Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 2013

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Roque_Cinchado,_Parque_Nacional_del_Teide,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-16,_DD_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Roque Cinchado, Teide National Park, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 11:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Bgag 14:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    Is it a Commoner’s work? --Kreuzschnabel 23:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't look to you like a Commoner?! why did you question the authorship of this picture? Poco a poco 10:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
You didn't link the author to your account. Mattbuck 12:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Roque_Cinchado,_Parque_Nacional_del_Teide,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-16,_DD_07.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Roque Cinchado, Teide National Park, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 11:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Moonik 15:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    Is it a Commoner’s work? --Kreuzschnabel 23:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't look to you like a Commoner?! why did you question the authorship of this picture? Poco a poco 10:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
You didn't link the author to your account. Mattbuck 12:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Vistas_de_la_costa_de_Tenerife_desde_el_Teide,_Parque_Nacional_del_Teide,_Santa_Cruz_de_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-16,_DD_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of the coast of Tenerife from Teide, Teide National Park, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 11:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --NorbertNagel 17:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    Is it a Commoner’s work? --Kreuzschnabel 23:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't look to you like a Commoner?! why did you question the authorship of this picture? Poco a poco 10:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
You didn't link the author to your account. Mattbuck 12:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Vistas_de_La_Orotava,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-13,_DD_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of La Orotava, La Orotava, Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 14:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Seems a bit noisy - see dark patch bottom left. Mattbuck 22:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Poco a poco 21:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    OK. Mattbuck 17:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)  Comment Please fix small issues and delete notes afterwards. --Iifar 16:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Poco a poco 19:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 12:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Nathalie Appéré - Février 2013 - 01.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination French MP Nathalie Appéré --XIIIfromTOKYO 11:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  OpposeInsufficient quality. Right part of face out of focus, sorry --Moroder 14:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
     Support IMHO it is OK for QI. Nice composition and focus is with regard to the resolution also OK. --Tuxyso 15:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 Oppose DoF is too short. A common mistake when taking portraits is to use too lagre aperture. The main subject is more important than the bokeh. --Esquilo 12:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Veto! Large apertures are very fortunate especially for female portrayals and are widely used outside the photo studio (e.g. for outdoor portrayals). For sure both eyes should be sharp, but the increasing unsharpness on the face's skin is a nice stylistic device in portrait photography and well used here. This photo is definitely QI. --Tuxyso 13:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no veto on QICL. You can lay your support-vote, but you can not veto. 1 and 2 also failed to get QI-status because of too short DoF. --Esquilo 15:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, for the confusion. It was not a formal veto (up to now I did not know that there is a formal veto). The "veto" was only meant like "I diagree with your statement" - don't worry and keep on voting :)
The case with 2 was very different: Focus was set wrong, as I wrote: "DoF would be perfect if focus had been with the same camera setting on the eyes (stressing your topics "mediating") and not on the beard". Also with 1: Nothing is in focus there. The focus here is remarkably better. The issue you've mentioned might be an FP issue but IMHO not a QI issue. Please look again and make a side-by-side comparision. The general question is if a shallow DoF (assumed focus is set on the eyes) is a good idea for portayals (I think so). --Tuxyso 16:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Shallow enough to make the main subject stand out from a blured background, yes, absolutely! But still, not necessarily all, but most of the main subject should be within the DoF. Some characteristics of this person are fuzzy and partialy obscured by blur. The lightning is also a bit uneven, but that I can accept. --Esquilo 13:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 Support I'm with Tuxyso large aperture is widely used for portraits. To improve this picture I would have make the face a bit brighter. --PierreSelim 15:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with Pierre: Eyes and eye-sockets could be a bit brighter. --Tuxyso 21:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  OpposeMisuse of f2.2. The left ear should be visible without blurring. --Archaeodontosaurus 17:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 Support Per Tuxyso. By the way, 3 and 4 made it to QI with blurred ears, and 5 event went FP. Personal opinion : DoF would be a problem here if it was so shallow that even the tip of the nose was blurred. But here, it does drive the viewer's eye to the key points in this portrait, the eyes and the smile, and keeps it away from less interesting areas. --EdouardHue 21:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I like this DoF discussions with human portrayals :) She is a human not only a documentary biopic with with a necessity for 100% DoF. With EdouardHue: No reason why this photo should not be QI. --Tuxyso 16:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 Support imho QL--Steinsplitter 14:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Perfect. Jkadavoor 09:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support as for EduardHue -- Smial 22:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 12:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Vistas_desde_la_iglesia_de_San_Pedro,_Riga,_Letonia,_2012-08-07,_DD_13.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination View of Riga from St. Peter's church, Latvia --Poco a poco 19:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support I'm not sold on the sky colour, but ok. --Mattbuck 01:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)  Oppose Loss of detail. --Iifar 09:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Poco a poco 16:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)  Comment Better, but now we have notable jaggies and the sharpness is imho not good enough. --Iifar 19:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 Oppose Sharpening artefacts all over. Some CA in the right part (look at the satellite-dishes). --Esquilo 12:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 12:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Hammarby_sjöstad.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Hammarby sjöstad seen from category:Hammarbytoppen. In the background, Södermalm and central Stockholm. --ArildV 09:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
    Please, improve the crop on the top: either you keep the towers or you crop further down and don't cut them Poco a poco 11:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Review I cant keep the towers. I respectfully disagree about a crop further down, remove the sky will make the picture more boring. It's not a perfect picture, but the towers are a small part of the background and is out of focus. But that is just my opinion. Regards --ArildV 20:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 00:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Good enough for QI imo.--ArildV 07:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --Esquilo 12:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 12:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:2013-02-22 19-24-52-reunion-soc.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pierre Moscovici. --ComputerHotline 18:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose - red halo around his fingers --PierreSelim 06:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
     InfoIt's a slow-speed photo. --ComputerHotline 07:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
    Regardless, it means it's not QI. It could probably be painted out without too much problem. Mattbuck 18:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Some motion in a photo in not necessarily a QI issue and a reason to decline. In this case the person holding the speach gesticulates. Thus the slight motion (imho "halo" is not the right term) underlines the overall statement of the photo. I am with ComputerHotline that in darker rooms (like a disco or dancefloor or in the case here) it is a common technique to choose a longer exposure time + flash. In this case you've froozen the face but also have some motion underlining a dancing situation - no halo. The face in the photo here is much sharper and has much less noise than other concert photos which became QI previously. --Tuxyso 11:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per other. --Archaeodontosaurus 15:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 12:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Skyline_de_Chicago_desde_el_centro,_Illinois,_Estados_Unidos,_2012-10-20,_DD_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Chicago Skyline, Chicago, Illinois, USA --Poco a poco 14:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 12:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC).
  •  Oppose To me, the perspective is too corrected : the top of the building is wider than the base... -Gzzz 21:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support That the upper part of the building seems wider base - is illusion, they are the same, and eventually the upper part should be already. tried a little fix (file updated). --Aleks G 20:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks Aleks, I worked the file without noticing your new version. I think it is okay, but feel free to revert, Poco a poco 17:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 12:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Cepilladero_en_la_vereda_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cepilladero --The Photographer 14:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose - Seems like DOF is a bit low. --Mattbuck 11:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Question - who changed this to discuss without any additional comment? Mattbuck 18:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Me, I think so, the Quality is OK, and DoF is fine, a street shoot and movement --The Photographer 22:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I think DoF for the motif is OK. --NorbertNagel 20:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 12:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Sankt_Jakob_und_Valentin_in_Tschöfas_Haupteingang.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint James and Valentin in Tschöfas, Lajen dated 1503 --Moroder 14:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very tight crop. But the main problem of the composition is that the left side of the building runs out of the photo. A few steps to the left, a few steps back and the photo had been much better. --Tuxyso 18:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done The only steps I took is a wider crop --Moroder 20:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It is slightly better, but the main problem still remains: especially the logical continuation of the left side of the house runs out of the photo, not to the viewer. --Tuxyso 15:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Sounds very, very picky --Moroder 18:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Reviews here sounds often very picky :) It is easier to say: CA, unsharp or distorted than argue for a compositional problem. The image quality of your photo is undoubtlessly very good, the compsosition / crop is not. Exactly for diffrent viewpoints / arguments is CR. Let's wait for a third opinion. Just an example: I cannot figure out how you say to this candidate "insufficient quality" with VERY maginal quality problems - therefore it is in CR. --Tuxyso 07:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I like constructive discussion. IMO this kind of "pickiness" regarding composition is for FP candidates, besides the fact that I wanted the modern house in the back be cut off as much as possible as it destroys the idyllic atmospehre of the church --Moroder 15:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Assumed the building would be a portrayal of a person and you place her face at the very left side of the photo and her face is also directed to the left it would become a very unfortunate photo everyone had declined it even for QI. The same came in mind when I saw your photo of this church. If this is a QI issue is a matter of der CR process here, let's just wait for a third opinion. --Tuxyso 21:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

