. Lunau 10:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Nikon D70 allows 3008×2000 px, so you may think about uploading the larger version than current 1947×1203 size. Check the sharpness of details.--PereslavlFoto 10:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
        • ✓ Done new version: higher resolution, more details - thanks in advance to all reviews --J. Lunau (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
          •  Support Much better now, but you could make it even sharper with unsharp mask filter in photo editor.--PereslavlFoto 16:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
            •  Comment thank you once again for your detailed review - very helpful to learn more about photography. I already used slightly "unsharp mask" from gimp 2.6.11 on this photo, but I do not want to over process it. --J. Lunau 13:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 16:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Vladimir Churov RN MOW 07-11.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Vladimir Churov, a Russian official. A.Savin 19:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Wrong WB (too yellow), too many lights on glasses and teeth (some can be retouched), the whole expression is not perfect (take other photo from this series of images), colour noise in background (can be reduced with denoising software).--PereslavlFoto 20:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB should be corrected. —ViseMoD 13:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 16:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

File:El_Gouna_Three_Corners_R06.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination El Gouna (Egypt): The Three Corners Resort -- MJJR 20:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Tilted. -- H005 21:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Raghith 05:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As I said before - tilted. --H005 22:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)  Support New version is good. -- H005 07:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • That can easily be fixed. De728631 17:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New (corrected & cropped) version uploaded! -- MJJR 22:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbdortmund 03:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 05:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Dornach_-_Heizhaus2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination boiler house (detail) --Taxiarchos228 06:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 14:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tightly cropped for me. W.S. 08:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
    • all of the chimney is visible and here is not FPC --Taxiarchos228 11:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - areas of overexposure in the clouds. Mattbuck 22:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
    • please explain me the difference between the clouds in this picture and in this one File:Clifton Down railway station MMB 14 143621 143620.jpg. Why are they here overexposed and in yours not? --Taxiarchos228 06:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
      • You're quite right, I honestly would not have promoted mine, not sure why I nominated it. Mattbuck 12:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't see overexposed parts. White clouds are white, that's a fact and not an error. --Taxiarchos228 13:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 20:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Dave_Bulthuis.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Dave Bulthuis a Dutch player for FC Utrecht --Ed Lane 08:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment IMO, picture of soccer player during a match must be action shot with a ball --Cesco77 08:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    Don't think thats relevant. Its about the picture, not how the picture could be if he had the bal. Ed Lane 21:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for me, the quality of this photo fulfills all given QI-creterias - the discussed issue about "action", is not covered by QI --J. Lunau 13:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Footballers do not have to be caught shooting a ball to be in a quality image. De728631 18:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Temporary oppose visible vignetting. A slight reframing would also allow to give a better place to the subject and to eliminate a few distracting objects near the borders. Otherwise ok for me given the circumstances of this kind of photograph. --Eusebius 10:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad crop (per Eusebius), chromatic aberrations, very harsh shadows. --Carschten 12:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose vignetting. --Elekhh 09:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 20:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Duisburg, Rheinorange, 2011-08 CN-01.jpg[edit]

  • Please tell me what's wrong with the composition; and it's not forbidden to have several QIs of one motive. --Carschten 14:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support some noise in the sky but still QI --Archaeodontosaurus 14:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support - composition not perfect, but still okay and QI. Felix Koenig 10:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 16:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

File:2011.07.23 068a.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Squaire - Airport Frankfurt --PS-2507 10:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Raghith 07:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong CA and blown-out areas. Also bad file name. --Elekhh 09:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose aberration of perspective --Archaeodontosaurus 14:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 16:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Rainbow_Lorikeet_MacMasters.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rainbow Lorikeet MacMasters --99of9 13:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Wow...its wonderful!!! Its very colorful and bright as well. And its rare, these birds (right?) and birds usually shy away from pictures. Well done. Promoted. --Nissim 14 13:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment Actually, these are quite common in Australia and, when fed, not shy at all (see this image). --Quartl 07:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looks not too sharp. —ViseMoD 14:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp --Tlusťa 09:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp --Archaeodontosaurus 14:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy. --PereslavlFoto 11:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 16:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Dornach_-_Goetheanum_-_Grosser_Saal3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Goetheanum: Great hall --Taxiarchos228 10:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Ghosts. --Quartl 07:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
