Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 2009

Consensual reviewEdit

File:Gallotia galloti LC0216.jpgEdit

Gallotia galloti LC0216.jpg

  • Nomination Juvenile male Tenerife Lizard (Gallotia galloti) --LC-de 15:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment crop distracting --Mbdortmund 04:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposefind it a bit strange that the head is so dark and the tail already so bright, the composition is also a bit plain and maybe sounds silly but the overexosed white spot on the rock anoys me.. even when it is only that spot... so aybe someone else wnats to say something about it-LadyofHats 09:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 17:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas_Bresson_-_Syrphidae_sp._(by)_(2).jpgEdit

Thomas Bresson - Syrphidae sp. (by) (2).jpg

  • Nomination Syrphidae sp. on a flower --ComputerHotline 14:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI. --kallerna 14:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not identified. Lycaon 18:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Should be identified for QI, VI, FP which isn't complicated with that angle Richard Bartz 23:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above, it should be identified-LadyofHats 09:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 17:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas_Bresson_-_Diptera_sp._(by).jpgEdit

Thomas Bresson - Diptera sp. (by).jpg

  • Nomination Diptera in a flower. --ComputerHotline 14:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support interesting --Mbdortmund 17:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Diptera? What about an id? Lycaon 18:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not identified-LadyofHats 09:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 17:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File:2008-05-23 05 Road No 1 at Jökuldalsheiði.jpgEdit

2008-05-23 05 Road No 1 at Jökuldalsheiði.jpg

  • Nomination Panoramic view along Iceland's road No 1 at Jökuldalsheiði --Simisa 09:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful. --kallerna 18:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Appears badly tilted to me. --Yerpo 09:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad exposition, dark at the left too bright on the right -LadyofHats 09:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 17:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Crimean_wine_Dzhevat-Kara_2009_G1.jpgEdit

Crimean wine Dzhevat-Kara 2009 G1.jpg

  • Nomination Red Crimean dessert wine "The Dzhevat-Kara" ("The Black Colonel"). A crop 1997. --George Chernilevsky 08:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Na zdorove! --Daniel Case 02:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the arrangement is really odd. The table plate is distracting too much. --Afrank99 11:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Strange composition, idea is nice. -- Pro2 11:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you, Pro2, about idea comment --George Chernilevsky 15:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Raindrops sizes.svgEdit

Raindrops sizes.svg

  • Nomination Different raindrop sizes. Pbroks13 07:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good work, QI --George Chernilevsky 08:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Please check your dimensions, I never saw half meter raindrops ;-). Lycaon 09:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • also some of the arrows on the back are of the same color as the drops and give the impresion of a pointy bottom on them-LadyofHats 10:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • My mistake, i now wait for correction this image. Possible mkm, not mm need. --George Chernilevsky 10:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You haven't seen half meter raindrops? They're just really rare ;). Okay, numbers fixed and the arrow should look better now. Pbroks13 17:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Simple but good. Lycaon 18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support useful and informative --Ianare 22:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The legends on (b) and (c) are the wrong way around, surely (b) represents the shape when "< 2mm" (smaller than 2mm). --Tony Wills 12:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh wow, and to think, I'm a math major. They actually all should have been switched, so it should actually make sense now. Pbroks13 (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, I think that makes sense (although the big arrow pointing to ">5mm" initially makes me think the resulting split raindrops are bigger than 5mm, but I see now it describes what happens to >5mm drops ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Everything should be good now :). Yarl 16:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Pyrochroa coccinea (side).jpgEdit

Pyrochroa coccinea (side).jpg

  • Nomination Pyrochroa coccinea. Lycaon 08:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose strange composition , not really good in focus-LadyofHats 22:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd love a second opinion on this one. Lycaon 05:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the composition and colours, it is useful, but DOF could IMHO be better. --Mbdortmund 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per LadyofHats.--Mbz1 22:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not a good depth. --Estrilda 05:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Gerste Ähren.jpgEdit