 Info I uploaded a new version with corrected horizontal perspective --Moroder 10:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 12:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Jasienica_Rosielna,_002.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church, Jasienica Rosielna, Subcarpathian Voivodeship --CLI 23:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support maybe some issue small, but Photo is OK for QI --Rjcastillo 01:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'don't agree : too distorted to me ! --Gzzz 10:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • OK Perspective was corrected. — Jagro 00:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 Support A smaller apperture would have been better for the sharpness, but it is good enough. --Esquilo 09:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Probably a deeper camera position and a centred composition had been better. Some additional sharpening could be applied - but still OK. --Tuxyso 06:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 12:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:View of Paris from Mont-Valérien, Suresnes 002.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination View of Paris from the terrace of Suresnes, France. --Moonik 13:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline The horizon appears wavy and the image suffers from numerous severe JPEG compression artifacts (e.g. around the Eiffel Tower). Purpy Pupple 03:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done This panorama is sherical projection, not rectilinear and the horizon in Paris isn't realy flat. I upload the uncompressed version. Let's discuss. --Moonik 07:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 Oppose Very much terrace and very litte Paris in this photo. Why did you not step out to the left corner of the terrace to get a clear view? --Esquilo 09:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 Info yes, I do so, and I have alredy nominated another pano with more Paris and without terrace. I agreewith you, in this one the terrace is predominant, but the perspective is wider with the nice curve of railing. --Moonik 12:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Neutral More or less Paris is IMHO not a quality issue :) The terrace is with its curvature is also intersting. For me the light is a bit unfortunate to support. The very right part of the panorama has some underexposed and overexposed areas. --Tuxyso 06:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    The terrace is straight (follow the coordinate-link and look at the satellite view). The curvature is an effect of the panning. --Esquilo 09:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose If this is true, the photo has to be declined. I've changed my neutral to contra. --Tuxyso 08:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 12:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Ruhrpark-Bochum-2012-01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Shopping center Ruhr-Park in Bochum --Tuxyso 20:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Horizontal elements are distorted. Danrok 21:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    Can you please mark the meant area? I am conscious of the vertical converging lines. A completely non-distored photo could not show the ceiling (which was the main intention here).
    Or do you mean tilted? --Tuxyso 22:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    Put it to discussion due to non-reaction of reviewer. --Tuxyso 09:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  SupportThe structure of the bottom gives a little bit the illusion of a distorsion, but I think there is no distorsion, ok for me. --Arcalino 08:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Horizontal elements are distorted --Archaeodontosaurus 07:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Question As already asked to Danrok: Please mark the distorted elements. I see none. The sensor of the camera was not exactly parallel to the structure of the ceiling, IMHO there is not horizontal distortion. --Tuxyso 09:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Archaeodontosaurus 15:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I've uploaded a new version. Do you think it is better now? --Tuxyso 16:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Carschten 16:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now --Archaeodontosaurus 07:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 12:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Готическая церковь св. Александра Невского, Божья Матерь и Богомладенец , Россия, Санкт-Петербург, Петергоф, парк Александрия.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of Alexander Nevsky Church in Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, by Perfektangelll. - A.Savin 16:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Seems a bit unsharp bottom right. Mattbuck 11:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
    The sculpture itself seems sharp enough to me, the resolution is more than sufficient - pls. another opinion(s). --A.Savin 11:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 12:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Г.Киржач, ул.Гагарина 26.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Signboard on a listed building in Kirzhach, Russia; by Горбунцов Артём. - A.Savin 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Review We'd better cut off the red plate at the bottom... --Kadellar 16:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --A.Savin 17:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
    Top left bolt seems unsharp to me. I'd personally prefer a photo of just the board, distorted to be rectangular and then the rest cropped off. But that would be below 2MP. Mattbuck 11:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
    I can't make my mind up, but it could pass. Let's see other opinions in CR. Thanks for reworking. --Kadellar 11:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 12:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_Nuestra_Señora_de_la_Peña_de_Francia,_Puerto_de_la_Cruz,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-13,_DD_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church of Nuestra Señora de la Peña de Francia, Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 14:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Sharpness is quite good with regard to lightning conditions. But the left palm spoils IMHO the photo too much and hides important details of the church's top. --Tuxyso 22:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    I cannot understand how can you make this review and at the same time ask for discussion your picture of a child with much more disturbing elements in the foreground. I'd like to hear a second opinion if you don't mind --Poco a poco 21:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Hey Poco, don't take my critic personally, it is always meant constructive. Spoiling means that a MAIN part of the object is hidden. In this case: The top of a church spire is very important. With your photo it is hidden from the palm. Also the (color)-noise level is critical. On my photo the main part (the face with its expression) is not spoiled. --Tuxyso 09:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective distortion, something's very wrong with the sky, colour noise in bottom area (e.g. in the fountain), CA. --Carschten 17:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    I think that I have addressed your issues (still, cannot share the "something's very wrong with the sky") Poco a poco 20:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
     Support Great effort! Composition without "palm spoiling" is much better now. Although level of detail is not optimal due to strong NR is think is is QI now. Also noise level of the sky is OK in the last version. Compare your first upload with the newest version and you will say what I meant my "something is very wrong with the sky" --Tuxyso 08:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 12:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Campus MMB Y0 Melton Hall photo.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Melton Hall residents 2011/12. Mattbuck 10:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Review IMHO an too unorganzied group shot. Nobody really looks into the camera. --Tuxyso 22:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, I know, this was while setting up for it. It's not meant to be the "ewveryone look at the camera" one. Mattbuck 23:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    Mmh, difficult. Feel free to put it into discussion, I am not fully convinced. --Tuxyso 08:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 12:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Puente_del_Ferrocarril,_Riga,_Letonia,_2012-08-07,_DD_04.JPG[edit]