    • don't think that the ghost degrade this picture --Taxiarchos228 09:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
      • See Commons:Image guidelines: Motion blur should have a purpose. In this image the blurred people don't serve a purpose but are distracting. --Quartl 12:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I think persons, even when they are blured, can be a good measuring unit for this great hall. The persons could be retouched if they are really disturbig. Lets see some other votes. --Taxiarchos228 12:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
          • If the ghosts were removed, I would, of course, reconsider my vote. --Quartl 13:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good and interesting picture IMO. I think that the ghosts add. Matter of taste ?--Jebulon 17:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ghosts distract attention from the subject. --99of9 04:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ----99of9 04:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Gm-lampost-6629.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lampost in Pereslavl museum. Photo made with a tilt-shift lens. --PereslavlFoto 14:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Before we get this picture again and again: I find the blurring towards the sides very disturbing. The image may have artistical merit but that is not what QI is about. It may be useful to illustrate the tilt-shift effect, but not every tilt-shift picture is automatically a QI. In this case, the blurring does not enhance but reduce the quality of the outcome. --Quartl 07:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment On the one hand, you think that the blurring effect of tilt lens is disturbing. That is about your preferences, not about the quality. On the other hand, the photographer thinks the details at the left and right sides of the photo have no sense and must be blurred. This speech is about "do like/do not like", not about the image quality.--PereslavlFoto 10:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment Disturbing elements in a picture decrease its quality. The left and right parts of the image could also be cropped away in case they have no sense. --Quartl 13:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
        •  Comment Thus, the photo will be better when cropped into a narrow vertical frame, cut from the context and scissored out of the scene? But that crop will be too tight, too close to the post itself. The trouble is, there are many other elements around the lampost: a bench, a swing, a tree, a bush; and they are all disturbing and they all have no sense when showing the lampost. But I cannot remove those disturbing elements. I can only blur them with a tilt lens, so to stress the lampost. This is, say, a portrait of the pole with a lamp on it.--PereslavlFoto 21:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
          •  Comment No, what I am saying is that context is important. This lamppost is in a park, and benches, trees, bushes and even red swings are its natural surroundings. There are many ways to portrait a lamp in a park and using a tilt-shift lens is not mandatory for this. The key point is composition: you should find a nice lamp (and I daresay there are many of those in the park), try to find a good angle that doesn't show any disturbing elements and nicely arrange the scene. --Quartl 05:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
            •  Comment And so, the tilt-lens can be used — in what case? When the blurred sides are suitable? (In my point of view, blurred sides are suitable in any case there is nothing sensible on those sides.)--PereslavlFoto 13:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --ELEKHHT 01:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Orientalischer_Garten_Marzahn_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Oriental Garden, Berlin-Marzahn, Germany --Llez 05:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Raghith 07:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose lots of chromatic aberrations --Carschten 11:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lots of CA indeed. A centered compo should work better in this case IMO.--Jebulon 17:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 01:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Woodpile_001.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination A stack of firewood --Llez 06:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment A bit unsharp in the corners, but otherwise good. However you should get rid of the strong CA in the lower left corner. -- H005 12:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thanks for reviewing. Corrections done. --Llez 14:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
      •  Neutral I like the subject, but ... I don't know what it is, something doesn't feel right with the colours / contrast on a detailed view. -- H005 22:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
        •  Info It is not fresh wood, it was there a longer time, exposed to the weather, so the colours have changed and became darker. --Llez 16:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
          • No, it is something that happened in postprocessing, I am pretty sure. I do not what it is, sharpening, contrast, s-curve, ... and also I still see a lot of CA. I fear it either has to be redone from scratch from the raw file or can't be helped at all - sorry! -- H005 21:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support to me especially after the correction QI. I can not judge the tone for the wood, only Llez can tell, if it looks real --J. Lunau 17:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, chromatic aberrations at top, not sharp enough for me (poor details)--Lmbuga 08:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga. But sorry.--Jebulon 17:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ----Jebulon 17:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Silver Tower.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Silver Tower in Frankfurt, Germany -- Der Wolf im Wald 00:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Raghith 05:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - overexposed sky. Mattbuck 00:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I think that's not a problem here but an asset, the sky has almost the same colour as the tower which makes for an interesting composition.  Support, De728631 17:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A fault is an asset? W.S. 18:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