Gerste Ähren.jpg

  • Nomination Barley (Hordeum vulgare) on a field near Höchberg, Germany --Carport 13:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice --High Contrast 15:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hmmm? 9.9% of the image is pure white! Lycaon 18:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment White, ok, but the focus of this image is definately on the ear of this plant - this is no panorama image or landscape showing media file. The fractional white sky emphasises the foreground - in my view. --High Contrast 19:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportthe exposition is tricky but the subject and the composition are really good. IMO is a QI. if well not perfect-LadyofHats 22:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition, the objects of interest are perfectly exposed and sharp. Background isn't important here. TimVickers 21:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Lycaon --George Chernilevsky 12:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Schade, die Ähren sind wirklich gut drauf, aber der Hintergrund ist doch zu sehr abgesoffen. --Mbdortmund 18:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose clearly not QI with that background. --Dschwen 02:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Gay Pride mg 7324.jpgEdit

Gay Pride mg 7324.jpg

  • Nomination Scene of the Gay Pride of 27 June 2009 at the Place de la Bastille in Paris. Rama 09:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one's ok. People's faces are usually more interesting than their backsides. --Iotatau 10:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment : No. Photographs of people from behind are candid shots. Photographs showing faces are people posing and showing off for photophers. With the limitations entailed by privacy considerations, the backsides are in fact more interesting. Rama 11:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose low quality, мistake frontal illumination. Lots of chromatic aberration. With a photo flash it could be better. --George Chernilevsky 14:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above-LadyofHats 22:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The person on the left side is really too dark IMHO --Mbdortmund 18:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Moshi panorama.jpgEdit

Moshi panorama.jpg

  • Nomination Moshi panorama --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 20:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A nice panorama — too bad it's so small... I'm not sure if a height of 870px is considered to be enough for QI. --Till.niermann 18:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Guidelines suggest "Panoramic images need to have a minimum height of 800px" so quite adequate for QI guidelines. An attractive panorama, but there are too many over exposed white walls. If it was just some of the clouds then I would consider it, but as detail on many white house walls is lost too, I can not support it. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- independly from the size it is too brigt-LadyofHats 22:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as LadyofHats and vertical size to small. Lycaon 17:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Central Silesian Park - Mounted police 02.jpgEdit

Central Silesian Park - Mounted police 02.jpg

  • Nomination Mounted police in Central Silesian Park --Yarl 18:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok. --Iotatau 23:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sharp --Ianare 08:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose blury-LadyofHats 22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Poppy from the side.JPGEdit

Poppy from the side.JPG

  • Nomination Poppy from side. --Jolly Janner 00:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment needs proper ID (genus would be OK) --Ianare 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Done, looks like papaver. --Jolly Janner 14:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Identification insufficient. Lycaon 05:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
Can you elaborate on how it is insufficient, so I can improve it?
For an easy garden plant, a species identification is not too much asked. Lycaon 18:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like an Opium Poppy (papaver somniferum) per File:Papaversomniferum.jpg. I will now update the file description pages. Jolly Janner 19:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, there goes my oppose. Lycaon 19:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed, not too sharp --Ianare 08:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lack of sharpness. --High Contrast 08:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Poppy from above.JPGEdit

Poppy from above.JPG

  • Nomination Poppy from above. --Jolly Janner 00:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment needs proper ID (genus would be OK) --Ianare 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Done, looks like papaver. --Jolly Janner 14:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Identification insufficient. Lycaon 05:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
Can you elaborate on how it is insufficient, so I can improve it?
See other nom. Lycaon 19:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --Ianare 08:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Vorderhopfreben Üntschenspitze.jpgEdit

Vorderhopfreben Üntschenspitze.jpg

  • Nomination 180° Panoramic of Alp in Vorarlberg --Böhringer 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --Mbdortmund 22:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Left corner, bottom: black relict from the image-rework. Should be corrected. --High Contrast 11:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not changed by now --High Contrast 15:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support corrected --High Contrast 08:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support I take the liberty to convert your "Oppose" to a "Support" after the correction. --Iotatau 19:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I wouldn't do that (too controversial, you might as well change all votes then). Lycaon 13:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per High Contrast, and also vignetting in the sky. Lycaon 18:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support true it is overexposed, but i dont think it has lost a lot of detail from it. -LadyofHats 09:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - per others -- Pro2 11:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Contacted author on his talk page. --Iotatau 16:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sky is unequal. --Estrilda 05:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done & Danke --Böhringer 19:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Eusebius 10:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Protected Sea Turtle Nest (Boca Raton FL).jpgEdit