I don't think this one deserves the guillotine Poco a poco 21:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Korfos_-_Thirassia_-_Thirasia_-_Santorini_-_Greece_-_14.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bird's nest in a street lamp, Korfos harbour, Thirasia, Santorini, Greece. --NorbertNagel 16:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion I'm not quite happy with this, it seems a bit shaky.  Weak oppose - could someone else comment? Mattbuck 22:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine with me. --Iifar 16:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me --Moroder 22:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 18:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Fatoumata_Diawara_-_Festival_du_Bout_du_Monde_2012_-_023.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Une choriste de Fatoumata Diawara en concert sur la scène Kermarrec lors du festival du bout du Monde à Crozon dans le Finistère (France). --Thesupermat 07:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Noise reduction has caused loss of detail. Mattbuck 22:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 23:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)}✓ Done avec un peu de retard--Thesupermat 22:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    Not your best, but good under the circumstances. Mattbuck 23:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Stratford station MMB 04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stratford station, London. Mattbuck 11:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose To me, the DoF is not sufficient. --A.Savin 11:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd like a 2nd opinion here - two of the three are in focus, and the low DOF ensures that the background is nice and blurred. Mattbuck 12:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I'd argue that the shallow DOF creates a rather dynamic atmosphere. QI to me. --Martin Falbisoner 20:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good shot though bokeh is somewhat distracting. -- Smial 10:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    What the hell is bokeh? Mattbuck 10:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 18:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Kız_Kulesi_February_2013_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kız Kulesi (Maiden's Tower), off the coast of Üsküdar, Istanbul. --ArildV 08:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment remove dust spot. see note --Rjcastillo 14:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for the note. --ArildV 20:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  •  Support --Iifar 16:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It seems rather dark to me. Mattbuck 12:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It really has room for more light and contrast. --Iifar 12:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version uploaded. Thanks for comments. --ArildV 18:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now for me --Rjcastillo 13:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 18:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

File:2_10-sided_dice.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Two 10-sided dice, one with units and one with decades, making it a 100-sided dice, here reading 72 --Pleclown 13:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline No number of the one on the left is in focus --Poco a poco 19:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
     CommentUploaded new version, is it better ? Pleclown 21:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
     OpposeNo, not really, sorry Poco a poco 22:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
     OpposeSupport could be cleaned beforehand. Chromatic fringe around dice. --Archaeodontosaurus 09:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 18:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Vista_del_Skyline_de_Chicago_desde_el_Planetario,_Illinois,_Estados_Unidos,_2012-10-20,_DD_12.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Chicago skyline, Illinois, USA --Poco a poco 15:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 20:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, too many blown out lights and partly unsharp. --NorbertNagel 20:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I reduced the highlights to the maximum, regarding sharpness I cropped out the left side (was not as sharp as the middle) Poco a poco 11:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. With any city shot at night you're going to have to accept that white lights will be blown out (and it would look strange if they weren't). --King of Hearts 23:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support The composition gives this photo a bit of overweight on the left side. The original crop was more balanced. Not perfectly sharp, but good enogh for a night-shot. --Esquilo 13:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 18:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Finanzbehörde (Hamburg-Neustadt).Fassadendetails.1.ajb.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Facade detail of treasury authority building in Hamburg, Germany. --Ajepbah 10:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Perspective not quite correct. Mattbuck 00:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Perspective is still corrected, but the detail shown is quite elevated (see here in context). --Ajepbah 18:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    The sides aren't vertical! Mattbuck 19:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
     Comment In this version lines are vertical, but IMO it looks upwards nonnatural broadened - I would prefer the current version! --Ajepbah 21:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    You're right, that doesn't look right either. Let's get some more input. Mattbuck 22:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 OpposeThe perspective correction does not preserve the aspect ratio. This photo needs to be stretched verticaly. --Esquilo 09:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done Perspective correction narrowed --Ajepbah 11:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 Support Good now. --Esquilo 19:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 18:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Caparica, sun covered parking near the beach with cyclist.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sun covered parking with cyclist --Arcalino 11:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Could you distort to make the horizontal lines consistent instead of appearing to bend? Mattbuck 22:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn´t manipulate the horizontal lines, any ideas? Arcalino 14:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The Nikon 18-200mm has too complex distortion to be fully corrected. Sorry, but that's the tradeof you have to accept with a super-zoom. --Esquilo 09:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe there are some distortions, but not disturbing. Also in the middle of the image where no optical distortion should appear those sun covers are not perfectly parallel. -- Smial 10:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 18:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Transport_in_Valencia.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Transport in Valencia --The Photographer 11:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Chromatic noise in the underbody. --Mattbuck 22:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Info I fixed some noise, however, I cant to see the CA --The Photographer 02:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    I said noise, not aberration. You've mostly fixed it, but I'm not quite convinced, I'd like a 2nd opinion. Mattbuck 03:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Some noise in dark areas, but acceptable. --Esquilo 09:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Noise reduction somewhat too strong, but still acceptable. But this bus needs new tires!!! -- Smial 10:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 18:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Николо-Улейминский монастырь - 2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Uleima Monastery tower, Yaroslavl region, Russia. By Wadim Babkin. - A.Savin 13:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose distracting foreground --The Photographer 13:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support It seems decent quality though. Mattbuck 15:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
A bit overexposed. --Esquilo 09:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice view but loss of detail in highlights due to some overexposure. -- Smial 10:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 18:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Castillo_San_Felipe,_Puerto_de_la_Cruz,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-13,_DD_06.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Castle of San Felipe, Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 18:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    Note:Improvement of the curves Poco a poco 19:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose underexposed wall (<-- again a bad lighting situation) with colour noise, general noise and CA --Carschten 16:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    • ✓ Fixed, please, reconsider a re-review Poco a poco 18:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      • No reply, hopefully you don't mind if we discuss about it Poco a poco 18:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Colour noise reduction is very good, but the wall is still too noisy. --Carschten 16:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
          • ✓ New version Poco a poco 20:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
            • much better! --Carschten 21:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support The Wall is in the shadow, so it is darker than the sunny parts. Good composition, good rework. -- Smial 10:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Same as Smial --Moroder 12:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 18:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