    • In this context it is not a fault but could even regarded an artistical merit. And skies are not always blue. Do you personally know how the weather was on that day in Frankfurt? This looks like an overcast sky to me which is naturally white/grey. De728631 01:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Colour moire in the vertical line right to red [DB] and down from there. Good overall, will support afret clearing the moire trouble.--PereslavlFoto 15:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --W.S. 18:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Grasse_BW_2011-06-08_11-32-49.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Grasse, Monument Honoré Fragonard --Berthold Werner 17:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The main subject is OK, but in the corners there's horrible CA and blur. -- H005 21:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support But who minds those corners... The monument itself is fine! PereslavlFoto 00:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I also can see blur and CA on photos edge, especially upper right corner. I wonder about the reason for that. Is the photo postprocessed in any way? --J. Lunau 13:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support over all, for me QI, because the main subject is OK --J. Lunau 13:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support per Lunau and PereslavlFoto. De728631 17:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Its pretty impressive... --Nissim 14 13:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but the author (Auguste Maillard) is dead on 1944/19/08 and the sculpture is not already in public domain. -- Siren-Com 10:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice picture but as Siren-Com has written a copyright violation. --Elektroschreiber 08:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose da es wirklich eine Urheberrechtsverletzung zu sein scheint, kann das Bild kein QI werden... --Carschten 11:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Copyright violation, indeed.--Jebulon 17:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   ----Elekhh 01:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Botik-yakor-01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Anchor from Peter the Great's ship. Veskovo village, Botik museum. --PereslavlFoto 14:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Disturbing sunflare, window reflections and CA. --Quartl 07:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
    • No sun and no flashlight used in this night photo. What do you mean by "sunflare"? Window reflections do not exist, there was no window between anchor and camera, the photo was done in the park. Where are the CAs? Thank you. --PereslavlFoto 10:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, wherever the bright spotlight in the top left is coming from, it is distracting. You see reflections from some windows in the bottom part of the image and the CA, for example, on the chain in front. --Quartl 13:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
        • The spotlight is a garden lamp. I will check is anything can be done with it. The bottom part is lit with yellow house lights falling from the windows of a nearby house. This is a natural light for the place, it is not a fault of photographer but an indispensable part of the scene. What about the chain, I cannot see any CA. Are you speaking about orange elements? This part of the chain is lit with the same light coming from a nearby house.--PereslavlFoto 21:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
          • The subject is the anchor and the light on it is artificial. There are cases where monuments are specially lit for artistic reasons, but this is not the case here. The light doesn't show the anchor in its natural coloring which should be a rusty grey. Have you tried taking the photo at day? --Quartl 05:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
            • Thank you, now I see your idea. It will be good to shoot in daylight, and I plan to do it someday. In this case the photographer wanted to show the scene in night time. That is why the photographer will try to search for RAW file and to remake this picture keeping your warnings in mind :-). This monument is specially lit for no reason, just because it stays in the lit place.--PereslavlFoto 11:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
            • Natural colour of the anchor depends on light. In cloudy day it is black. In sunny day it is bright with blue and green tint. At night in red light it is ogange and red. At night in green light it is dark-green. There is no natural colour without light.--PereslavlFoto 12:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Electric locomotive ChS2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Electric locomotive ChS2. --PetarM 08:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Raghith 08:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy sky, chromatic aberrations, bad details. (See annotations) --Carschten 11:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    •  Info Carsten, focus is on train,not stones. Noise, cause it full size, but yes i should lower to some 8 MPx. No use of 14 MPx anyway. And that dust spot is bird - even perfectly shaped. ;) --PetarM 11:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
      • noise and CA are also an issue on the locomotive, not only at the sorrunding. And IMO we have to evaluate whole images, not only the main motives oon them. --Carschten 15:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
        •  Comment even to me the small noise does not disturb, you could use filter of photoshop or gimp to eliminate, but: --J. Lunau 14:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Do not downsize the image. Use noise reduction software instead.--PereslavlFoto 11:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