Protected Sea Turtle Nest (Boca Raton FL).jpg

  • Nomination Protected sea turtle nest --Ianare 08:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Instructive, good focus on subject. --Iotatau 22:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose i disagree. the composition is plain simple the image has few contrast- would like another opinions in this one-LadyofHats 08:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • LOL. when I take a picture with nice composition it's rejected because you can't see the nest well enough, when the nest is the only subject and much larger people complain the composition is boring. I'm starting to think people just don't like turtle nests ... --Ianare 03:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh I do love turtle nests, my only opinion is that the sand is very bad thing to take an image of, becouse of the few contrast the image lacks dimension. and everything is centered. you dont need to make a strange angle to have a good composition. i think by example with a side light the sand would have offered a richer surface.-LadyofHats 08:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support fine for me. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think this has FP quality, but we are talking here about QI quality - and this picture meets most of the requirements IMO: sharpness, DOF, colours, straightforward but effective composition, encyclopedic value. Only the contrast is a weak point: about that I agree with LadyofHats -- MJJR 21:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Leishmaniasis life cycle diagram en.svgEdit

Leishmaniasis life cycle diagram en.svg

  • Nomination Leishmaniasis life cycle-LadyofHats 09:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline QI, as usual. Lycaon 05:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    One typo left, "divition" at left border. --Iotatau 06:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    actually i had to change a great part of it. becouse of soe feedback from wikipedia. but it should be aright now. including the typo-LadyofHats 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    A few comments, first typo, should say "Transform into amastigotes", second "amastigotes infect other cells or are phagocytosed" would be better as "amastigotes infect new macrophages", third only procyclic promastigotes replicate as they differentiate into non-replicative metacyclic promastigotes before migrating into the pharanyx, fourth the importance of granulocyte invasion versus macrophage invasion is still controversial so I'd recommend mentioning that the metacyclics might simply invade macrophages upon entry into the mammalian host. TimVickers 21:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • i will change it acording to the sugestions and then nominate it again.-LadyofHats 08:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and decline since LadyofHats wants to nominate a new version. This old one has now been stagnant for eight days. --Iotatau 06:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (7).jpgEdit

ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (7).jpg

  • Nomination Syrphidae copulation --ComputerHotline 19:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not identified (tip: search in subfamily Syrphinae). Lycaon 07:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Identification is no criterion. --ComputerHotline 07:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iotatau 21:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

File:ComputerHotline - Diptera sp. (by) (6).jpgEdit

ComputerHotline - Diptera sp. (by) (6).jpg

  • Nomination Diptera enjoying with foam coming out of demijohn. --ComputerHotline 19:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not identified (Diptera??). Tip: Search in family Calliphoridae. Lycaon 07:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Identification is no criterion. --ComputerHotline 07:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms." --Mbdortmund 09:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iotatau 06:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Ship_M_I_Pirogov_Vinnitsa_2006_G2.jpgEdit

Ship M I Pirogov Vinnitsa 2006 G2.jpg

  • Nomination Vinnitsa, Ukraine. View from a bridge to the Southern Bug river. --George Chernilevsky 13:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technically average, value for Wikimedia? -- H005 16:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment read more about en:Southern Bug value. It is a river 806 km long --George Chernilevsky 18:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMHO OK --Mbdortmund 01:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Iotatau 20:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Fly and bug June 2009-1.jpgEdit

Fly and bug June 2009-1.jpg

  • Nomination A fly and a bug preparing to take off -- Alvesgaspar 23:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --Mbdortmund 09:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose seams blurry in full resolution --LC-de 15:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pretty good and interesting. --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very small DOF, not QI :-(. Nice composition. --George Chernilevsky 06:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very interesting composition. i think it would be hard to get it sharper by that size of objects-LadyofHats 09:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - per George Chernilevsky -- Pro2 11:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Difficult case. But I think on balance that the lack of depth of field is mitigated by the fact that there is little alternative. Very difficult to persuade two bugs to not move at all while you take multiple exposures to do focus stacking. --Tony Wills 11:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not a good depth. --Estrilda 05:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --ComputerHotline 08:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DOF is ok in my opinion. I like the composition. --High Contrast 17:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 17:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Agia_Galini_R01.jpgEdit