File:La Martiniere College, Lucknow - by Ahmad Faiz Mustafa.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination La Martiniere College, Lucknow, India --Faizking321 08:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Poor perspective, sorry --A.Savin 18:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    •  Comment I disagree. This perspective covers the Canon in the foreground and the whole tall & wide building -- Faizking321 05:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      •  Comment It looks like this photo was taken from a very low angle, hence the perspective distorsion. The gun would have been more striking if the photo was taken right down the barrel. It would also have improved the perspective distorsion. --Esquilo 13:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose poor image quality (noise, no details), black border, watermark, cut off building sides. --Carschten 16:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Smial 10:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 18:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Pickhuben 9 (Hamburg-Altstadt).Coat of arms of Sri Lanka.ajb.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Coat of arms at honorary consulate general of Sri Lanka in Hamburg, Germany. --Ajepbah 11:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose DOF seems a bit low to me - bottom is sharp but top is not. --Mattbuck 00:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
     Comment IMO top of object is sharp, background not. I think it's OK ... --Ajepbah 06:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    Ask for discussion, IMO the main object of picture is sharp enough for QI ... --Ajepbah 21:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 Support Yes, barely. Standing further back and using a longer focal lenght would have made sharpness more even. --Esquilo 13:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 Comment You're technically right, but the plaque is slightly tilted and „standing further back“ was problematic (four-wheeled obstacle). --Ajepbah 17:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I see. Obstacles are a common problem ;-) --Esquilo 19:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable. --Smial 10:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 18:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Aerial_view_-_Lörrach-Stetten2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view of Lörrach-Stetten --Taxiarchos228 07:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Lacks contrast. Mattbuck 22:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 23:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    this is a aerial view on a hazy day. This picture has that contrast it can have on such a day. Please keep to the reality.--Taxiarchos228 11:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    The histogram leaves plenty of room for contrast improvment. --Esquilo 13:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Maeuseturm Bingen Rhein.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Binger "Mouse Tower", former defense and watchtower. --Arcalino 16:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Sorry, but IMO the picture is not really sharp. --NormanB 01:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)✓ Done sharpness corrected -- Arcalino 12:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Discussion after correction --Arcalino 09:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 Oppose Sharpening poorly done. Lots of artefacts. --Esquilo 09:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Question Where are the artefacts, could you please mark one or two of them? --Arcalino 11:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
    All over the tower, from top to bottom. Particularly in the shadows and along edges. --Esquilo 11:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - low JPEG quality. Mattbuck 18:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reviews, you´re right. I withdraw  Arcalino 10:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Santa Maria della Salute in Venice 001.jpg[edit]

 OpposeGood quality I thought it's barrel deformation to be fixed but I see a major retouching problem on the building on the left (see imagenote), sorry . --Moroder 13:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Sorry The problem of perspective aberration are too important. The columns of the facade are curved. --Archaeodontosaurus 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination I agree with Moroder and withdrawn my nomination. It's a really stiching problem in this image at the left. I will try again. Sorry. --Moonik 12:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puerto_de_Santiago,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-16,_DD_05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Puerto de Santiago, Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 15:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Moroder 21:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)  Oppose Please remove dust spot at the left side. I added a note. Apart from that, good quality. --NorbertNagel 21:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done, btw, I fix the problems independently of promotion, discuss or decline Poco a poco 23:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 Support Should be promoted now. I also removed the image note. --NorbertNagel 11:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 21:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Plain Tiger (Danaus Chrysippus).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Plain Tiger (Danaus Chrysippus) --Anton 17 01:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 09:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I find the butterfly is out of focus. Hockei 06:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Malheureusement, le papillon n'est pas dans le bon focus.--Grondin 21:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 21:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Indiana_Dunes_National_Lakeshore,_Michigan_City,_Indiana,_Estados_Unidos,_2012-10-20,_DD_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Michigan City, Indiana, USA --Poco a poco 11:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Jagged edges, tilted horizon, dust spots. --Iifar 16:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed, this was a tough review IMO, Poco a poco 18:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)  Comment Not much better, jaggies are all over the sea, horizon is still not horizontal and one spot is still there. --Iifar 06:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed but please, be aware that QIC is not FPC Poco a poco 21:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    Please, let's discuss this one, I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be QI Poco a poco 22:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The horizon is level all right, but distortion makes it unstraight. Dust spot is still there (easy to clone away). Also, all versions except the first are dithered from post-processing (evident from the 15% increase in size). --Esquilo 14:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Right version uploaded Oops, sorry, I uploaded the old version again. Btw, all version have the RAW file as source, I don't rework JPEGs, Poco a poco 21:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine for me.--Grondin 21:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support This version is good. The horizon is as straight as it gets and the sharpening/dithering is not as disturbing as before. --Esquilo 11:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support and  Request geotag, thanks --Moroder 12:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Poco a poco 21:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • thanks --Moroder 22:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 21:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Red-vented Bulbul - Pycnonotus cafer.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Red-vented Bulbul --Anton 17 17:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Below 2 Mo.--Grondin 18:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree > 2 Megapixel --Moroder 11:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)..oops, sorry. you're right.--Grondin 13:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Head not sharp, unfortunate lighting. Biopics 13:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Church_Albions_sw_view.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Curch in Albions, Lajen --Moroder 12:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline As that other one, unsharp in spire. Mattbuck 22:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)✓ Done Perspective correction with narrowing the bottom --Moroder 07:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    Better certainly, but I'm not sold by the sharpness of the spire. I'd recommend taking the photo from further away next time. Anyway, request more votes. Mattbuck 17:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)  Comment I'm puzzled myself since I used f/11 but for QI the foto should be OK?--Moroder 18:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 Oppose Strong perspective distortion. Unsharpness at edges of wide-angle shots is normal and even f/11 does not help that. I agree with Mattbuck, this photo would have been better taken from further avay. --Esquilo 06:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The cropped porch roof is a serious compositional problem here. --Tuxyso 06:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too strong distortion to me. --Ralf Roletschek 11:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