     Info Do not ?! ;) Should i ask You ? Anyway, its not downsized, its croped, since made with pancake 16mm on APS-C. I made denoise. OK now. --PetarM 19:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me, because main object is OK --J. Lunau 14:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support (weak support) the main subject of the image - the locomotive - is shown in a good quality whereas the sky is indeed quite noisy. --High Contrast 23:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • too noisy sky, vivid CA in foreground and to the right side (wires), so I oppose.--PereslavlFoto 11:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    •  Weak oppose No noise now, no CA in foreground. Still CA on wires. A small step to be done :-).--PereslavlFoto 19:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 08:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Dornach_-_Glashaus4.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Goetheanum surroundings: Glas house --Taxiarchos228 12:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Crop seems tight and perspective looks lopsided. W.S. 21:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Not comprehensible argumentation --Taxiarchos228 07:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Maybe borderline, but the argumentation is clear to me even if succinct (tight crop at the top, composition unbalanced). Composition issues also posed by the tree randomly obscuring the subject and too prominent stick in foreground unlike frontal view). I also think -as expressed in the past- that is bad practice when nominators move their own images to CR: if the reviewers' opinion is not appreciated than why nominate here? --Elekhh 06:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    As long I did not receive an answer of a question I will move the picture to CR. Don't see that this action is running against a rule of QIC. --Taxiarchos228 07:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Arguments too hard for QI, this picture is of good quality --Archaeodontosaurus 08:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support the image is of above average quality --High Contrast 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree it's above average quality, but that doesn't make it a QI, that makes it one of our top 5 million! I agree that the crop is problematic here. I'm not concerned about the tree, but there's no reason to have so much road when it could be sky instead. --99of9 01:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It would be great to have 5 million photographs of such quality on Commons. --High Contrast 00:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, this is a long way above average, but it needs to be even further above for QI IMO. --99of9 04:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. --Jebulon 17:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support As Archaeodontosaurus--Lmbuga 15:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 08:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Rödkulla.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rödkulla (aka SRB, Svensk Röd Boskap) a traditional swedish breed no longer used in commercial production. --Ankara 13:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support False side, otherwise good. More opinons? V-wolf 20:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose False side. But I like this much better then Rödkulla2.jpg. Really nice picture but not a QI for me. --Elektroschreiber 07:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. "False side" is no valid oppose argument here; this is QI, not FP! --Carschten 13:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose imho "false side" is a valid argument for QI --Berthold Werner 14:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC) after Ankaras explanation
  •  Comment I think there is value in showing the animal from all sides. This is not an artistic photo of a cow, but an encyclopedic illustration of a specific breed. The picture shows how the animals look like from the back. If the picture would have had a different angle, it had been completely useless for that purpose. We need pictures from other angles too, but there is no contradiction, and it does not make this photo worse.--Ankara 15:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Ankara got the point, false side is not an argument at all. There is educational merit in showing the rear sides of cattle. De728631 16:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Rear end (focus point?) is not in focus. whole image is underexposed too. W.S. 09:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed --Archaeodontosaurus 13:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed--Lmbuga 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Yannick Jauzion looking right before pass.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination en:Yannick Jauzion during a Rugby union training session. --PierreSelim 11:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose unfortunate crop, try to get the whole player in field shots like this --99of9 04:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 06:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Yann David Facing the viewer and looking right.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rugby union training: Yann David training with the backs in foreground and the forwards training for scrum in the background. --PierreSelim 20:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose unfortunate crop, try to get the whole player in field shots like this... perhaps portrait format would have helped? --99of9 04:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Most professional Rugby photos are croped this way because feet are not important in Rugby handling and passing skills, what matter is the bust, the hands, the look and the ball. Bascially you have the entire player pictured in the photo when you want to show his motion or his kicking abilities (penalty, or drop), not for a pass. --PierreSelim 13:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 06:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Dornach_-_Goetheanum_-_Englischer_Saal2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Goetheanum: English hall --Taxiarchos228 07:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too much lens issues IMO. Please see annotations.--Jebulon 16:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
    • IMO for QI not significant, picture was made under very difficult light conditions --Taxiarchos228 16:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Technical issues are very significant in QI. "Mitigating circumstances" are relevant in "FP" (which does not mean "better technical quality than QI", by the way), but not in QI. IMO.--Jebulon 15:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 06:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Krakau_-_Arka_Pana5.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kraków: The Lord's Ark church, entrance --Taxiarchos228 07:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Composition: should be only "mineral" IMO, the two ladies are disturbing. The white cloth is overexposed. Perspective distorsion (see the window in background). Unfortunate crop at right, I miss something. Disturbing shadow at right. Lack of sharpness at upper left. --Jebulon 09:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I disagree in all points --Taxiarchos228 12:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not surprised.--Jebulon 13:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Did not understand what a "mineral" composition should be; never heard about that. What is overexposed? Maybe you mean the coat, not cloth? But it is not, you can see different shades. Why is this crop unfortunately? This pictues shows the main entrance and two persons are entering the church. Why are the persons disturbing? So you can see where the entrance is. Significant lacking sharpness I can not amount and the tiny shadow in the edge? Come one where are here not at FPC. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 06:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Kolomenskoe Water Mill 02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kolomenskoe Museum, Moscow: Water mill. A.Savin 17:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality --Ximonic 23:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oversaturated, unnatural colors -- George Chernilevsky 09:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per George Chernilevsky over-processing --Archaeodontosaurus 12:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unnatural colors --A.Ceta 09:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 06:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG (C 197) – Heckansicht (2), 10. August 2011, Düsseldorf.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG (C 197). -- M 93 22:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support good quality and no distracting background. -- 320td 16:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Definitely disagree about the background: parked cars on top, Volkswagen on right. --Elekhh 01:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Elekhh.--Jebulon 23:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 06:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Embarcacións na praia de Portugalete - O Carril - Vilagarcía de Arousa-2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Boats. Beach of Portugalete, O Carril, Vilagarcía de Arousa--Lmbuga 08:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment please see annotation --Carschten 13:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    • It's the sidewall of the building. There aren't windows. See this other image--Lmbuga 23:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment New version--Lmbuga 22:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  SupportWas and is QI, IMO--Jebulon 08:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 05:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Mihailovsky sobor.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery in Kiev, Ukraine.--PetarM 19:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment I like the sky and the domes, but distorsion should be corrected, IMO.--Jebulon 09:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I personally like the dramatic effect created by the sky and the wide-angle distortion. --King of Hearts 00:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 19:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Mecynorrhina torquata immaculicollis - Crop.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mecynorrhina torquata immaculicollis male (wooden colors drawing). I'm not quite sure about the suitability of this but let's try :) --Ximonic 15:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry! The drawing is very good. I could never draw this good, but this drawing competes with good photographs and as such I think there cannot be a QI commendation. --A.Ceta 09:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment No worries! It's alright and I agree. Just had to test with a bit different kind of picture :) --Ximonic 11:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
      • There cannot be competition between drawings and photos, IMO. Here we have something "different". I think in this case more opinions could be interesting, so I put this picture in CR, let's see !--Jebulon 10:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 04:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Porto Covo July 2011-30a.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Porto Covo, Portugal. View from the beach of Cerca Nova (please pay attention to the details!) -- Alvesgaspar 22:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Aooh ! Shocking ! --Jebulon 23:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me--Lmbuga 08:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose stitching errors, blurry(, uncensored ) --Carschten 17:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info -- The stitching errors in the sea were corrected to the best of my skill. But I couldn't force the naked people to dress... -- Alvesgaspar 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support bela imagem da praia. Felix Koenig 16:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Vielen Danke, Felix, ist "meine" Strand :) -- Alvesgaspar 18:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support good but I want more details next time--Ankara (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    • You mean like the label of the swimmimg suits, showing the brand and size?... Alvesgaspar 08:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 19:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Eiffel tower from trocadero.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View from the Palais de Chaillot (Trocadéro), Paris. --NonOmnisMoriar 18:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportVery nice picture, QI for me. --PierreSelim 05:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- The image is tilted -- Alvesgaspar 11:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tild and oversaturation --Archaeodontosaurus 17:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 Comment Can't really see how the image is tilted? Check at 100% on the Eiffel Tower levels or the statues on the bridge at its base with any image editor. --NonOmnisMoriar (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Mabe not the tower, but check the centered horizontal lines in front of it. This is probably the effect of lens distortion due to the small focal length. Alvesgaspar 20:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Well I still have to disagree. That is how the road and banks are built at this place, there is a "natural" unevenness to the left. Check the most horizontal lines of the ponds at the bottom end of the picture for instance: not tilted. Plus imagine if (only) the road lines in front of the tower were straight, the picture would look far more tilted. --NonOmnisMoriar 21:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There is indeed a feeling of tilt but maybe you are right about the uneveness of the structures. I'm removing my oppose vote because I can't be more precise. -- Alvesgaspar 22:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No tilt IMO, but little perspective distorsion at right (see the leaning streetlamps)--Jebulon 09:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any problems with this. --King of Hearts 00:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good! --High Contrast 23:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 04:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)