Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 2011

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Jamkaran Mosque-3855.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Iran, Jamkaran mosque Fabienkhan 09:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the sky's all burnt out. Is that the original of the photograph? Also, a bit tilted, but that can be easily arranged. -- Rama 10:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment May I ask for a review? If the sky's is burnt out, this is because the sky isn't the principal subject, and that post-treatment was used to highlight the mosque's architecture. English's not my mother tongue, I don't understand what you mean by tilted. Fabienkhan 10:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Titled = de travers. Si tu as fait du post-traitement pour mettre l'architecture en valeur, il y a peut-être moyen de trouver un traitement qui perde moins d'information dans le ciel. Tu as uploadé l'original ? QICbot (talk) ~
  •  Oppose per Rama --Taxiarchos228 14:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, this colors and sky --Ralf Roletschek 14:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 Info I have nominate the original Version because its a very nice photo. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --ELEKHHT 07:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Pelican portrait.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pelican --Nico&Co 22:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose CA-Background noise - the whole bit to be corrected --Archaeodontosaurus 17:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any significant noise, and CA is very minor. However, it should be brightened. --King of Hearts 20:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Visible fringe all around the animal. Lacks detail from denoising. --Quartl 14:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 14:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Nuphar lutea 02 by-dpc.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Spatterdock (Nuphar lutea) fruit in Burgos (Spain). --David Perez 12:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very good. Cookie 21:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the photo lacks sharpness and there is too harsh flash light visible. Composition is soso. --AngMoKio 11:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with AngMoKio concerning sharpness and flash. --Quartl 14:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 14:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Famous tree near Libějovice in 2011 (2).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Famous tree near Libějovice, Czech Republic--Chmee2 19:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 09:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose May I ask for a discussion, please, due to the lot of CA, and the general lack of sharpness ? This picture is particularly well composed, and the thumbnail is attractive, but the maxi-size view is disappointing to me. Sorry. --Jebulon 09:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Corrected CA and sharpness. -- King of Hearts 05:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the CA reducing makes the image much better now, but nonetheless the picture is completely unsharp --Carschten 08:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful composition and colors, but lacks sharpness at full res. I'm also not happy with the lens distortion. --Quartl 14:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 14:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Space Needle 360 Panorama.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Seattle by A. Hornung. --Bartiebert 09:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Nice but please fix first the posterized clouds. --Sting 21:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The clouds look natural to me. -- King of Hearts 23:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
    • You should better check. I've added notes on the image for the most obvious problems. Sting 11:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose yes, posterized clouds --Carschten 13:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support no problem with the clouds --Taxiarchos228 08:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support no problem with the clouds -- R-bitzer 01:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • lol. Guys, I think you should change your monitor. Sting 01:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Badly posterised clouds, especially on the left. --Avenue 05:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Clouds. --Quartl 14:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 14:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Duisburg, Toeppersee, 2009-12 CN-01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Way next to the lake Toeppersee in Duisburg --Carschten 12:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Rather unsharp, and the overcast day is unappealing. Let's see what the others say. --King of Hearts 07:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sun does not always shine. And I think the focussed middle of the picture, the way, is sharp enough. --Carschten 17:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm, still  Neutral. -- King of Hearts 19:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  SupportGood enough for QI, IMO.--Jebulon 21:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 21:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Vincent van Gogh Ebene bei Auvers 1890 Neue Pinakothek Munich.JPG[edit]

 Question picture of a Wikipedian? --Ralf Roletschek 03:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Vincent van Gogh is not a Wikipedian but the person who took the picture of the painting is a Wikipedian (me) --Schlaier 04:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming copyright ownership of two-dimensional public domain material is w:Copyfraud. --Ralf Roletschek 16:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where did Schlaier claim copyright ownership? He just said he took the photo, meaning it is eligible to be a QI candidate. "Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible" --Avenue 17:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible <-- thats new for me. Excuse me please, i have`nt said anythink! --Ralf Roletschek 05:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It seems that all four edges are cropped a bit too tightly, when I compare it to the version linked here (fourth from bottom). --Avenue 17:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I change my vote after seeing the original. The crop is an issue and the dynamic range of the image is not satisfactory. --Jovianeye 17:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I agree now that I had also a look at the other pic. I take back my nomination and will give it another try when I am at the Neue Pinakothek the next time. --Schlaier 20:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --King of Hearts 09:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oleander April 2011-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Leaf of an Oleander -- Alvesgaspar 18:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose If you want to do this kind of work it is best done in the studio. And mount the entire leaf.--Archaeodontosaurus 08:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't find anything in the QIC that it doesn't satisfy. --King of Hearts 20:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Archaeodontosaurus, the image lacks crispness and the crop is unfortunate. The colors are beautiful, though. --Quartl 14:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same as above + bad crop --Sreejithk2000 07:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 21:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

File:HahnEcho GWM.gif[edit]

  • Nomination Spin echo animation. --GavinMorley 13:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support good, accurate image --Kingbish3 14:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Does not meet the minimum 2Mpix size requirement. The above promotion attempt from an account with this as the only edit in its history raises concerns. --Elekhh 21:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support 2 MP requirement does not apply to animated GIFs. --King of Hearts 09:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with there not being a 2MPx requirement for animated GIFs (size issue). This is however really too small for viewing on a largish screen. Rendering a larger copy (let's say double size?) shouldn't be that hard. Qiqritiq 09:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for me the image meets quality criteria, reason for small size is given by GavinMorley --J. Lunau 13:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jovianeye 03:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 21:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

File:St._Johannis_Lüneburg_-_Langhaus.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lüneburg: nave of Saint Johannis church --Taxiarchos228 07:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Two-headed ghost on the left side.--PereslavlFoto 17:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Great picture and light --Schlaier 10:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agreed, faced are moved. Mvg, Basvb 16:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Benches are very noisy, and the central window is blown up, IMO.--Jebulon 13:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   ---Elekhh 23:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Larva_002.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Larva --Raghith 05:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose very noisy at 100%-view --Taxiarchos228 07:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Not sure I agree - Noise can be seen in 100% view, but IMHO it is not distracting --S nova 18:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp and noisy. --Bgag 13:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose See Commons:Image guidelines - identification needed for promotion by rules. Also really noised. -- George Chernilevsky 13:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 08:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Schloss_Steinau,_3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The castle of Steinau, picture by Rainer Lippert --Grand-Duc 18:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support more than QI --Taxiarchos228 18:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I disagree: Quality images must be categorized, this is not categorized. But this can be done easily. --Elektroschreiber 09:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I catched it up, but you could add it too in the same time you have written this commend :-) --Taxiarchos228 09:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  SupportShame of the crop of the building left, which appears to be a part of the complex, but QI otherwise.--Jebulon 15:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  SupportCategorized QI.Sorry, but I didn't want to search the category. I didn't even start.--Elektroschreiber 16:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Raghith 08:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:SMC Pentax-M 50mm.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lens SMC Pentax-M 1:1.4 50mm --Fabienkhan 13:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Distorted WB & lack of sharpness. A.Savin 14:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Better, but still unsharp IMO A.Savin 19:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose colors are very good now, but the DOF is too low and the image is not really sharp --Carschten 14:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 08:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Winborg_ättiksprit.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Spirit Vinegar --Ankara 00:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Crop on top and bottom is too tight. --King of Hearts 02:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • New version with more space.--Ankara 05:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Product packaging: I think the design of the bottle and the label are protected by copyright. --Elektroschreiber 20:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    • The bottle design are very simular to to the bottle from 1909, and the company have used simular bottles from 1861. Although the text and logo are similar to those from 1909. Additionally, the logotype may not meet Sweden's high threshold of originality.--Ankara 09:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
      •  Support I think the picture is good enough for QI. So if there is no copyright problem I support. --Elektroschreiber 09:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support King of Hearts 21:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support -- aghith 08:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Neuhauser Straße München Altstadt Innenstadt Nacht1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Neuhauser Straße in the city centre of Munich at night with the wooden sculpture "The Traveller" by Arne Quinze. --Schlaier 14:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but I think the picture is too noisy to be a QI. --Ximonic 23:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Denoised+fixed perspective--Pro2 19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The Traveller was just a temporary object of art. The sculture was build November 12th, 2008. It was removed January 24th, 2009. In Germany this does not fit freedom of panorama. So Arne Quinze has the copyright. See also Versteigerung der Arne Quinze Skulptur "The Traveller" am 24.02.2009 zu einem guten Zweck. It was the same with the Wrapped Reichstag by Christo und Jeanne-Claude. --Elektroschreiber 19:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment If you think the depicted object is copyrighted, please file a deletion request. --Quartl (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 08:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Saint Nicolas Fort Rhodes Harbour night.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The lighthouse of Fort Saint Nicolas, Harbour of Rhodes, Greece, by night, as seen from the city embankment.--Jebulon 13:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose too noisy to me --Carschten 14:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the noise is fine. --King of Hearts 23:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I looks good to me. I support it. QI. --Schlaier 15:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I support also QI. --Ralf Roletschek 16:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • didn't you see the fine (?!?) grainy parts which were very heavy imo? I annotated them. This is Insufficient to me for a QI... --Carschten 14:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
      • That is what I call obstinacy ;) !!--Jebulon 19:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Please don't to take voters to task, Carschten. --Mbdortmund 20:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Vila Viçosa April 2011-3a.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Convent and church of Saint Augustin, Vila Viçosa, Portugal. Alvesgaspar 12:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Schlaier 15:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like this picture very much, and I love the sky, but the red roof is pixelated and there are strange pixel-borders around a lot of borders of the buildings --Carschten 17:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    • You are quite right, I suppose that is an unexpected result of the stitching process. I will try to do it again. Also, this lens (Nikkor 18-200) is not very sharp. -- Alvesgaspar 20:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info -- New version uploaded. Alvesgaspar 17:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The problems have gone away. -- King of Hearts 07:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support King John is maybe a bit dark, but the picture is a QI to me.--Jebulon 07:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment a cropping at top would be nice ;-) --Carschten 17:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Alvesgaspar 16:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  SupportFor me this is a QI.--Elektroschreiber 19:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 20:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