Agia Galini R01.jpg

  • Nomination Agia Galini (Crete, Greece) -- MJJR 19:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technically ok, but boring subject and composition. --H005 10:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Boring? Perhaps. That's a personal appreciation, which I respect. But what about informative value? Commons is about more than aesthetics only. I'd like a second opinion here, if possible... -- MJJR 20:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Focus, colors, lighting are good, let's make it a "discuss". What's the street name? Are these public or private buildings? --Iotatau 07:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This image is illustrative for the typical (private) houses along the narrow, steep streets in a Cretan village built on the rocky slopes of the southern coast. For the exact location: see the geocoding. -- MJJR 15:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Iotatau 15:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically OK → QI. Lycaon 20:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Smial 09:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 17:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (2).jpgEdit

ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (2).jpg

  • Nomination Hoverfly. --ComputerHotline 19:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment According to the guidelines two submissions per day are ok. I now see six in a row so I stop promoting. --Iotatau 20:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not identified (tip: search in subfamily Syrphinae). Lycaon 07:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Identification is no criterion. --ComputerHotline 07:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • this picture and the next one are not displayed here --Mbdortmund 09:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 17:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File:02 Ovis orientalis aries portrait.jpgEdit

02 Ovis orientalis aries portrait.jpg

  • Nomination Ovis orientalis aries, lambs Richard Bartz 11:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too low DOF, diffuse light -- H005 21:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Frage: Stimmt das leicht Rötliche im Fell oder ist das ein Farbstich? --Mbdortmund 00:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Es muß das Fell sein, sonst wäre der Rest ja auch Rotstichig. bg Richard Bartz 14:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This one's not sharp. Cute, though. --Afrank99 12:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 17:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Chainsaw.JPGEdit

Chainsaw.JPG

  • Nomination Chainsaw in action. (One of the first photos with my new camera.) --kallerna 17:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. I like how you caught the sawdust. --Iotatau 17:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sharp, possible saw vibration result. I'm sorry, idea really great --George Chernilevsky 18:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it is sharp but the saw is out of focus! And for wikipedia is the picture bed, because of safty reasons, don't saw in this way! HBR 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The saw is in focus. The motor isn't as sharp the saw, but IMO it's sharp enough. Why would it be unsafe to saw like this? --kallerna 17:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. Sharp enough. --Afrank99 12:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Congratulations with your new camera (I use the same), but focus is not sufficient. I'd happily support on VI though: this action shot is IMO the best of the whole category (just needs geocoding). Lycaon 17:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Geocoding can be easily added. Wait 5 mins. Smile --kallerna 17:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Done. --kallerna 17:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I made VI-nomination. --kallerna 18:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Berlin_Central_Station_opening_(2006).jpgEdit

Berlin Central Station opening (2006).jpg

  • Nomination Berlin main station opening. --Iotatau 09:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I wish the hand in the lower left corner was not there, but otherwise a good image.--Mbz1 12:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not really sharp, overexpoed, bad crop, hand in the left corner --Pro2 15:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Exposure: check histogram, if anything the image is on average underexposed. Sharpness: the tripod was 3 m from a loudspeaker with maybe 110 dB → vibrations. But still at least as sharp as other recently promoted images. Framing/hand: tight crowd (half a million people). --Iotatau 23:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Exposure is quite right, sharpness ok, can't see an issue with the crop. The hand is a pity, agreed, but overall a great picture. -- H005 22:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as H005 -- MJJR 19:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Please add your vote over the QICtotal box -- Pro2 23:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Pro2 (without the overexposure). Lycaon 20:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 17:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Oberflaechenpiercing IMGP8092-2.jpgEdit