 Comment Next time I cannot stay more far away since there is a building behind and the church is on top of a hill--Moroder 17:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

==[edit]

  • Nomination Head of the Bust to Guglielmo Marconi --Ezarate 20:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Harsh lighting, blown sky. --Dschwen 20:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)  Comment taked again --Ezarate 18:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Better for the sky but the whole face is in shadow. --Selbymay 17:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad lighting, object in deep shadow --Kreuzschnabel 17:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --George Chernilevsky 19:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

==[edit]

  • Nomination Bust to Guillermo Marconi en Tandil --Ezarate 20:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Blown sky. --Dschwen 20:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)  Comment taked again --Ezarate 18:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  OpposeUnsharp (bad JPEG processing), perspective issue --Kreuzschnabel 17:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --George Chernilevsky 19:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Sikorsky_S-70i_Black_Hawk_SP-YVC_ILA_2012_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sikorsky S-70i Black Hawk --Julian Herzog 07:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --ArildV 11:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
    Isn't it overexposed? Mattbuck 10:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
     Comment I don't think it is. The subject (helicopter) is actually mostly in the lower part of the histogram. Apart from that, in my opinion, the only benchmark for overexposure is that no whites should be clipped, so no part of the image should be fully white. That's not the case here. Even the brightest areas have structure. --Julian Herzog 08:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    OK then. Mattbuck 10:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Sankt_Jakob_und_Valentin_in_Tschöfas_Haupteingang.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint James and Valentin church in Tschöfas, Lajen dated 1503 (new version) --Moroder 12:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality.--ArildV 13:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, your renomination is not OK. Photo was after CR already declined and not unaccessed. Sometimes there are different assesments (as it is the case here), but you put the whole QI process into question with such an action and AirldV was not involved into prior CR. --Tuxyso 13:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)  Comment I strongly disagree because this version was NOT evaluated and the picture on file was only declined on the basis of an evaluation of a substantially different prior version - If you like, I could upload the present version on a different file and nominate it and restore the older reviewed version? --Moroder 14:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
    That's not right. You've uploaded a new version (the current one) during CR. I did not react because I saw no improvements regarding the issues mentioned. You uploaded a new version on 1 March 2013, CR was closed on 5 March 2013. Obviously nobody (including me) saw an improvement for your new version, thus it was declined. Please accept the result of a CR process even if you are disatisfied with it. --Tuxyso 14:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)  No comment --Moroder 15:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 Oppose Very tight crop, strong perspective distortion (better than before, though). --Esquilo 06:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 Request Please kindly show me or describe the strong perspective distortion --Moroder 06:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Look at the spire. The ball beneath the rooster is supposed to be sphere. I'm not sure if it's only the upper part or the whole image that is stretched verticaly. --Esquilo 11:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
With the same argument you could say that the wall on the right is supposed to be a rectangle instead of a trapezoid --Moroder 17:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
No, that is not the same thing. The perspective correction has disrupted the aspect ratio of this image. It is stretched vertically. --Esquilo 13:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, he can either give it a rectilinear or a cylindrical projection. Either the lines are not straight or objects outside of the center of the image are distorted, you can't have both right, there's no projection that gets rid of all distortions. We're mapping a sphere onto a plane here, something has to get lost. That doesn't mean I support this, I think the crop is too tight, but this discussion about the different mapping possibilities is really confusing because everybody seems to want something else (see also the discussion about File:Schlosstrasse-Muelheim-2013.jpg above). --Julian Herzog 08:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
What do you think about the my discussion of Schlosstrasse above? IMHO the trade-off there is OK. --Tuxyso 10:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 18:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Arizona,_U.S._Route_89_near_Page.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Arizona, U.S. Route 89 near Page --CLI 17:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)  Comment I'd crop the lower part but I'd like others opinion because imo it's blurred. The geotag is wrong (it brings to China) because you need a minus sign ahead of 111.57578 to indicate the western hemisphere. Besides that, I figure the right coordinates should be N 37.00420 W 111.57578 which is on the border Utah/Arizona in front of Lake Powell as I gather from the picture --Moroder 10:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
✓ Done I've corrected the coordinates in both pictures, thanks. GPS coords in EXIFs were ok, but location tags, that are created automaticly during upload were wrong, strange... --CLI 18:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, now the coord. make sense to me. For the part of the composition, I suggested to crop off quite a bit of the distracting street portion up front, also to put the border sign (Utah) more in evidence, because I guess that is also the purpose of the foto --Moroder 07:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Moroder, I guess you're right about cropping this picture, please have a look at new, cropped version. :) --CLI 19:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support nice picture. --Ralf Roletschek 20:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Although I'd crop a bit more (the car also would move out from the center of the picture) but it surely is only a matter of taste--Moroder 10:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 18:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Iranian Tiles.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Tiles of Sheikh Lotf Allah Mosque--Monfie 10:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Focus not quite right, may be better sharpened. Mattbuck 17:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC) * ✓ Done --مانفی 21:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    You need to crop off a bit at the top - there is some strangeness above the stone. Mattbuck 11:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)* ✓ Done--مانفی 16:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    Better, but I'm not convinced by the focus. Mattbuck 11:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 Support Good colours, good perspective, decent sharpness (it would benefit from a carefull "unsharp mask" though) --Esquilo 06:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 18:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Masjed-e Shah 3.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination: Dome interior of Imam Mosque Isfahan--Monfie 10:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Review Focus not quite right, may be better sharpened. Mattbuck 17:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC) * ✓ Done --مانفی 21:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    Better, but I'm not convinced by the focus. Mattbuck 11:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 18:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Saint-Loup_2013_03_03_35.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Wayside Cross, Saint-Loup (Jura, Franche-Comté, France) --Grondin 19:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    Tilted cw Poco a poco 20:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done with GIMP. See the skyline with GIMP grid.--Grondin 20:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The cross is unsharp, the details of the christ are lost... --Pleclown 21:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 18:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Amargosa_Opera_House_in_Death_Valley_at_night.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Amargosa Opera House in California. --Moroder 11:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Very atmospheric picture. Perspective slightly overcorrected at the right. Deserves some minor cropping at the left (uninteresting and unsharp background) and upper side (too much sky). -- MJJR 21:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC) ✓ Done I worked a lot on the perspective but I believe the house itself is tiltet if you look at the letters signs etc. Thanks for the suggestions --Moroder 16:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    Rather noisy IMO. Mattbuck 23:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 SupportI understand that the perspective has been diffucult to correct fully, but I believe this is acceptable. --Esquilo 11:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 Support Good. Why 2 geocodes? This confuses.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. Why, one might want to know where the camera was positioned in relation to the object --Moroder 17:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 18:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Rafreid_St._Peter_Lajen_Westseite.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Farmhouse Rafreid St. Peter bei Lajen (South Tyrol) --Moroder 00:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Many elements distract the main object, the pole cutting, for example --The Photographer 14:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)  Comment It's only one pole and I can't cut it down, I don't even feel honest to retouch it. The tree is leefless and this is the only season to take a picture of the house - do you have suggestions? --Moroder 14:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)  Info In this case, it seems there is no solution --The Photographer 13:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    I'm leaning towards  Support Mattbuck 23:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 18:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Chestnut-headed Bee-eater (Merops leschenaulti).