File:RougeGorge.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rouge gorge (Sainte Néomaye, France). --Nico&Co 12:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Lovely setting and composition. At full size, it looks a bit noisy and over-processed, but this is not obtrusive at QI minimum size. On balance, QI to me. --Avenue 14:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many problems with overprocessing --Mbdortmund 14:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quite lovely at thumbnail, but as Avenue mentions it does seem to be over-processed. Jovianeye 04:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Avenue.--Jebulon 15:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Honestly I can't see 2 many overproc. Richard Bartz 15:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Quite nice. --King of Hearts 19:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 09:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:2009-06-12-berlin-ba-RalfR-07.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Brandenburg Gate Berlin by night --Ralf Roletschek 12:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Imho too dark, night shots should be done before the sky is black. --Berthold Werner 15:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree with the opinion above, night shots are night shots and must be judged as night shots. No night shots could be promotted as QI, never ? This pic needs maybe a perspective correction, but I think it is good, and I put it in CR.--Jebulon 07:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
May be you're right, but I think nightshots like this one are better: .
Additionally Ralf's insn't sharp. --Berthold Werner 16:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes your "Black Gate" is better (far much !), but... it is not a "night" shot, but an evening one !!--Jebulon 21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I do this according to an old book about photography: make your night shoots as soon as the streetlight are on. :-) --Berthold Werner 10:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't mind that the picture of the Brandenburg Gate was taken when the sky was already black. I like the shot very much but I wouldn't consider it as a QI because it is not sharp. --Schlaier 08:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice composition, the dark sky is also fine with me, but I agree the photo is not sharp enough for a QI. --AngMoKio 09:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI agree: Not sharp enough for QI. --Elektroschreiber 19:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 09:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Botanischer Garten Meran 57.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Wheat in Botanischer Garten Meran --Böhringer 19:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Herzi Pinki 06:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not identified --Carschten 09:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Should be identified. In addition, no ear appears to be truly in focus. Nice colors, though. --Quartl 08:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:2010-06-16-gropius-by-RalfR-24.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Main Entry of the Martin Gropius Hospital, Eberswalde, Germany --Ralf Roletschek 10:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Ein schönes Bild. Nur kippt alles (auch die Mitte) sehr stark nach rechts und der linke Teil ist im Vergleich zum Rest ziemlich unscharf. --Niabot 11:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • da kippt nichts, das ist nur 11er Brennweite ;) --Ralf Roletschek 11:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Finde das Bild gut. Das Kippen sehe ich nicht als Problem. Kleinigkeiten sind nur der Dustspot etwas rechts oberhalb der Hausmitte und die Abschattungen in den Ecken --Haneburger 07:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Sehr gutes Bild. Interessanter Blick, sehr schöner Himmel, gute Farben. Die geringen, durch die extreme Brennweite verursachten möglicherweise stürzenden Linien - das Bild ist insoweit nach glaubhafter Aussage des Bildautors nicht nachbearbeitet! - stören den postiven Gesamteindruck nur vernachlässigbar. Korrekturversuche führen zu keiner sichtbaren Verbesserung, wohl eher Verschlechterung der Gesamtqualität. Außerdem ist durch nichts belegt, daß nicht u. U. das abgebildete Gebäudeensemble evtl. teilweise über nicht hundetprozentig lotrechte Senkrechten verfügt. Perspektivische Transformationsversuche sind daher hochgradig gefährdet, Theoriefindung zu sein. --Alupus 20:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 13:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Bellriva (ship, 1971) 011.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination River cruise ship Bellriva --Rolf H. 07:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Carschten 20:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but this is what I call a very bad composition with the ship in the centre obscuring the main pylon and the bridge cropped randomly - all too busy and aleatory. --Elekhh 01:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree to Elekhh.--Elektroschreiber 19:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Nikkor_PC-E_1-3.5_D_ED.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Nikon PC-E Objektiv in Tilt-Shift Stellung. --Ritchyblack 07:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very good. A.Savin 08:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, there are two dustspots and a strong blue ca at the right end of the lens --Berthold Werner 13:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Berthold Werner 06:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Dustspots and CA removed. --Ritchyblack 04:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Jovianeye 05:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 07:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Schaloen .jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Castle Schaloen, Oud-Valkenburg, the Netherlands - Basvb 18:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support The crop below is a bit tight, but it is a good picture nevertheless.--Jebulon 15:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose crop at bottom, CAs, seems not really sharp to me --Carschten 16:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jebulon --Mbdortmund 13:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 17:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Pigeon April 2011-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination City pigeon (Columba livea) dead -- Alvesgaspar 23:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Unsharp, from the paws to the tail feathers. Bad DoF ?--Jebulon 13:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Can I have a second opinion, please? Alvesgaspar 21:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I probably looked more often at this image than I would've liked to. In a picture of a live animal I probably wouldn't mind the slight unsharpness. For a picture of a still subject, the dof could be better since the photographer has more time to adjust the settings. Nevertheless I'll abstain from voting. Poor creature. --Quartl (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Sufficiently sharp. -- King of Hearts 07:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbdortmund 12:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 17:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Perlacher Mugl.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Perlacher Mug is a buried anti-air-bunker from WWII Richard Bartz 15:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Looks oversatured to me. Not really sharp, a dustspot (visible only at high resolution), too much empty sky for my taste, bad categorization ("Munich" ?) --Jebulon 17:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I see nothing oversatured --Taxiarchos228 19:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Neither do I, just looks like the standard -2/3 EV for landscapes. --King of Hearts 22:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Raghith 10:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 13:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

File:2010-06-04-lueneburg-by-RalfR-17.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Entry of the "Ratsapotheke" Lüneburg, Germany --Ralf Roletschek 20:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality and very nice --Taxiarchos228 08:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Severe barrel distortion and disturbing reflection in the centre. The file name is also not sufficiently descriptive of the subject. --Elekhh 23:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Elekhh technical reasons. I'm not sure if the file name problem is sufficient for a "decline" vote, but I strongly agree with Elekkh here too. I think that QIC nominators are (generally speaking) no careful enough with the names of files and the categories. Maybe theyre photos could technically deserve the QI label, but they are useless in "Commons" as an encyclopaedical repository. Only an opinion--Jebulon 15:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Barrel distortion is out. But for a list of the best file names this photo is very poor. --Ralf Roletschek 12:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Almost every straight line is wonky due to the wide angle. Looking at the category, this picture seems to be of the least interesting parts of the building. Also agree that the filename is very poor, especially incorporating the name of the uploader. --Colin 19:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 01:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Krefeld, Geismühle, 2011-04 CN-01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Geismühle in Krefeld --Carschten 20:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose And how could it breathe, above ??? The crop is very tight IMO...--Jebulon 09:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Please discuss (the tight crop...)--Jebulon 14:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cropped too tightly above. Needs room to revolve IMO. --Avenue 05:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I can not see any poor quality, even not in the narrow crop, cause main subject "Mühle" is not cropped --J. Lunau 17:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The extremely tight framing on the top is really hurting. --Elekhh 23:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Kyrkans_hus_april_2011.jpg[edit]