Oberflaechenpiercing IMGP8092-2.jpg

  • Nomination piercing by Smial --Mbdortmund 20:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose Nice quality, but small size: 1.5 Megapixels only --George Chernilevsky 21:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • the picture is strictly reduced to the important elements, it would be easy to bring it over the 2 MP by adding some unimportant elements; everything is sharp and shows good details as far as I see. I think it's acceptable --Mbdortmund 11:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment if promotion for 1.5 Mp possible, then i can to change my vote. Photo really nice --George Chernilevsky 13:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The strictly reduced picture should just have a higher resolution. This is not a reason to promote undersized images, sorry. Lycaon 20:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albeit the low resolution, everything is clear and sharp and, as the subject is very simple, the resolution is good enough to show all objects in sufficient detail. -- H005 22:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, i now Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. Rules can be broken in this case --George Chernilevsky 07:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ack, H005 --EvaK 08:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose below 2 megapixels --High Contrast 17:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC); Ok now: Symbol support vote.svg Support --High Contrast 06:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose below 2 megapixels, size mitigation is not an option on QI. Lycaon 20:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Concerns addressed. Lycaon 06:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose really good, but below minimum resolution. If the size requirement is not really a rule, I maybe should consider re-nominating this one --Afrank99 12:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now it's great. --Afrank99 19:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now uploaded full resolution. -- Smial 23:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Meets resolution requirements now. Pbroks13 00:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

File:Grossmarkthalle Frankfurt Panorama 1.jpgEdit

Grossmarkthalle Frankfurt Panorama 1.jpg

  • Nomination Panoramic of the Großmarkthalle in Frankfurt am Main, May 2007 --EvaK 19:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subject too dark IMHO -- H005 10:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Have a brighter display. Or explain what you exactly mean with "too dark" --EvaK 18:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    My display is bright enough. Today I am sitting in front of a different PC and it still is too dark. What part of "too dark" don't you understand? Of course the overall brightness is ok, but the main subject is the building and this is IMHO too dark. Not dark enough to strictly oppose, but too dark to support it.
    Another issue, albeit only a slight issue is the artificial sharpening, at least it looks to me as if it has been sharpened. A bit over the top IMHO, but acceptable. -- H005 15:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral (sharpness is ok on this one, but suboptimal lighting) I guess it's "too dark" due to unfortunate weather on location. Anyway, I don't know why this image is in the discussion section. It has been declined after review from a user and there hasn't been any veto from any other reviewer. So it's declined. Please respect the QI procedure. And Eva, by the way, please don't always tell people that they have bad LCD screens. I'm using a color calibrated NEC SpectraView - and see the same. --Afrank99 17:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That's what I call pixelpicking. I've a calibrated Eizo and no problems with brightness. --EvaK 17:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • In fact exposure is ok, but the lighting is just kind of dull (that's why I neither support nor oppose) --Afrank99 18:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversharpening has produced halos on dark/light interfaces. Lycaon 12:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 19:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Hoechster Mainpanorama August 2007.jpgEdit

Hoechster Mainpanorama August 2007.jpg

  • Nomination Panoramic of the Main river bank and old town wall in Frankfurt-Höchst --EvaK 01:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Basically a very nice image, but just way too blurry. --Afrank99 08:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Especially for you I removed the birds and contrails from the sky. Now it's up to you to clean your display. --EvaK 18:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What have you done? It's worse now with large areas of gaussian blur. Did you ever look at this image at pixel level? --Afrank99 21:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not more than 100% I don't pitch on every pixel at 300+ percent. --EvaK 10:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There's a new build of the panoramic. --Eva K. is evil 14:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why is this in the discussion area? There is no supporting vote, so it is declined. (and the image is still lacking sharpness) --Afrank99 17:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)#
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Get yourself some new glasses. --EvaK 17:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Evak, please stay mellow. Lycaon 17:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is in the CR because the author asked for a second opinion, which is allowed. Lycaon 17:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ok, well then! I'm curious! --Afrank99 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Stiching error in bottom left; not very sharp. Pbroks13 03:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Pbroks13 (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Fort l'Écluse, inférieur-retouché.jpgEdit