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Chestnut-headed Bee-eater --Anton 17 17:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support --Rjcastillo 17:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    This shot belongs in the FPC page Poco a poco 19:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    Not fond of the (tight) crop, the size and the blurry tail. Biopics 18:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Below 2 Mo unfortunately. Can you upload an another version?--Grondin 21:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't agree with Grondin, the size is OK (> 2 Megapixel). What is Mo btw? --Moroder 11:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support ..oops, you're right.--Grondin 13:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Have you people really looked at the full size? This is below all standards of QI. Biopics 14:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good sharpness. I would prefer a sligtly tighter crop to get the bird at 2/3 of the width (Rule of thirds) --Esquilo 06:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp, under exposed parts and noisy. Looks like a tight crop from a snap shot. Jkadavoor 08:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 18:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:2013-03-03_09-46-46-trilobite-7f.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Trilobita sp. fossil --ComputerHotline 09:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JLPC 16:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Missing species, genus, family or even order information!!. Biopics 16:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Biopics without caption, a picture is worth nothing. --Archaeodontosaurus 09:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality--Grondin 21:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good illustration of a fossile regardless of species. --Esquilo 11:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
    • There is no such a thing as a good illustration regardless of species. QI requires a near-perfect identification. There is no mitigation here. Biopics 14:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
      • You read agan what i wrote; It is a good illustration of a fossile, i.e. the result of a petrification process. As such the species is irrelevant. --Esquilo 09:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
        • When the fossil is the focus of the image then the species is never irrelevant. Biopics 13:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Biopics and Archaeo, it's the GL --Moroder 12:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --High Contrast 22:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 18:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:2012.08.17.-07-Vogelstangsee Mannheim-Große Heidelibelle-Maennchen-Schnitt.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Große Heidelibelle, Männchen (Common Darter, male) - Sympetrum striolatum in the shade under trees -- Hockei 20:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Good quality but bad crop (see top) --Poco a poco 22:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)  Info This is no crop on the top. Just right and left a bit. The intention was to take close-ups of the body and so on.-- Hockei 06:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC) -- I'd like a second opinion. The wings were not important in this photo series. There are macro shots of the head, torso, legs, etc.. The animal is not cut! Hockei 19:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
     OpposeThe wings are always important for the identification of dragonflies. Shooting is interesting, but the light is bad, it would take two flashes. No QI for me. --Archaeodontosaurus 09:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    •  Comment Hm, the wings of these dragonfly won't say you what it is. Important for the identification of these "Heidelibelle" (Sympetrum) are other things. For example: The black line between the eyes. Do they go down a bit on the outer edge of the eyes? The color of the legs. Are they yellow on one side? The markings (or drawings) on the sides of the thorax and on the abdomen. Then the color of the animal in general. Does it have a "Kopulationsorgan" (in englisch: copulary?)? If yes, it is a male. Does it have a "Legeröhre" (in englisch: ovipositor?)? If yes, it is a female. A very important question for indentification is how is the shape of the "Legeröhre" in the females. And so on. Anyway, I accept your opinions but don't understand the oppose. Hockei (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment We all know this, my observation is of a general nature. I do not see the wings. This is due to poor lighting. It takes a second flash on the side hand-held. It's not QI. --Archaeodontosaurus 18:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    •  Comment It was one of your given reason. Additional to the lightning. The distance was about 10/15 cm. It was over me. The photos were taken freehand. The dragonfly won't wait until you've built up in front of it an extensive photographic equipment. This is not the same as a static image. That's all. Thanks for your opinion. Hockei (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
      •  Comment There are excellent micro-flash for this kind of image freehand. Try it! --Archaeodontosaurus 09:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Out of four wings one got the tip croped out. Big deal. Good focus and very good details of the body. --Esquilo 15:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Can I get one or two votes more? No reason needed. Just say good enough for QI (not FP!) or not. I'll accept it. Hockei 13:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Goot focus and very good details of the body.--Grondin 21:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate light and framing. Biopics 14:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't know this is a QI. But this not the way I capture dragonflies. BTW, I've not many dragonfly QIs. Jkadavoor 15:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    •  Comment Why always make the same kind of pictures of dragonflies? They're not bad, just different. I like this series of photos anyway and I'm not the only one. Hockei 15:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Try to shoot in natural lights as much as possible for In vivo. Flash cause dark background and reflection in many body parts. (The unusual angle of view (from below) in this case is interesting to me.) Jkadavoor 08:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 18:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Lörrach-Stetten-Fridolinkirche1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Lörrach-Stetten: Fridolin Church --Taxiarchos228 07:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Noisy. Mattbuck 22:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 23:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    sorry, but I don't see significant noise. From where should the noisy result with ISO 250? --Taxiarchos228 11:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Somewhat too high contrast, but noise is imho no problem here. -- Smial 10:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise is an issue here and the EXIF seems unreliable as not even a camera brand/type is shown. Biopics 14:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support sorry, i don´t see noise. good picture. --Ralf Roletschek 20:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • There is some noise in the sky that can easily corrected. EXIFs are not mandatory and cannot be a single reason for decline. --Tuxyso 06:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
      • EXIF is not the reason for my decline, it would be handy if it was there completely and unaltered to judge the circumstances of the image/ Biopics 00:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmmm; I can hear more noise from the longtime conflicts between the editors here. :( Jkadavoor 08:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I don`t think to have a conflict here with other editors? Am I wrong? --Ralf Roletschek 21:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 18:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Muro de la ciudad, Tallin, Estonia, 2012-08-05, DD 03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination City wall, Tallinn, Estonia --Poco a poco 17:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good -- George Chernilevsky 07:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)  Comment Wrong description. This is not Kiek in de Kök (please look at Category:Kiek in de Kök) --Iifar 20:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
    I called it like that because I though that Kiek in the Kök was also the surrounding are, this is a few meters away from the tower (see here), obviously I was wrong. I renamed the file and updated the description Poco a poco 20:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Bostancı_Mars_2013.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Seafront in Bostancı, Kadıköy district, Istanbul. In the background, the Princes' Islands. --ArildV 22:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Dust spots on the sky. --Iifar 10:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for notes, new version uploaded. --ArildV 17:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    Still a few spots to fix. Mattbuck 10:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 16:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
    I cant see any dustspots, just some birds.--ArildV 11:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    There is a big round spot on the cloud just above the boats on the left. Pleclown 12:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks! New version uploaded.--ArildV 12:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
     Support - Seems ok now. Promoting immediately since I was only opposition. Mattbuck 12:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Kasselburg Pelm 2012.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The ruin of Kasselburg castle near Pelm, Rhineland-Palatinate. -- Felix Koenig 13:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)  Comment Impressive view, but, I'd crop off the non-entrance gate, lighten the darker shadows and maybe the main tower is less tilted but it looks like it is falling to the left --Moroder 14:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion I think this is promotable as-is. Yes, the castle is probably falling over. Mattbuck 11:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree, mine was just a suggestion and a question --Moroder 09:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
    Ok then! Mattbuck 12:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