  • Good point (and thank you Jebulon for your review). I  I withdraw my nomination my nomination and will try again to take a better photo. Regards--Ankara 12:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Jebulon 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2010-07-09-gdansk-by-RalfR-173.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tower of the main-hall of Gdansk, Poland --Ralf Roletschek 12:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality, did I already say that I love towers? ;-) --Taxiarchos228 13:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose mehrere teils ziemlich heftige Sensorflecken. Bitte noch wegstempeln, dann wirklich hervorragend. -- Felix Koenig 19:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Da sind noch einige übrig, hab meine gefunden möglich genau markiert. --Carschten 12:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Jetzt müßte ich eigentlich alle erwischt haben. --Ralf Roletschek 10:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Danke für die Fleißarbeit, jetzt  Support, hervorragende Arbeit. -- Felix Koenig 18:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for me a good QI, even the first version. Ich sehe jetzt keine Sensorflecken mehr und finde sie in diesem Fall auch nicht sehr störend. --J. Lunau 17:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Great picture. QI --Schlaier 15:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please remove notices --Mbdortmund 05:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 17:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Isis-Hathor with Osiris-IMG 0176.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Isis-Hathor giving milk to Osiris. -- Rama 10:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Jovianeye 23:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    *  Oppose I disagree sorry. There is a strong de-saturation problem IMO (only "gray" and "orange" colors visible, must be corrected before promotion. --Jebulon 09:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    Uploaded the original version. I find the reflections of the environment on the saide of the base a bit disturbing, but my attempts at removing them were obviously clumsy. I don't know what you chaps think about it and can make out of it. Thanks in any case for the reviews and cheers! Rama 20:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Mbdortmund 20:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Far much better. I remove my opposition, and support now.--Jebulon (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 21:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Hausen_im_Wiesental_-_Evangelische_Kirche13.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hausen im Wiesental: protestant church (organ) --Taxiarchos228 08:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Nothing much interessant here: crop perspective, etc. Sting 00:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    • "not interessting" is not a valid argument for QI. picture is showing the organ of a church standing on a gallery. don't see what's wrong with the crop or perpective --Taxiarchos228 08:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think the composition is very good: it makes the railing in front of the organ appear more prominent in the image than the organ itself, and the tilt just looks haphazard rather than adding to the image. —David Eppstein 22:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Viola x wittrockiana (Pansy).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Viola x wittrockiana (Pansy). --MrPanyGoff 18:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Red channel in the petals severely blown. --Quartl 06:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Can you explain what exactly are you talking about?--MrPanyGoff 07:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
      • If you look at the color histogram, you see that there is no red information in large parts of the petals, because it is all 255. If you still have the raw file you can try converting the image into a different color space such as Adobe RGB. --Quartl 07:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't see a valid ground of opposition. Do you try to say that the colours are not real?--MrPanyGoff 18:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
          • All I'm saying is that red is overexposed, but let's hear some other opinions. --Quartl 19:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI imo --David Perez 10:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Raghith 11:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Harrison49 23:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Chrysler Pacifica red.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Chrysler Pacifica. --Airwolf 20:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Unfortunately not the work of a Commons user. Sting 15:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
    • He is a commons user. --Jovianeye 18:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, the uploader is a commons user, but the author isn't null 12:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Łukasz Golowanow is User:Airwolf, I dont understand what this debate is all about? Please review the image. --Jovianeye 14:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support to balance the apparently unjustified oppose. --Quartl 16:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Raghith 11:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Map of Poland and Lithuania after the Union of Lublin (1569).svg[edit]

  • Nomination Poland and Lithuania in 1569--Grandiose 14:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • This seems to reflect the source well. The most glaring problem to me is that Bornholm and southern Sweden are missing, making the Baltic look huge. Also, in the opposite corner, the southern border of Lithuania doesn't always track the Dnieper where it should, although that's a relatively minor issue. --Avenue 07:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Not promoted through the usual channel, with no opposition nor support – the above comment, which suggests a change I don't think is necessary, was all. Grandiose 16:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
      •  Oppose, needs correct coastlines for the western Baltic Sea IMO. With a historical map like this, major geographical features like coastlines are a vital cue to help the viewer understand what area they're looking at, and their omission makes the map highly confusing. --Avenue 08:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I've put in the amount there was in the original, which isn't much. I also altered the scale box to fit the area removed from the original for the title. Grandiose 16:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • A big improvement, and I've struck my oppose vote above. It's still missing the islands of Bornholm, Rügen, Usedom and Rolin (all present in the original), which makes the western Baltic look too expansive. Maybe it doesn't need all the detail of the original here, but completely removing the islands seems to deviate too much. --Avenue 00:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support for me now it is QI, even with some lack of detail and it is usefull for wikipedia --J. Lunau 16:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)  Comment I guess, you used Incscape to create this file, so you could tagg it with

 
This image was created with Inkscape .
and if you use "save as" /"normal SVG" your file even passes validation --J. Lunau 14:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC))

File:2011-04-18-insecte-3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Syrphidae sp. --ComputerHotline 17:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment needs id. --Quartl 20:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 15:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still needs id. --Quartl 21:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support id.? Good Quality -> QI --Ralf Roletschek 17:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • A QI requirement: "Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms." --Avenue 17:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Cheena Vala Uyarthiyathu.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Raised chinese fishing nets in Kochi --Sreejithk2000 12:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Schlaier 17:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think CA should be corrected. --Crusier 05:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Raghith 05:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support - CA is okay -- Pro2 17:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, too many over- and underexposed parts (wood, sky), strange colors --Carschten 11:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA.--Jebulon 15:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the colours, over- and under-exposure are valid creative choices. Too much CA, though, and cropped a bit tightly at the sides. --Avenue 23:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Colors inappropriate --Archaeodontosaurus 08:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Toronto_-_ON_-_TD_Canada_Trust_Tower.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Toronto: TD Canada Trust Tower --Taxiarchos228 06:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment hazy, needs some contrast --Carschten 09:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    more contrast now, but also more shadow of course --Taxiarchos228 13:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    that's too much contrast in my taste now. Maybe you can make a halfway version between before and now. --Carschten 21:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose too much contrast --Carschten 16:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    new version uploaded --Taxiarchos228 09:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support OK --Mbdortmund 14:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The bottom crop is very disturbing to me, because it makes the building looking tilted (I know it is not). A "frontal" shot should have been better IMO.--Jebulon 15:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support its ok so for me. --Ralf Roletschek 17:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose From looking on Google, this is only the top-left quarter of the building. I'd expect the ground to be in view, or else whatever obscures the ground. Buildings don't just appear in mid-space. --Colin 19:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Sure, it is the top part of the building. There was already a candidate at QI from the whole building. So: what´s wrong (architectural) to show the spire of a skyscraper? --Taxiarchos228 20:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Kids_in_Rishikesh,_India.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kids on a road near Rishikesh, India. They are probably siblings and hanging around while their parents are busy building the road. --Broc 21:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Jovianeye 22:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposure between the two heads, as in the december 2010 discussion in FPC.--Jebulon 10:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  SupportI like this image. And maybe this is not a featured picture, I think it is a quality image. I read the discussion for the featured picture candidates in December 2010. I find the overexposure between the heads not so distracting. --Elektroschreiber 21:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Harrison49 22:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose interesting topic but the area is overexposed too strong --Archaeodontosaurus 17:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose where is the permission of the parents? --Ralf Roletschek 12:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Without permission from the parents this image should be deleted instead. --Niabot 12:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 13:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Jean-Marie Roland de La Platière-Joseph Chinard-MBA Lyon B1490-IMG 0442.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Jean-Marie Roland de La Platière, by Jean-Baptiste Stouf. -- Rama 18:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Raghith 06:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, it needs a correction of the masking over the head, near the upper edge --Jebulon 07:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
      Thank you, corrected. -- Rama 10:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
       Support Thank you, corrected too. I like this "vénérable vieillard" que sa femme aimait "comme un père"--Jebulon 14:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC).
  •  Support --Mbdortmund 22:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 23:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Allegory of theological dispute-Abraham van der Eyk-MBA Lyon H1151-IMG 0428.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Allegory of the theological dispute between the Arminianists and their opponents. Abraham van der Eyk, 1721. -- Rama 12:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 16:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I like this picture very much, but it seems to me that something is missing below. I think the crop of the feet looks strange. May we have a certainty before promotion ? --Jebulon 09:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, and sorry for the delay in my reply, I though it made no sense answering without the backups of the raw material. I've uploaded the original file, before post-processing, at File:Allegory of theological dispute-Abraham van der Eyk-MBA Lyon H1151-IMG 0428-original.jpg. It seems to me that the feet are indeed cut in the original, but it is possible that we'd had lost some more due to post-processing. The chap in fancy suit is the Stadtholder ; since the dispute occurred in 1618, it should be Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange (consistent with the mugshot that we already have). Cheers ! Rama 17:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Je remballe mes remontrances.--Jebulon 21:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 23:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Tucker's Genus Two Group.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mathematical sculpture of a genus two group. —David Eppstein 14:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn
  •  Oppose Nice subject and composition. Significant noise in the shadows, though, and shallow DOF. Lumpy looking background on the left, and two possible dust spots near the sculpture upper centre and mid right. Some of these problems are fixable, but I suspect not enough. --Avenue 08:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, can you try looking again? the "lumpy background" and "dust spots" are not technical flaws, but part of the scene: they are both actually the plaster wall immediately behind the sculpture. —David Eppstein 15:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, if the "dust spots" are features of the wall, then that adds to the distracting nature of the background. However the noise and DOF were more important reasons for declining it. Having looked again, I still feel that despite its strengths, it's not a QI. But let's get some more opinions. --Avenue 04:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure it would be possible to reduce the noise, if that were the only issue, but dof is not something that can be changed later. So I agree, let's get some more opinions. —David Eppstein 15:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't mind the dof, but the noise is an issue, especially in the shadows. --Quartl 17:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination. I went back to the original image to find out why it was so noisy (the original ISO was not high). It turns out it was severely underexposed and I had to push it more than a stop in converting raw to jpeg. I can get rid of most of the noise, but not enough of it to really satisfy myself that this meets the QI standards. So at this point I agree with the previous two voters. —David Eppstein 14:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bridleway sign Hillingdon.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Bridleway sign in Hillingdon --Harrison49 21:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Poor lighting. --King of Hearts 22:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the lighting, everything is visible --Taxiarchos228 06:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - As per King of Hearts --Sreejithk2000 10:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support everything is visible --Ralf Roletschek 20:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor lighting --Archaeodontosaurus 08:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment It's natural lighting. The other side would have had the sun obstructing the view. Harrison49 12:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Like Archaeodontosaurus. --Chmee2 18:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If the sign is soooo dark, could you please make it a bit lighter for we could see its details? Also, perspective distortion.--PereslavlFoto 19:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The lighting is not great and the composition is not particularly interesting. —David Eppstein 01:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Butterfly unnamed.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Caligo eurilochus, -- Pro2 18:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Schlaier 19:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed hindwing. --Quartl 06:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good view of the butterfly. -- Harrison49 20:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Quartl --Mbdortmund 06:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI imo. --David Perez 10:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Raghith 01:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Cannot see overexposure anywhere. -- PereslavlFoto 21:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support 1% of pixels are saturated in the red channel and the other channels have fewer. Detail is apparent on the hind wing bright band in the stretched image. Criteria satisfied, in my opinion. --Wsiegmund 22:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Wsiegmund 22:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Montreal_-_QC_-_Sendemast_Mont_Real2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Montreal, Canada: Tower on Mont Royal --Taxiarchos228 08:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Top third of tower is out of focus --Saffron Blaze 09:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    sharp enough for QI IMO, more than ever because of this difficult angle --Taxiarchos228 09:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    I just wondered if you had shot at a smaller apereature would you have got the whole tower. As it is even on page resolution you can see the top is out of focus. Saffron Blaze 09:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Nomination Lampost in Pereslavl museum--PereslavlFoto 14:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline

 Oppose unfortunate lighting --Mbdortmund 17:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? How does it make the quality of this photo worse?--PereslavlFoto 17:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose Top of the lamp is unsharp. Sorry --Chmee2 18:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Chmee2, please check again, I made it sharper.--PereslavlFoto 12:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The upper left part of the picture is overexposured. --Mbdortmund 22:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The lamp looks sharp to me but I am not too happy that the surrounding is so blurred... Sometimes this has a great effect but here I find it disturbing. --Schlaier 20:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Jovian Eye 17:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Magistrat krakowski (noc).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wielopolski Palace in Cracow, Poland --Pudelek 21:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline

 Oppose Not sharp, hot spots, colour noise.--PereslavlFoto 18:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose On second regard I have to agree. This photo could be improved with some processing. --Saffron Blaze 12:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Fluffed-up tui, side view.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tui displaying fluffed-up feathers. --Avenue 01:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Lack of contrast, imo overexposured --Mbdortmund 06:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Curves adjusted to increase contrast; probably hasn't helped the overexposure though. --Avenue 10:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good exposition, the bird is well visible. Maybe you can add some contrast with "unsharp mask" tool, but please be accurate :-).--PereslavlFoto 19:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, while I agree the original was light on contrast, the new version already seems to me to have gone far enough (perhaps a bit too far) on that front. So I will not push it any further. --Avenue 22:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of contrast --Archaeodontosaurus 16:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Tissue glass Dounce homogenizer-08.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Glass tissue Dounce homogenizers --Przykuta 17:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Could be sharper in the foreground.--.--PereslavlFoto 17:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality for studio work --Archaeodontosaurus 16:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 07:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Hillingdon bridleway.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Bridleway in Hillingdon --Harrison49 20:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Raghith 17:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposure, CA and probably slight left tilt. --Elekhh 08:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Elekhh --Mbdortmund 21:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 07:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Roman Weidenfeller 2011.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Roman Weidenfeller -- Pro2 21:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline

 Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 22:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose Hair is not sharp.--PereslavlFoto 22:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Face not sharp, including eyes. Over-exposed shirt. Severe CA on railing across his midriff. Not bad, but not QI. --Avenue 13:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
You're right ;-) -- Pro2 16:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you don't seem offended. :-) It's actually an appealing photo, despite my list of complaints. --Avenue 23:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Avenue 23:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir Portrait of a Young Woman 1876 Neue Pinakothek Munich München.JPG[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Avenue (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:KRAZ 257 front.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Automixer KrAZ-257 front.--Vizu 15:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support sky overexp. but main object very good --Ralf Roletschek 17:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposure, tight framing, busy composition, graininess - Not QI for me. --Elekhh 07:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The crop is too tight on both sides. The sky overexposed. Not a QI for me. But I like the subject. --Elektroschreiber 21:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ralf --Archaeodontosaurus 08:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Elekhh --Chmee2 18:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The shadows tell us that the sky was white because of colourless clouds. May be cropped at the top. Needs denoise procedure, and after that denoise I support the image. Please, please denoise it.--PereslavlFoto 19:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Cropped this file (metal constructions)? --Vizu 17:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I mean: this photo may be cropped at the top, the car photo will look better without metal constructions and useless cloudy sky.--PereslavlFoto 19:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Elekhh --Tlusťa 09:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info I uploaded new version. This is cropped image without overexposed sky. If this discussion will be closed please nominate my version separately. --Butko (talk) 03:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight crop and busy composition. --Slaunger 21:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 07:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Berlin_Brandenburger_Tor_BW_3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Berlin, Brandenburg Gate, quadriga from east --Berthold Werner 13:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion  SupportGood quality. --Saffron Blaze 17:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose The composition violates the usual rule of not placing the subject in the center of a larger field of view, and has unnecessarily wide margins around the subject with nothing of interest to catch the eye in these margins. The net effect of this composition is to make what should be a dynamic subject (moving horses) look weak and static. —David Eppstein 00:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    Notwithstanding that the rule you quote is not a rule, it is odd that you slam a picture for croping issues when that is the very problem with yours. Despite the fact I agree this picture could improve with additional cropping it is still QI. As such, your review comes across as rather petulant. Saffron Blaze 08:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    I should have written "rule of thumb" rather than "rule"; there are plenty of good photos with centered subjects, but more often centered compositions don't work so well and to me this is an example of one that does not work. In any case, how about we discuss the actual picture and not make ad-hominem arguments here? —David Eppstein 15:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me (after reading the discussion above)--Jebulon 15:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC).
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 08:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Rialto Bridge Grand Canal.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rialto Bridge on the Grand Canal, Venice, Italy -- Saffron Blaze 19:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion

*  Oppose Too tightly cropped at left IMO. Buildings also lean inward. --Avenue 12:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  •  Comment I gave your suggestions a shot (no pun). --Saffron Blaze 16:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Nicely composed with the boat and the perspective lines on the bank all converging on the bridge. The deep focus is appropriate to the scene, I don't see any noise, the exposure is good, and the lighting is a little flat but otherwise not bad. —David Eppstein 16:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me now. --Avenue 15:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 08:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Église Sainte-Foy de Chartres, façade occidentale.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Église Sainte-Foy, Chartres. --Coyau 16:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion The sky is pixelated, and there is a problem on the antenna (see note) --Archaeodontosaurus 16:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    Antenna fixed. I don't see pixels in the sky. --Coyau 16:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharped borders, also CA on the cross.--PereslavlFoto 17:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  SupportGood for me. --M0tty 06:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI now Archaeodontosaurus
  •  Support I think it is quite a striking photo now. Saffron Blaze 17:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I find it very impressive. A QI for me. --Elektroschreiber 19:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 08:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:GermanyMuensterWestphaliaGeistWaterTowerFromPlayground.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Water tower in Münster, Westphalia. --Elektroschreiber 06:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Something looks wrong, tilt oder perspective...--Jebulon 14:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    •  Neutral I remove my opp. because of the rotation (it's better now), but I'm still not convinced enough for support...--Jebulon 21:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image has a CCW tilt of about 1.2° Moreover, there are some distracting foreground elements. --Slaunger 20:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is a chance to repair the tilt, else good picture --Mbdortmund 21:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info New version uploaded with rotation of 1.2°
  •  Support --Mbdortmund 21:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I particularly like the composition. Saffron Blaze 01:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 08:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Weil_am_Rhein_-_Friedenskirche.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Freedom Church in Weil am Rhein --Taxiarchos228 07:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Saffron Blaze 08:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, too strong distortion as the tower appears tilted and a bit too much noise. Grand-Duc 03:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. Very nice lighting and color, and good overall composition, but the leaning tower is just too distracting. A perspective crop might improve things, but the top of the tower is a bit too unsharp for my taste as well. —David Eppstein 00:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Скорая помощь ГАЗ.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Ambulance GAZelle.--Vizu 17:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion

 Comment Innatural proportions.--PereslavlFoto 17:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

 Comment did not see unnatural proportions --Taxiarchos228 07:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 Comment I think there is barrel distortion in the foreground.--PereslavlFoto 12:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 Comment and I think this is the shape of this car. --Taxiarchos228 13:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 Comment I will not insist then. Many men, many minds.--PereslavlFoto 14:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
9 May - Victory Day - many people). --Vizu 18:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Background shows no barrel distortion, so the foreground neither. --Niabot 20:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:St._Peter_-_Glockenturm3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach: Catholic Church Saint Peter (Bell tower) --Taxiarchos228 07:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion

 Support Good quality. --Saffron Blaze 08:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose Bad composition.--Elekhh 13:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

because you can see the upper part of the tower clearly? --Taxiarchos228 13:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Because there is no relationship between the building and the tree. Could have chosen a different angle or the same angle in winter, but this angle, at this time of the year, with such a random framing, is all bad choice to illustrate the building or a detail of it. You made half a dozen good images of this building, this is not one of them. --Elekhh 08:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The relationship is the fact that the trees stand in front of the church. In fact this church is difficult to shot absolutely free of trees. This pictures shows the front concrete surface, the abat-son and the remarkable cross on top of the bell tower and denotes the aspired silhouette. If you find a better picture showing all these details I would like to see it. --Taxiarchos228 08:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
This is much better illustration of the tower. If all this image adds is the cross from the other angle than crop it. Otherwise I reckon that winter is a better time to take the shot. --Elekhh 23:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
No, this picture is not showing all the aspects I listed above. --Taxiarchos228 11:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Now I think the image is fine. Even the details in shade are visible, wow! But if Elekhh explains the problem, I may change my mind.--PereslavlFoto 14:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support The trees are part of the scenary. Maybe we should buy some more dynamite for our photographers. The quality is good. I have no reason to oppose. --Niabot 08:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to cut out any tree. The choice of the angle, the time of the day or year and the framing are part of what photography is. This image is all bad choice, even if done with a good camera. Are we going to promote images of people taken from the back and with cut off legs? --Elekhh 23:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
You are right, there may be different angles. And the question is: this photo that shows the church from this angle in this day and this lightning, in it technically fine, does it have photographic quality? Is it sharp, with details in shade and light, does it have no aberrations?--PereslavlFoto 12:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 08:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:A_red_rose_with_dewdrops_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A red red rose with dewdrops on it. --Broc 19:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. Harrison49 23:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad background. --Elekhh 13:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The background does indeed make the composition too left-centered, but I still think it's a QI. --King of Hearts 18:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Elekh + only small parts are sharp --Mbdortmund 20:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Elekhh. --Jovianeye 17:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Elekhh. --Archaeodontosaurus 06:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Hausen_im_Wiesental_-_Evangelische_Kirche1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hausen im Wiesental: protestant church --Taxiarchos228 12:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Needs more sharpness!--PereslavlFoto 18:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    this picture is sharp --Taxiarchos228 19:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    It's as sharp as my lampost, and they say it is not sharp enough. Same with the top of your building.--PereslavlFoto 21:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    He's on a mission to take revenge because I voted against one of his pictures... --Mbdortmund 22:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    Not polite from yours. Compare this photo to the Hausen im Wiesental bell tower photo, then compare it to my lampost. It looks as sharp as a lampost, less sharp than a belltower. This is my logic, and if I am not right, I beg you to tell me the reason (this is a discussion). Thanks.--PereslavlFoto 22:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough for QI. It has 7 MP. Scale it down to the resolution of other QI images and it is perfectly sharp. At top as well as on the post. --Niabot 06:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough for me as well. QI. I have the feeling that Mbdortmund has a point. This is now the 3rd picture I review where PereslavlFoto is opposing because another picture of his was declined (by Mbdortmund?). And for the 3rd time I think the picture is QI. Please PereslavlFoto don't take it personal when someone declines your picture. If you want to discuss about the "decline" of one of your pictures please to it there and not here. Take care. --Schlaier 19:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Sainte-Sophie - vierge à l'enfant.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Virgin and Child mosaic in Hagia Sophia. I know the windows are blown, but they're too close to be cropped out and the light in the apse is very dim. --Eusebius 06:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Maybe add some crop at the bottom, and defringe blue windows?--PereslavlFoto 18:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info Updated. I did my best to make the colours in the window look natural. I understand if the exposure is a motive for opposition. --Eusebius 19:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The mosaic looks fine. The window cannot be transferred without clipping, but it may be further cropped. All obvious technical troubles are solved by the author.--PereslavlFoto 19:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like to keep the 3:2 ratio. --Eusebius 20:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I did not made oppose voting, it was just a comment, so the QICtotal with one oppose vote was not correct!--PereslavlFoto 19:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
My comment was generic and also directed to future reviewers. --Eusebius 20:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon 15:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   ----Jebulon 15:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Lacerta_agilis_male_2011_G2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sand Lizard male (Lacerta agilis) -- George Chernilevsky 19:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 21:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eye not in focus -- Saffron Blaze 21:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC))
  •  Support--Jebulon 14:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photograph. Harrison49 16:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez 19:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Archaeodontosaurus 16:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 07:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Saffron Blaze --Carschten 18:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cowenby 22:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 18:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Fischingen_-_Evangelische_Kirche6.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fischingen: Organ at protestant church --Taxiarchos228 09:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion This is a nice composition and it is sharp but I find it is rather drab due to the lighting. Can you brighten it a bit so the organ stands out more? --Saffron Blaze 17:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    yes I can, but I do it tomorrow --Taxiarchos228 19:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    done, I guess it is ok now --Taxiarchos228 10:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Rather difficult lighting yet despite this it came out well. I am happy with the adjustments. It certainly looks more like the eye would perceive it. Saffron Blaze 20:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 06:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Palazzo Vecchio - grand hall.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A difficult picture (for me). I think it is good enough but I'm open to the critique... --Eusebius 20:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion  CommentI think it is a very well done HDR under difficult light conditions. Good DOF and colors. Being pedantic I noticed that there seems to be some barrel and or tilt in the photo. At the lower edge the row of chairs is not exactly aligned with the edge of the photo, and the upper line in the ceiling close to the upper edge bends up a little near the upper corners in the photo. I think it is good enough for QI as it is, but if it is easy to fix... --Slaunger 19:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
     Comment There's a tiny cushion (not barrel) distorsion visible on the top corners (I'll see if I can do something), but since I cannot guarantee that the chair rows are perfectly aligned with the architecture, I won't act on this part (because the walls are verticals, the ceiling is horizontal and I consider the perspective to be decently corrected already). --Eusebius 21:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info I have updated the file, but it didn't seem to work?? --Eusebius 08:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    Strange indeed. Is it wiki problem, the update by Rama next to this nom did not seem to work either. On second inspection I noticed the ghost to the lower right. It is unavaoidable (I suppose it is a HDR stitch)? --Slaunger 09:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    Yes it is a HDR picture. Honestly this kind of ghost, at least at this place, does not bother me at all and I won't try anything to remove it. --Eusebius 17:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    I agree the ghosting is not a huge thing, I just thought that if it was a stitch there might have been other possible seams, with which it could have been avoided. --Slaunger 19:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The above was just some minor stuff, definately QI, and well done. I like it. --Slaunger 19:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The sense of depth on the screen is wonderful. Saffron Blaze 20:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with all comments above.--Jebulon 21:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 06:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

File:JohnHooperBalancing.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination "Balancing", by John Hooper. —David Eppstein 17:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  OpposeUnfortunate crop leaving the OOF grass in the foreground. Otherwise the subject matter is well captured. --Saffron Blaze 20:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    You declined this one based on its composition but at the same time promoted this one and this one? You have odd ideas about what makes for a good composition, I think, because to me those other two are utterly boring and static. —David Eppstein 21:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    Those two you identified may be of somewhat boring subject matter but they are technically competent and indeed well composed. Your picture I like for its artfullness but it is not technically well composed with that distracting grass in the foreground. I think a different crop could make it a QI. Saffron Blaze 22:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment ad-hominem... oh, is that something like saying someone has "odd ideas" because they conflict with yours? That aside, let me offer this as a suggestion only: Sample Crop
    • Thanks for the suggestion. I prefer my crop for a few reasons: (1) the foreground grass fixes the figures into the landscape rather than having them just floating in space in front of something that might as well be stars instead of the leaves of the background, (2) the point of the image is to emphasize the isolation of the female figure against the men ogling her, and cropping more tightly around her eliminates the negative space that causes her to look isolated, and (3) in your crop, when I analyze how it affects where my eye travels, I find my eye drawn to the head in the bottom left, because it is a little brighter and your crop places it in a bit more prominent a location (the corner rather than the edge), when really I want the direction of motion to be the other way, from left to right. So to me, the new crop doesn't work as well. But if you find the foreground grass distracting, you find it distracting; I'm not going to try to claim that it is anything other than what it is. —David Eppstein 01:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I took the title of the image as an indication of the main theme or focus and cropped accordingly. Saffron Blaze 07:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I prefer the original crop, but IMO the OOF grass is too distracting. --Avenue 13:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 06:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Eichsel_-_St._Gallus_Chorseite.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rheinfelden-Eichsel: Saint Gallus Church --Taxiarchos228 07:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Over exposed in parts --Saffron Blaze 08:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
not to deny, but is this here really significant for the quality of this picture? --Taxiarchos228 08:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Overexposed on the bright cross, as it was in real life. Everything else seems OK.--PereslavlFoto 13:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor lighting --Archaeodontosaurus 16:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment What lighting would be better? Thanks.--PereslavlFoto 17:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment the contrast between the right side very dark and the roof too clear, is unesthetic. --Archaeodontosaurus 17:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I think we should distinguish between high key (the many bright surfaces in the image) and overexposed (washed out and not showing any detail). This doesn't look overexposed to me, except maybe for some unimportant walls in the background behind the church on the right side. I like the composition, I think the bright lighting works well for the subject, and technically it's adequate though not perfect. I don't think the woman in the foreground really adds to the photo but she's not too much of a distraction either. —David Eppstein 00:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Per Avenue. I didn't see that glare spot before but now I can't unsee it. —David Eppstein 20:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Large round glare spot over much of the right half of the dark part of the orange roof, visible even in thumbnail here. I would tend towards opposing for the unnecessarily high key too (technically not overexposed, true), but that's a moot point given the other flaw. --Avenue 16:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    •  CommentI am not convinced that is a glare spot. It looks more like a collection of discoloured tiles. Regardless, this picture is more than salvagable with a bit of post processing. Saffron Blaze 20:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, it's not possible to be absolutely certain, but I am pretty convinced. There is some discolouration elsewhere (e.g. dark tiles near the roof's bottom edge), but nothing that looks remotely like this. And why would discolouration follow such a pattern? But yes, all the problems here seem salvageable. --Avenue 22:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 06:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-05-15-mt-vaudois-2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Inside the fort du Mont Vaudois, Héricourt, France --ComputerHotline 14:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion

 Support distortion imoi acceptable --Mbdortmund 15:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose Wide angle distortions are not less than mine with a winter night photo; that one was rejected, so this one may be rejected also.--PereslavlFoto 18:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 Support I have the feeling that this picture could only be taken like this if you are willing to accept that here will be this kind of distortion. I like this picture very much and think that the quality (light, sharpness, resolution) is also very good. QI for me. @PereslavlFoto: I don't know the photo you are referring to. If it was also a good quality I am sorry that your photo was declined but I don't think that it is wise to focus too much on past discussions when we want to talk about this particular picture here. --Schlaier 18:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 Support good photo for me - Pudelek 12:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 Support The composition and the lighting create a wondeful mood and the detail makes it quite valuable as a study piece.Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 Support Really very good. Unusual sense of expansiveness for an underground shot. --Avenue 23:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 06:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-05-15-mt-vaudois-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Inside the fort du Mont Vaudois, Héricourt, France --ComputerHotline 14:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion

 Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 15:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 OpposeTwo light glares. Also, when I did the same night photo, Mbdortmund said "blown lights, white balance off". Completely the same is here.--PereslavlFoto 18:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 Support I like this picture – great atmosphere, high resultion, sharp. QI for me. I am troubled about the argument of PareslavlFoto: I have the feeling that you are angry with Mbdortmund because he declined some of your pictures. In a way I can understand you: It also hurt me a bit when some of my pictures were declined for the first time. But I have to admit: This taught me how I can take better pictures. So I started to see a "decline" as a good thing because it helps me to find out how I can do better. Also Mbdortmund declined a picture of mine or two (or more?) - and after all he was right when I read his arguments. Right now I have not a good feeling when I see that you decline this particular picture with arguments Mbdortmund used to decline some of your pictures. Is this really your opinion or do you want to get back at Mbdortmund? Well, after all I would prefer if you would just tell us here what you think about a picture and let other users out of it. I want to discuss about the quality of pictures here. I think it is not the right place to show your frustration you have with a particular user. I think it would be better if you would discuss your disagreement or frustration open and fair with this user on your or his page and keep this site clean of it. Again: I know it hurts a bit when a picture you like is declined - but it is not against you personally. I hope I could help. Have a good day. Best regards --Schlaier 19:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Besides approving what Schlaier said above, I would like to further propose the idea that quality criteria should never have the effect to ban an entire photographic genre from getting the label in practice. For instance, indoor sports will intrinsically generate images with more noise than museum macro on a tripod ; the genre must yield adaptation of the criteria -- lest we'd be to gradually label only a very narrow type of photographs. -- Rama 19:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
1) Indoor sports will not have much noise because of denoising software. 2) I have nothing about Mbdortmund himself; the problem is that the photo has completely the same problems: blown out lights, unusual white balance settings. You may compare. Even more, here are two light glares that could be retouched.--PereslavlFoto 12:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Denoising software is not magical. What you remove in noise, you also lose in details. It makes no sense having photographs that look like oil painting for the sake of having "no colour noise". Rama 22:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support off course --Pudelek 12:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
With blown out lights, false white balance and two glares?--PereslavlFoto 12:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment The troublesome glares should go. I am not concerned about the white balance as what is important is that the photographer captures what is most real not what the sesnor sees. The only way to not blow the lights would be HDR or bring in large lighting gear, which is not always possible. Saffron Blaze 10:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Berlin_Konzerthaus_BW_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Berlin, Konzerthaus --Berthold Werner 12:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Please sharpen image first. --Saffron Blaze 18:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Imo QI --Mbdortmund 23:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 17:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I wasn't so much opposed as believing the picture could be improved with some sharpening. Saffron Blaze 10:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 11:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Tony Truant IMG 4598.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tony Truant (Les Wampas) at Balelec 2011 -- Rama 21:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline good stage picture --Mbdortmund 05:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    Not sharp.--PereslavlFoto 18:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose As PereslavlFoto. Noised--Lmbuga 17:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 06:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Hausen_im_Wiesental_-_Evangelische_Kirche8.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hausen im Wiesental: protestant church --Taxiarchos228 08:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeThe technical quality is good, but I think the view to the church is too obstructed by trees. --Slaunger 20:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
     Commentthis picture is showing the surrounding of the church, other picture without trees of this church I have made too --Taxiarchos228 20:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  SupportI like the composition--Jebulon 15:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 09:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 11:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

File:White-fronted terns (Sterna striata) at Takapuna.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination White-fronted terns. --Avenue 17:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Not one part of the image appears in focus...perhaps motion blur issues. --Saffron Blaze 08:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, something went wrong there. New version uploaded, sharp in parts at least. --Avenue 15:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The new version is darker than the original. Could you lighten it? --King of Hearts 06:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Now brightened. --Avenue 16:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 05:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

File:The mad woman-Theodore Gericault-MBA Lyon B825-IMG 0477.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Portrait of a demented woman, by Géricault. -- Rama 12:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • There are numerous "hot pixel" like artefacts. Fix those and its good. --Saffron Blaze 18:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Hot spots, numerous dust. Needs to pass the "unsharp mask" filter.--PereslavlFoto 18:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Tried to clean up a bit. Thank you for your input. Rama 21:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
      • There is no need to crop. Thanks for hot pixels fixing. Next steps are: remove dust, add sharpness with "unsharp mask" tool.--PereslavlFoto 22:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the improvements make this QI now.Saffron Blaze 20:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Tomer T 18:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Den Haag Pellenaerstraat 4.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Paviljoen von Wied - Pellenaerstraat 4, The Hague, the Netherlands. - Basvb 16:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Good... but needs a strong perspective correction. --Cayambe 11:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI - but only without correction --Ralf Roletschek 11:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but it seems to me that there's a consensus here that perspective distortions should be corrected. So, let's discuss. --Cayambe 11:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    well, I think it's a bad style, desperately distorting everything --Ralf Roletschek 16:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I think we must keep our minds open. The evident distortion, as it is not a lack of care, is in this specific case a part of the quality of this image (IMO).--Jebulon 09:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the image as it is. And for me this is also a quality image. --Elektroschreiber 20:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop on both sides to tight, distortion imo too strong --Mbdortmund 20:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support In this case I believe that the lack of perspective correction is a valid compositional choice. It pulls the viewer into the scene, whereas if it were corrected it would look more static. —David Eppstein 22:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality as it is. Harrison49 23:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Aberrant perspective. --Archaeodontosaurus 08:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose massive CA and zigzag lamp poles. Too strong distortion for neoclassical architecture. Barrel distortion. --Elekhh 13:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Bgag 11:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is a very vivid example of distortions. And it needs more sharpness.--PereslavlFoto 19:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the perspective distortion plays a useful role here, per David Eppstein. The barrel distortion does detract, though, and it seems too tightly cropped at the sides. --Avenue 03:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Elekhh and others. --Slaunger 21:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can't believe that here are existing support votes... --Carschten 18:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment I can't believe that here are existing such unhelpful reviews...--Jebulon 21:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Avenue and others--Lmbuga 21:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 10 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 13:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Bessa Myftiu IMG 2859.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bessa Myftiu at the Salon du Livre 2011 in Geneva -- Rama 12:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Lot of chromatic noise due to the high ISO, shallow DoF, dead pixels not corrected. I think it will be a great picture if you improve the noise problem and reduce its size to 60 or 50% to hide the lack of focus, while it will still remain a big picture. Sting 13:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment Reducing the size only makes files smaller and information lesser, not quality better. --Coyau 15:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Of course it doesn't improve the quality but the problems are less visible. Sting 15:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support If it is a QI at half size, logically (quality is not what one see on a screen), if someone needs to reduce size to juge quality, let him do it, no need to downsize files here.--Coyau 10:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for me QI --Ralf Roletschek 10:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support--Ankara 10:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I like this picture very much. QI --Schlaier 16:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose eyes not in focus, poor composition --Carschten 12:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Hot pixels (hair), wrong focus (nose and one eye, not both eyes), shining nose (has to be retouched), colour noise (in shadows). Possibly wrong balance (too yellow skin), useless foreground (something unsharp in the bottom of the image). ISO 3200 images can hardly be quality images because of the noise, but you could make serial shooting and take more sharp picture. Generally speaking, with 1/200 in this situation, you could set 1 step underexposure, get less ISO, and make correct colours with RAW converting program.--PereslavlFoto 23:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus is incorrect. --Jovianeye 17:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Appealing, but not QI IMO for reasons given above (especially the intrusive foreground). --Avenue 16:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 16:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Weil_am_Rhein_-_Peter_und_Paul3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Weil am Rhein: Peter-and-Pauls-Church --Taxiarchos228 06:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Sharp and clear --Saffron Blaze 15:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Foreground too dark (can be corrected) --Archaeodontosaurus 16:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think the dark foreground is a problem — it keeps it from distracting from the subject — and everything else looks good. The centered composition works well with the way that the left hand side almost seems to be a negative of the right (walls light one side, dark the other; roof with the reversed lighting; and one tree bare and the other lush). The color, sharpness, and lack of noise is good. —David Eppstein 20:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Archaeodontosaurus.--Jebulon 21:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have improved it, now it is brighter --Taxiarchos228 11:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Better now.--Jebulon 12:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support good now --Archaeodontosaurus 17:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 20:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Villingen Rathaus Münsterplatz7.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Town hall of Villingen, Germany, during carnival (with three ladies in traditional local local costume as passers-by). --AndreasPraefcke 23:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Raghith 08:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment please correct the perspective first --Taxiarchos228 06:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support not the best time and angle for making a good photography of this building but good enough now for QI -Taxiarchos228 20:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Extremely strong contrast.--PereslavlFoto 21:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per PereslavlFoto --Archaeodontosaurus 16:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I can't see any quality limitations - shot is perspective corrected and even with its high contrast no CA - for me QI --J. Lunau 16:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Slaunger 18:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 20:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