Fort l'Écluse, inférieur-retouché.jpg

  • Nomination Fort l'Écluse, retouched by Carlotto. Yann 23:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • I like the view, but I dislike manipulations of that kind. The power lines are there, and I would support the original photo. -- Smial 19:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't understand your argument. The power lines do not bring anything useful in this picture. Why do you want to keep them if they can be removed? Yann 23:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I believe media on commons should have priority on realistic illustrations, not on "nice" images. But this is naturally only one, my opinion. -- Smial 23:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is fine and manipulations are properly disclosed. I see no problem. Lycaon 23:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'd oppose to the manipulation if it would change the main subject, but I have no problem if something in its environment that hinders the view on the subject is removed and if this is proprly stated, as is the case here. However, in my opinion the image is too dark. -- H005 09:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The bright parts (the rocks and the walls) are already white. How could it be brighter? Yann 17:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
      • By adjusting the gamma curve, for example? Particularly if you have it in RAW format it should be a no-brainer. HDRI would be another option, of course not through postprocessing. -- H005 20:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Pieta mg 6751.jpgEdit

Pieta mg 6751.jpg

  • Nomination 15th Century Pieta in Senlis cathedrale -- Rama 13:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good -- H005 12:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Head of Maria is cropped. --Berthold Werner 12:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This image is not about Maria but Jesus. I prefer this image to the one with the bright window in the background. --Iotatau 16:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have to agree with Berthold Werner, a pieta is about the Virgin Mary holding a dead Jesus, so something is missing in the composition. Lycaon 17:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad crop. Yann 18:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Rama, renaming might help to get it through. --Iotatau 20:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 19:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Beilstein BW 0.JPGEdit

Beilstein BW 0.JPG

  • Nomination Germany, Beilstein at the river Mosel, view from the Castle Metternich --Berthold Werner 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good panorama. --Iotatau 18:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too blurry, some chromatic aberrations -- H005 10:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not perfect, but good composition and value --Mbdortmund 14:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support agree Mbdortmund, quality enough --George Chernilevsky 05:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 06:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Kosciol sw Katarzyny w Korczewie.jpgEdit

Kosciol sw Katarzyny w Korczewie.jpg

  • Nomination Church of St. Catherine in Korczew, Poland --Chrumps 00:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd say it's good, but it seems to be a little tilted to the right.--Tupungato 17:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good shot. I've reduced some CA, tilt, and distortion. Please review. -- Smial 10:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For an unknown reason the thumbnail of this image and two other ones don't show up for me, on two different PCs, with two different browsers, after repeated purges and page refreshs. --Iotatau (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • just like here --Mbdortmund 15:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good for me after correction --George Chernilevsky 05:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 06:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Bytom - Muzeum Górnośląskie 02.jpgEdit

Bytom - Muzeum Górnośląskie 02.jpg

  • Nomination Upper Silesian Museum in Bytom --Yarl 10:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Darker spots on the sky. Sensor dust, probably. It can be easily removed. I don't think it should be "quality image" with sensor spots.--Tupungato 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose faults not fixed. Lycaon 09:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 19:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:01 Ovis orientalis aries portrait.jpgEdit

01 Ovis orientalis aries portrait.jpg

  • Nomination Ovis orientalis aries Richard Bartz 11:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of sharpness, diffuse light -- H005 21:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it --Mbdortmund 00:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Lack of sharpness ?? Can you show me a non-oversharpened example with the same resolution please ? Richard Bartz 15:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's relevant for QI whether there aren't any better pictures, that argument is only valid for COM:VI. The sharpness of the face is excellent, just the body isn't. But my oppose is only weak, if Mbdortmund or others support it, ok. -- H005 12:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you please explain to me what do you mean with diffuse light ? Is it underexposed or overexposed ? Is direct sunlight a quality feature ? Available light and to shadow my subjects is part of my photographic style/preference. Richard Bartz 14:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me it's a "portrait", as the file name says, and body sharpness is not important. Overcast light and no sun help to keep the dynamic range in check. I am not a fan of the fence in the background but overall I consider it to be a QI. --Iotatau 17:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support When background is sharp, I would change to 'oppose'; I like it this way. Sumurai8 20:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. --Afrank99 12:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yellowish background a bit annoying, so it can't be FP, but at any rate QI. Sharp, fine details. -- Smial 10:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Go ahead and promote it, my oppose is much to weak to withstand a single strong support, let alone 5. (Btw @Richard, my preference is sunlight. :-)) -- H005 17:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 19:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Cygnus columbianus bewickii.JPGEdit

Cygnus columbianus bewickii.JPG

  • Nomination She was sleeping, I took the picture :D Abigor 20:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good.--Mbz1 22:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed and head OOF. Lycaon 07:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much shadow --H005 22:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sumurai8 20:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lack of details, to much background --Mbdortmund 09:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Head out of focus, and too much shadow. --Afrank99 17:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice scene, but focus should be on the head. -- Smial 12:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 19:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Joshua Trees in Joshua Tree NP 2.jpgEdit

Joshua Trees in Joshua Tree NP 2.jpg

  • Nomination Joshua Trees (Yucca brevifolia) at sunrise in Joshua Tree National Park: Hidden Valley Campground --Jarekt 03:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent shot. Could even run for FP, IMHO. -- H005 06:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Rather noisy, not QI for me. Lycaon 06:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Actually I can hardly see any noise at all, it's very little noise considering the light conditions. -- H005 12:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Really rare colours situations. I oppose it as QI, but support as FI (if nominated) -- George Chernilevsky 18:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting question.svg Question How can something be FP but not QI? I believe that FP requirements basically include all QI requirements. -- H005 12:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Reduced some VLF-Noise, please reload. -- Smial 15:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 19:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Bytom - Państwowe Szkoły Budownictwa.jpgEdit

Bytom - Państwowe Szkoły Budownictwa.jpg

  • Nomination Building high school in Bytom --Yarl 10:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Darker spots on the sky. Sensor dust, probably. It can be easily removed. I don't think it should be "quality image" with sensor spots.--Tupungato 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am less worried about the spot(s) (I could find only one, and that one couls be removed easily), but to me it looks very distorted. -- H005 20:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A few (very light) spots on the sky indeed, which can easily be corrected - Please do it! The 'distortion' is mostly due to perspective correction, and is rather an improvement IMO. Otherwise everything seems OK: sharpness, colours, light, composition. So → QI for me. -- MJJR 18:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Sorry, can you shed some light on how distortion can be a positive result of perspective correction? I thought the goal of perspective correction is to remove distortion. I am a tad confused now. -- H005 18:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC) -- Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment When you correct the perspective distortion of the vertical lines in your picture, the horizontals which are not perfectly horizontal show often some unnatural distortion: their obliquity is accentuated. This is an inevitable effect that also occurs with even the best shift-lenses. I think this is the case here. -- MJJR 12:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but an image with dust spots can not be promoted. Lycaon 07:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 12:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

File:C-Band Doppler tutka, Korppoo, Länsi-Turunmaa.JPGEdit

C-Band Doppler tutka, Korppoo, Länsi-Turunmaa.JPG

  • Nomination C-Band Doppler weather radar. --Makele-90 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- H005 19:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO tilted cw. --Mbdortmund 22:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Better now ? --Makele-90 11:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better now :-) -- Smial 12:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • IMHO not, as the head almost touches the top image border, something that already bothered me with the previous version and has now become worse. Maybe you can add some more blue sky above??? -- H005 12:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Rather strong CA (especially in the upper half) is bothering me. Lycaon 12:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA, overcontrasted and composition error: too small top and bottom margins --George Chernilevsky 12:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose crop too tight --High Contrast 17:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Would you like to some blue sky above or is this image lost ? --Makele-90 20:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If properly done, that would help. Chromatic aberration is visible, but only if you look very close, not really an issue IMO.-- H005 20:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop, CA. --kallerna 20:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Bug June 2009-5.jpgEdit

Bug June 2009-5.jpg

  • Nomination A weird bug (Syromastes rhombeus) -- Alvesgaspar 23:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Location would be nice --Mbdortmund 23:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF is very shallow. #!George Shuklin 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not to bad for QI --Böhringer 21:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 11:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Middelgrunden wind farm 2009-07-01 edit filtered.jpgEdit