File:2012.10.19.-25-Mannheim Vogelstang-Blattlaeuse.jpg[edit]

 Oppose chromatic aberration and no species name. --Archaeodontosaurus 16:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination I couldn't find out what a kind of aphid they are. Hockei 21:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:King's Cross railway station MMB 62.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination King's Cross railway station. Mattbuck 11:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Blurry --A.Savin 11:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    I accept it's not the sharpest photo ever, but I'd hardly call it blurry. Mattbuck 20:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO not sharp enough. There is some kind of "double vision" - looks somehow strange. --Tuxyso 11:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Mattbuck 12:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Photo_-_Festival_de_Cornouaille_2012_-_Tri_Yann_en_concert_le_28_juillet_-_037.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tri Yann en concert à l'espace Gradlon lors du festival de Cornouaille 2012. --Thesupermat 16:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Coyau 22:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry the face is unsharp --PierreSelim 21:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Dark and unsharp. Mattbuck 02:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Prioneris_sita_someshwara.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Painted Sawtooth mudpuddling in someshwara National Park --Chinmayisk 10:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Indeedous 19:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too shallow DOF. Biopics 22:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately, same as above. Head and body are not sharp enough for me. Hockei 20:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad focal length.--Grondin 10:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ralf Roletschek 12:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Banksia caleyi MHNT.BOT.2008.11.37.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination seeds of Banksia caleyi - graines de Banksia de Cayley --Ercé 10:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Bgag 19:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy. Biopics 22:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Oversharpened. Mattbuck 12:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ralf Roletschek 12:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Indiana_Dunes_National_Lakeshore,_Michigan_City,_Indiana,_Estados_Unidos,_2012-10-20,_DD_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Michigan City, Indiana, USA --Poco a poco 15:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Tilted horizon --Dschwen 20:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Poco a poco 22:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    Horizon is not tilted anymore, -> CR Poco a poco 21:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Kreuzschnabel 17:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support For me.--Grondin 10:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good --The Photographer 13:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ralf Roletschek 12:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Purdue_University,_West_Lafayette,_Indiana,_Estados_Unidos,_2012-10-15,_DD_13.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA --Poco a poco 15:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion CA on roof top, not straight --Taxiarchos228 20:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    CA was IMO minor but fixed now, no big deal; regarding "not straight" I checked some verticals and the are actually vertical. Could you add a note? Poco a poco 22:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    Premature decline IMO, the problem is fixed, I move to CR Poco a poco 21:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

 Support QI for me --Moroder 07:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  •  Support QI without dubte.--Grondin 10:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it might be a bit green, but ok. Mattbuck 12:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ralf Roletschek 12:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_la_Inmaculada_Concepción,_La_Orotava,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-13,_DD_08.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Immaculate Conception Church, La Orotava, Tenerife, Spain --Poco a poco 13:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - QI for me despite the slightly unsharp foreground. It would be perfect if the window had not been overexposed (only possible with HDR). But in this case the window takes only a small part of the photo thus QI.
  • (previous comment is not signed, it's from Tuxyso according to the history)  Oppose Sorry to disagree, the window isn't that small and is really "burnt" & HDR isn't the only way. --Selbymay 13:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, I forgot to sign. OK, the use of flash light would be another way. --Tuxyso 14:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose stained window and rosary overexposed. It's necessary to do an exposure blend.--Grondin 09:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose due to overexposure. Mattbuck 12:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Presser_foot_and_needle.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Presser foot and needle of a Scarlet singer sewing machine --Pleclown 13:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Coyau 18:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not sure the focal length is enough. Mattbuck 10:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose insuficient focal length.--Grondin 09:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't get the 'focal length' remarks. The picture is of good size; the subject is adequately shown. What would be the point of a longer focal length? I'm mostly  Neutral on this pic as I find the dirt/lint distracting, but I know from experience it's very hard to clean correctly objects for pictures. --Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 18:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Volvo L110E Hda Energi 01.jpg[edit]

File:Foot_US_-_Ours_vs_Kangourous_-_2013-03-02_-_33.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination American football, running back going throught the defense --PierreSelim 07:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Motion blur. --Mattbuck 10:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, this is a good picture because it have motion blur. --Ralf Roletschek 11:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The main part of the main subject is sharp, which is the important point in a sports picture. I rather like the pic but for the noise. --Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ralf Roletschek 12:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Wahnerheide-spaetsommer01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Heather blossom in Cologne, Germany. - A.Savin 11:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Really better now imo. --JLPC 17:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Severely lacking detail. Biopics 14:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - lacks fine detail. Mattbuck 12:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

File:13-03-19-landtag-niedersachsen-by-RalfR-170.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination state parliament of Germany: Landtag Niedersachsen, Hannover --Ralf Roletschek 11:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --D4m1en 12:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    Tilted to the left (central columns and corner of glass box) --Kreuzschnabel 16:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC) OK corrected --Ralf Roletschek 18:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
     Support Good now. --NorbertNagel 20:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
     Support Good now. --Kreuzschnabel 06:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 11:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Citadelle de Corte en Corse.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Prison on the top of a mountain in Corte, Corsica, France. 25 July 2009 --Piponwa 23:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Good quality. --Piponwa 03:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, but it's not in use to promote their own images. --Moonik 15:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - chromatic aberration and unsharp. Mattbuck 12:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - as Mattbuck --NorbertNagel 21:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very nice view and lighting, but too strong CA. -- Smial 11:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 11:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

File:12-07-12-wikimania-wdc-by-RalfR-023.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Gallery Place (WMATA station), Washington D. C. --Ralf Roletschek 12:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Review  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Blown parts, ghosts, ... Biopics 14:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
     Support Blown parts are IMHO not an issue for decline here (too marginal), but I think the photo is slightly CW tilted. --Tuxyso 21:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 13:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - too dark for me. Mattbuck 12:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
     Info all the stations of Washington Metro are very dark. --Ralf Roletschek 13:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 12:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