File:IIT_Hermann_Hall 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hermann Hall at IIT --Jovianeye 14:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Left side is cut-off (also, barrel distortion). --King of Hearts 05:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment Distortion has been fixed. It is not possible to cover the entire building. This photo shows half the structure. Take a look at the satellite view. --Jovianeye 15:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. I thought the left side was right around the corner.  Support -- King of Hearts 17:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Archaeodontosaurus 20:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 00:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Nikomekl River bank.JPG[edit]

File:Paris_-_Eiffelturm3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Paris: Eiffel Tower --Taxiarchos228 11:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose The distortion is rather apparent in this one. Might be salvageable with something like PTLens. --Saffron Blaze 09:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    can't see a significant distortion --Taxiarchos228 09:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
     Comment Perhaps an illusion resulting from the angle but it appears this is curved to the left. Saffron Blaze 11:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

File:David O Russell 2011 Shankbone.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination David O. Russell. --Tomer T 19:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Raghith 07:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but the shadow and the blue square destroys the composition.--Ankara 22:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ankara. --Avenue 14:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Weil_am_Rhein_-_Evangelische_Kirche_Märkt3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Weil am Rhein-Märkt: bell tower of protestant church --Taxiarchos228 08:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment No geocode, no English description, tilted to the right.--PereslavlFoto 14:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment geocode and discription added, the tower is not tilted, please look exactly --Taxiarchos228 20:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
      •  Support Let us say it's a tiny perspective distortion then. I support this sympathetic photo.--PereslavlFoto 18:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 18:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Viborg_kraftvarmeværk_end_view_at_night_2010-12-08_edit_crop.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Viborg Kraftvarmeværk - a combined heat and power plant in Denmark. PTGui stitch of two long exposure Sonyα 300 shots using tripod in misty frost @ -5 °C. Its supposed to be so dark. Makes an excellent desktop background :-) --Slaunger 20:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn
  • Has an interesting, slightly unearthly feel. Could maybe use some perspective correction, and there's a hot blue pixel above the snow towards lower right. Also some CA around lights. --Avenue 13:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your thorough review, Avenue. I have uploaded a new version, which is perspective corrected, and where the dead pixels have been fixed (there was another one). Are you sure about the CA? I do not see it myself (and would not know how to correct it). --Slaunger 18:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fairly sure there is CA around at least the two bright lights towards the bottom right of the main building, with blue fringing on one side, and orange on the other. Some localised desaturation might improve this. There might be some CA on the other side of the building too, although it isn't as clear there. (BTW, I think the red spot you removed above the sign wasn't a hot pixel - see the line of similar lights to its right. Not that it needs to come back.) --Avenue 09:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh, now I see what you meant. Thanks for being so specific. I have tried doing some selective desaturation as you suggested (never tried that before), which dampens most of the fringing, I believe. Yes, you might be right about the red spot I removed. I just do not understand what should have been the source of red light in that area as there were no light sources there. --Slaunger 18:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that helped. The fringing around lights at the building's bottom left also seems unpleasant, CA or not. And I think there is a stitching problem at the upper right corner of the final K in the blue sign, and in the fence just above and to the right of this. Sorry I didn't see this earlier. --Avenue 02:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh, you are right! I thought the replicated "K" was a reflection from the plane behind the neon letter, but on inspecting the original photos used for the stitch, I realize you are right, also about the fence on top of that. Again, thank you for reviewing it so careful. OK, this will be major work redoing it. I found some other shots in my archive from the same scene which might give a better starting point. I will try to start from scratch again. I have learned a great deal from the reviews here, thanks. --Slaunger 18:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. Sorry I didn't catch the stitching error earlier. I initially thought the same as you, that it was some sort of reflection. --Avenue 07:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blurriness, at least in the upper parts obscured by mist, is part of what gives the photo its atmosphere. Some noise is not unusual in a dark night shot (see e.g. the winneer of POTY's first round), and it's not really noticeable at QI minimum size anyway. I'm still leaning towards supporting this. --Avenue 09:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer that, as this is a photo which means a lot to me, and which I have done my upmost to make as good as possible. (ISO 100, setting up a tripod while freezing, stitch of raws, selective denoising of sky, good DOF, perspective correction, curves, dead pixels,assistance by a fellow Wikimedian to improve exposure on the blue neon sign..... --Slaunger 18:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Avenue 02:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 I agree with the critique, and think I should start from scratch again from my raw photos. --Slaunger 18:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gary Cole 2011 Shankbone 4.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Gary Cole. --Tomer T 19:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Raghith 07:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very tight crop, bad angle, distracting background, harsh light. --Elekhh 13:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Elekhh, especially the crop. --Avenue 14:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Background and angle in my opinion OK. But the flash or somewhat else artifical ligth is too harsh. The eyes look in my eyes fishy, the eyebrows however partially are sharp; i am not sure, whether the focus point was wrong or the harsh ligths causes the effect. --Alupus 21:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Alupus 21:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Shiloh Strong 2011 Shankbone.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Shiloh Strong. --Tomer T 19:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Raghith 07:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cluttered background. Flash shadow a bit distracting too. --Avenue 13:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough.--PereslavlFoto 14:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Sable03-2.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Standardized sand texture. --M0tty 16:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Coyau 00:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, unsharp, especially for the annotated parts.--Jebulon 12:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon. A new Framing could be a solution --Archaeodontosaurus 20:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Toplite.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination TOPLITE optronic sensor. Photo taken by myself. --Airwolf 14:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose no meaningful title and description, CA on edge of housing, overexposed backround (sky?), let's see, what others thinking --J. Lunau 20:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The strong reflection on the glass is highly disturbing. The interior - the what-is-behind - is not visible. --A.Ceta 11:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not meant to be visible. That's exactly the way this lens ought to behave. Airwolf 18:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Kropidlo.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Aspergillum -- Albertus teolog 13:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Saffron Blaze 14:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose it is very noise --Taxiarchos228 15:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Useful, but the crop is too tight.--Jebulon 12:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Spanien - Nationalmannschaft 20091118.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Spanish national football team. --Tomer T 20:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Great! --King of Hearts 21:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too strongly overprocessed for my taste (saturation) --Jebulon 21:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    • If you look at the grass, it's not the nasty bright green typical of oversaturation. I think the Spanish team's shirts really are that red. --King of Hearts 20:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
      • One can select the colors to be saturated with postprocessing tools... Furthermore, it is globally unsharp and the background is noisy.--Jebulon 12:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Personally, I like it! --Cowenby 01:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment So do I, but the quality is not good IMO.--Jebulon 12:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose same as Jebulon --Taxiarchos228 09:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy in shadows, low DOF, oversaturated places lack any details.--PereslavlFoto 14:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is a very useful photo and a very good contribution for the Commons. But the quality is not good enough for a QI. --A.Ceta 11:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Captain Simmi on saxophone.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Heimaey's Captain Simmi. --Avenue 15:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Raghith 17:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose Small depth of focus, only small foreground part of the beard is sharp, and the eyes and the nose are not.--PereslavlFoto 23:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfortunately. I myself would have put the focus on the mouthpiece. --King of Hearts 18:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, in hindsight, so would I. Thank you all for your reviews. --Avenue 12:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support good to me (2,827 × 4,664 pixels)--Lmbuga 16:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DOF issues and too harsh flash light. --Slaunger 18:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • No flash was used. If I had, I wouldn't have needed to go down to f2.8. --Avenue 08:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Puffin taking off from sea.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Puffin about to take off from the water. --Avenue 08:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good... for a difficult take off. :-) --Cayambe 19:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp due to moving, also splashing water is disturbing. Sorry --Chmee2 18:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    • No need to be sorry. But I do think all the splashing helps demonstrate how hard the little guy has to work to take off, and the photo would not be nearly as useful without it. --Avenue 00:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is certainly a difficult capture, but for this kind of action shots a shorter aperture is necessary to avoid motion blur. --Quartl 11:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Helmhornvogel_WVP2010.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sulawesi Wrinkled Hornbill at Weltvogelpark Walsrode. -- Fiorellino 22:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support I know the bokeh is a bit busy but this still is an extraordinary photo. --Saffron Blaze 23:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeAs in FPC, the picture is overprocessed and the distortions from the caging too distracting, also for QI. Sorry, --Quartl 10:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment Having looked at other images of this species the concerns raised by Quartl have merit. Moreover if the image was a FPC and rejected it would be useful to see that discussion.Saffron Blaze 12:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