Middelgrunden wind farm 2009-07-01 edit filtered.jpg

  • Nomination Middelgrunden offshore wind farm (40 MW) on in glossy sea state --Slaunger 09:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I spot a few spots. Lycaon 09:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for noticing. I've cloned out five spots. Hope I got'em all - gee I am surprised my sensor is already dirty. --Slaunger 10:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very beautiful.--Mbz1 03:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There is noise and the windmills are not straight. Estrilda 05:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • the noise could IMO be accepted because of the composition and the graphical effect but the perspective should be corrected --Mbdortmund 11:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per author's remark. Lycaon 21:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If skewness (horizon, poles) is removed, I'll support it. -- H005 22:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd like to support this if there was dust removal, less skewness and less JPG compression and therefore less artefacts and noise. --EvaK 09:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose JPEG artifacts, too much noise (it blurs any single edge), and horizontality (which could be corrected). Sorry, nice composition! --Eusebius 11:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm confident there will be a new improved version as soon as Slaunger is back. Lycaon 17:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Eusebius. --kallerna 20:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? kallerna 20:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Orthodox_church_Vinnitsa_S_Bug_2007_G1.jpgEdit

Orthodox church Vinnitsa S Bug 2007 G1.jpg

  • Nomination: Orthodox church in Vinnytsia, Ukraine. The Southern Bug river bank. --George Chernilevsky 13:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Noise, but not bad enough to decline. --Afrank99 19:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The tower in the centre of the picture is partly overexposed, loss of detail. --Eusebius 20:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> unassessed --Eusebius 07:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Hidden Valley Campground - Joshua Tree NP.jpgEdit

Hidden Valley Campground - Joshua Tree NP.jpg

  • Nomination: Joshua Tree National Park: Hidden Valley Campground from the "Space-station" the hole half way up the Chimney Rock Formation. --Jarekt 03:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good, although post-shot sharpening is visible, or am I wrong? -- H005 06:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it has been a year and half since I took this photograph and I do not recall doing anything special to it.--Jarekt 12:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Actually it's not very sharp (lacking details) and has a lot of CA. No QI for me. --Afrank99 19:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've seen several photos from these Kodak cameras, all tend to blur the image in regions of low contrast to supress noise - and, on the other hand, tend to sharpen to much in parts of high contrast. That is very annoying, as this shot is a very good idea, but technically insufficient. Above all image should be rotated ccw. -- Smial 14:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw --Eusebius 07:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Orage à Annemasse.jpgEdit

Orage à Annemasse.jpg

  • Nomination Lightning in Annemasse, France. Yann 10:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The camera has been moved during exposure, the image of the lightnings on the left and on the right (and of the buildings) is doubled. --Eusebius 11:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This one was pretty close and violent, so it is possible that the camera shaked. But if the double lightnings would be caused by the camera move, everything would be doubled, isn't? Yann 00:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you look to the lightening on the left side and right sides, it's doubled as well. That can't be the camera moving, it would smear, not double. My guess is it's caused by reflection. --Calibas 02:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you look at the building, you see two images as well, a strong one, and a hollow one (due to a camera vertical move of the camera), and this is not reflection. Not every lightning is doubled because exposure time is 30s and lightnings don't last for 30s. The lightning on the left, for instance, had one flash before the move and one flash after the move, but all the flashes of the centre lightning occured either before or after the move. --Eusebius 07:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Probably you are right. Yann 13:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Karadjordje Belgrade.jpgEdit

Karadjordje Belgrade.jpg

  • Nomination Karađorđe Petrović monument in Belgrade, Serbia --MRB 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice photography, but does not illustrate/document the subject very well. (or take it this way: main subject heavily underexposed) --Afrank99 08:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. --Mbdortmund 22:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Underexposure is obviously an artistic selection here. It makes the image look much more menacing and mysterious, especially combined with the overcast sky. The framing of ground and sky makes excellent use of the rule of thirds. A casual viewer might even confuse the statue for a living person. Really like this photo. --Ferengi (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Ferengi -- MJJR 21:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Berthold Werner 12:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Verzasca Hut.JPGEdit

Verzasca Hut.JPG

  • Nomination Dry stone Hut in Verzasca valley, Switzerland --H005 06:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportInteresting and well tech Albertus teolog 08:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversaturated, see green channel. --Eusebius 10:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The saturation has not been changed by postprocessing, the grass really was so green up there. See what happens to the trees if you take out saturation. -- H005 22:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I really like this photo, so I took the liberty of reducing the saturation in the grass area (overall reduction of the green channel made the trees look dull). Please re-evaluate. --Ferengi 06:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Honestly, I can't find again the reason why I first opposed, sorry, it must have been a mistake. --Eusebius (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Last modified on 28 January 2014, at 14:01