File:B-Steglitz Fichtenberg Wasserturm Mrz13.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Water tower in Berlin-Steglitz, Germany. - A.Savin 11:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Looks tilted. Biopics 13:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree, looks no tiltet --Ralf Roletschek 15:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose IMHO is is not tilted but distorted. The trees in front of the tower are much too disturbing for QI, sorry. --Tuxyso 21:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support the trees are there, you can´t destroy there for the picture. Its not optimal, a view from Air is better but for me its a QI. --Ralf Roletschek 21:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose due to trees. Not every view can be QI. Mattbuck 12:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, shows object in its natural surroundings ;-) -- Smial 11:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 12:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

File:11-11-24-basel-by-ralfr-115.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Basel, Swizerland - Town Hall --Ralf Roletschek 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 22:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Something seems wrong with the perspective. Biopics 13:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Perspective is ok, the object itself is somewhat bent as can be seen on other photo which shows it from the other side.Btw: I don't like those meaningless file names. -- Smial 11:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 12:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Photo_-_Festival_de_Cornouaille_2012_-_Tri_Yann_en_concert_le_28_juillet_-_062.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Tri Yann en concert à l'espace Gradlon lors du festival de Cornouaille 2012. --Thesupermat 16:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Review  Support Good quality. --Jastrow 19:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry the face is unsharp / oof --PierreSelim 21:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I see at least the nose and part of the brow as sharp, which is OK for portrait. --Jastrow 14:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - some posterisation, dark. Mattbuck 02:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Some minor technical issues, somewhat too strong noise suppression, but perfect composition, good shot. Gute güte, ist der alt geworden. Ok, ok, wenn ich so in den Spiegel schaue - bin ja schon still... -- Smial 11:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 12:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Banksia candolleana MHNT.BOT.2008.11.33.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: seeds of Banksia candolleana - graines de Banksia hélice --Ercé 10:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Review  Support Good quality. --JLPC 18:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy. Biopics 22:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable noise for the definition. --Archaeodontosaurus 17:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - noisy and oversharpened. Mattbuck 12:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 12:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Angoulême_Boutique_à_l'abandon_2012.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Old abandoned shop before being rebuilt, Angoulême, Charente, France. --JLPC 18:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose - Too much contrast (clipping). Overdone postprocessing? --Dschwen 20:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    -- New file uploaded.--JLPC 18:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks great --Moroder 07:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me --The Photographer 13:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - not crisp, some CA. Mattbuck 12:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support AdobeRGB makes evaluation somewhat difficult without calibrated monitor. Maybe a bit oversharpened, but still ok. -- Smial 11:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 12:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Fichtelbergbahn_in_Neudorf.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Deutsch: Fichtelbergbahn im Bahnhof Neudorf --Wikijunkie 11:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - Good quality on the train (heavy motion blur on the right half of image).. --Kreuzschnabel 18:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I agree, the train is nice, but the background on right side is quite blurry. I think it should be cropped. Also the car on left side should be removed somehow. --CLI 18:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - overexposure, blurry. Mattbuck 12:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 11:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Schlosstrasse-Muelheim-2013.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Schlossstraße (Castle Street), main shopping street in Mülheim --Tuxyso 19:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Review Distortion at edges leading to very wide and short people. --Mattbuck 10:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree, IMHO nice photo of a shopping street. Main motive is the very wide view over the street, better slightly stretched people than distortion on the buildings. --Tuxyso 13:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
    I also think that the distortion of the people is ok as they are not the main subject. Although I would also not have any problem with a cylindrical projection, but I know other people do. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It's just a crop from a wide-angle shot, I see no problem with it. It is the price you pay for a wide view, it's just a QIC not an FPC. In addition I think the buildings are not distorted at all. --Tuxyso 10:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 12:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

File:2013-03-02 Wissersheim Kriegerdenkmal 03.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination War memorial in Wissersheim -- Achim Raschka 20:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)  Comment Needs tilt correction --Moroder 21:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Seems ok to me. Mattbuck 10:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Needs tilt correction, too.--Grondin 09:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    It's not tilted - the centre-line of the memorial is vertical. Mattbuck 12:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support After verifications, not tilted, the form of the stone give a wrong distorded perspective. QI.--Grondin 14:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support ok -- Smial 10:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 11:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Nerita_plicata_01.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Shell of a Plicate Nerite, Nerita plicata --Llez 06:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Blurred --The Photographer 14:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Blur correction done --Llez 16:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
     Support QI now --The Photographer 04:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 21:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Salzach statue - Albertina bastion - Vienna.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Salzach statue at Albertina bastion in Vienna. --MrPanyGoff 16:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Definitely too dark now. Histogram up! --Tupungato 16:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
     Question Why do you put it to discuss? There is nothing to discuss at all, because there is only ONE opinion from you. --Tuxyso 16:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done OK, brighter version is uploaded.--MrPanyGoff 17:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice in this brighter version. --Selbymay 13:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 21:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

File:13-03-19-landtag-niedersachsen-by-RalfR-149.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination state parliament of Germany: Landtag Niedersachsen, Hannover --Ralf Roletschek 11:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion A few dust spots on the top-left, Photoshop should take care of that in an instant. --D4m1en 12:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC) OK corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 13:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
     Support OK now. D4m1en 15:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 21:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

File:13-03-19-landtag-niedersachsen-by-RalfR-174.jpg[edit]

File:13-03-19-landtag-niedersachsen-by-RalfR-174.jpg

  • Nomination state parliament of Germany: Landtag Niedersachsen, Hannover --Ralf Roletschek 11:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion A few dust spots on the top-left. --D4m1en 12:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC) OK corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 13:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
     Support OK now. D4m1en 15:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 21:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

File:13-03-19-landtag-niedersachsen-by-RalfR-031.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Deutsch: Landtag Niedersachsen, Hannover --Ralf Roletschek 20:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportGood quality.--ArildV 09:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Pretty big dust spot on the top-left. --D4m1en 12:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    • OK corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 13:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
      •  Support OK now. D4m1en 15:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support – very good after correction. -- Felix Koenig 18:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 21:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Plaza_de_la_Libertad,_Tallin,_Estonia,_2012-08-05,_DD_11.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Freedom square, Tallinn, Estonia --Poco a poco 17:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Slight Perspective/tilt (CCW) issues. Biopics 18:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Poco a poco 22:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support - I don't like it, but nothing wrong with it. Mattbuck 12:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 21:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Genoese tower.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Genoese tower in Corsica, France. 24 July 2009 --Piponwa 23:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Good quality. --Piponwa 03:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, but it's not in use to promote their own images. --Moonik 15:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Green/purple CA in the rocks. Mattbuck 12:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose QI if CA is corrected. -- Smial 11:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)