      • The picture is currently a candidate at COM:FPC. Note that an image can fail as a FP and still be a QI or fail as a QI and still be a FP since the criteria are different. --Quartl 16:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Quartl --Archaeodontosaurus 20:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support borderline, but ok. --A.Ceta 11:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have uploaded a corrected version regarding the overprocessed saturation... At this time the IE had problems with color profiles, so I tried to compensate this way. -- Fiorellino 20:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very impressive, but the mesh-patterned background is too distracting IMO. --Avenue 14:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd be inclined to apply some blur to moderate the mesh effect to salvage what is otherwise a striking photo.
  •  Comment I added a new - almost similar - photo (File:Aceros_cassidix_-_Weltvogelpark_Walsrode_2011-03.jpg) to the cadidate list. --Fiorellino 18:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 10:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Fischingen_-_Evangelische_Kirche12.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fischingen: Protestant church (fresco) --Taxiarchos228 09:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Should be cropped at the top. Tomer T 20:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    • the crop is easy done but than is also a fure of the fresco croped, is this really intended? --Taxiarchos228 09:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad crop (I miss the cross), bad name of file, bad categorization and wrong description in the file page. It does not show a "protestant church" but a fresco, or a wall painting, representing probably the burial of Jesus. This picture has a great EV, but is in fact unusable in "Commons" for encyclopedical use as it is --Jebulon 15:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 10:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Boîte Marcolini.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination: Box of Marcolini's chocolate.--M0tty 12:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Review Simple and elegant. --Saffron Blaze 12:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    What does it illustrate anyway? There are cropping errors at the top. The logo itself might be a copyright violation. --Niabot 12:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
     Comment I assumed it was to represent the world famous master chocolatier. But you are right the little glitch in the top right should be fixed. Absent that it is a QI by all technical matters.Saffron Blaze 13:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
     Comment I have fixed the cropting error. better ? --M0tty 13:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)<br? Comment I took the liberty of showing what I meant... fixed spots, cropped 1:1, edited out artefact in top right at full res: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bo%C3%AEte_Marcolini_edit.jpg Saffron Blaze 15:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
     Question It's not a derivative work? It's not a logo?--Cayambe 14:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC) That text does not come from me... How is this possible? The 'true'
    --Cayambe 07:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    The words are mine (sorry, but...I can't understand what it has happened). To me, the image is a copyvio--Lmbuga 16:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
@ Lmbuga: ok, no problem. Thanks for the feedback. --Cayambe 19:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The possible copyright issue aside, there is still a black line at the top of the right border. --Niabot 01:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Mbdortmund 09:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Galluskirche_-_Chorgestühl1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Lörrach: choir stalls at Church of Rötteln --Taxiarchos228 12:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Review Just needs levelling --Saffron Blaze 09:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    I will improve this --Taxiarchos228 06:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    done, should be better now --Taxiarchos228 11:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support It was fine to begin with. I shouldn't have declined it just made a comment about the levelling. I will remember that in the future. That said I am not certain the adjusted image was uploaded. The current and previous images look the same... cache issue?Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Barrel (or pincushion) distorsion IMO, and bad light: some parts are overexposed, some are underexposed--Jebulon 21:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Mbdortmund 09:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Ötlingen_-_Rathaus.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Weil am Rhein-Ötlingen: town hall --Taxiarchos228 12:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Fine photo. I support ONLY if you add geocode! Geocoded and supported.--PereslavlFoto 19:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • now with geocode --Taxiarchos228 12:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Right part of the picture is too dark --Archaeodontosaurus 06:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Exactly, in daytime that part of the scenery is really dark. That is true and that is shown in the photo.--PereslavlFoto 10:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
      • besides: the dark part has nothing significant to do with the subject (town hall) --Taxiarchos228 11:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark at right, and too tight crop at left--Jebulon 15:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 10:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File:St Pancras railway station MMB 32 373217.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 373217 at St Pancras. Mattbuck 04:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - Good quality. --Raghith 05:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Bad composition :-( --M0tty 16:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    How so Motty? Mattbuck 17:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    Because the barrier is in front of the train, and because it hides lighthouses. --M0tty 18:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    Hiding lighthouses? And yes, that's where the barrier is, but I liked the image as a whole, not just the train. Mattbuck 10:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
    Lighthouses are headlights, the lights on the front of the train. Saffron Blaze 10:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The front of the train is obscured. The image seems to have been shot through glass and there are reflections of light strips. The image has quite a lot of chroma noise. Colin (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, it's St Pancras International, so us plebs aren't allowed to get to the platforms in case we try and run off to France. Mattbuck 19:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
    Then take a ticket and come visit me ! We have many wonderful train stations in Paris !! And one is now a museum (The musée d'Orsay, what a scandal !! A nice old train station used as a museum for impressionist painters ! No more trains ! Shame ! )--Jebulon 09:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Technically: Noised and glass reflections. Composition: barrier and foreground man are disturbing, sorry -- George Chernilevsky 19:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
    I liked having the guy there :( Oh well, thanks. Mattbuck 19:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
    My opinion is only opinion, not a high judgment. Very friendly -- George Chernilevsky 21:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Elekhh 06:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Chrysochroa rajah thailandica MHNT.ZOO.2004.0.520 .jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Chrysochroa rajah --Archaeodontosaurus 20:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very nice and useful.--Jebulon 23:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC).
     Oppose very low DOF, and not sharp at all. --Niabot 13:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
     Support I think there is sufficient detail to make this both useful and QI. --Saffron Blaze 13:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Tomer T 14:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The important parts of the insect are sharp enough imo. --Cayambe 21:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support -- George Chernilevsky 18:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Elekhh 06:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Willis and LLoyd's.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Willis Building and the Lloyd's building in the City of London. --Colin 20:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Weak oppose for the jet contrail on the left and the overexposure on the right. Saffron Blaze 11:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
     Comment I've removed the jet contrail. I don't see a problem with exposure: could you be specific? The sky on the right isn't blown but is very bright because the sun is just off-camera. Only a thin area on the metal surfaces of the buildings is saturated and arguably there is no detail to capture from polished surfaces facing the sun (which really were blindingly bright). A lower exposure would put the centre of the Lloyd's building in darkness. --Colin 17:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Raghith 18:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I am happy to support now. Saffron Blaze 20:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 10:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Coscoroba_coscoroba_-_Weltvogelpark_2011-02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Coscoroba coscoroba --Raghith 08:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Exceptional detail and a cute photo. --Saffron Blaze 10:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus anywhere but on the eye, too short DOF and some CA. That detail is also standard at the camera btw. --Carschten 12:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. The sharpness quality is not too big. --A.Ceta 11:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Carschten--Lmbuga 21:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For a close-up like this, the focus should be on the eye and I agree that a greater DOF would result in the whole head being in focus which rather than just a tiny portion of the beak. --Colin 18:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 10:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Abigail Breslin 2011 Shankbone.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Abigail Breslin (by David Shankbone). --Tomer T 19:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Raghith 07:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Skin unnaturally pallid. Compare this photo of her, apparently from the same event. --Avenue 11:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I've tried to improve the colours. Now I  Abstain . --Avenue (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong colours, needs white balance correction. Otherwise fine. Will support if WB changed.--PereslavlFoto 14:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    •  Support Better WB, and a good photo in general.--PereslavlFoto 11:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  CommentI'd just like to point out that I don't think my colors were necessarily off, as she was very pale and is currently filming a vampire movie with Julianne Moore. If you look at this montage of Breslin photos from that night you'll see many different interpretations of her skin tone, hair color, etc. This situation exists for most of my event photography - there rarely is a discernible baseline if you compare multiple photographs from the same event. Anyway, I like Avenue's interpretation. --David Shankbone 04:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • A fair point, I think. Should we revert my change and upload the new version separately? --Avenue 07:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I definitely prefer the warm version. --King of Hearts 11:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support White balance correction is partly an adjustment to what the eye thinks is natural rather than what the camera actually saw. I support Avenue's warmed up version, though I take David's point that she may well have been that pale on the night. Colin 07:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support the warmed-up "Trying again..." version. —David Eppstein 07:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 10:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC))