Last modified on 5 October 2014, at 02:13

Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 2009

Consensual reviewEdit

File:Bristol Harbourside Canons Marsh.jpgEdit

Bristol MMB «27 Canons Marsh.jpg

  • Nomination A building on the Bristol harbourside. Mattbuck 00:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Imho, ok on the technical side. I like the composition. Zil 10:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilt(!) and lots of CA. Lycaon 20:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's meant to be at an angle. The building looks positively boring upright. Mattbuck 21:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Of course ;-) tilt was jokingly, but the CA is too real, sorry. Lycaon 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question CA? Mattbuck 12:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment CA means Chromatic aberration --Coyau 12:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question - anyone else going to comment? Mattbuck 12:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - There is quite a bit of CA goin on, sure, but it isn't -that- bad, overall I think the image has nice contrast and detail, and tilting was a right idea, I hate all those boring straight-angled pics ;] greets, --Pytak (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

File:NYPDManhattanNewYorkCity.jpgEdit

NYPDManhattanNewYorkCity.jpg

  • Nomination N.Y.P.D. Crown Victoria --Massimo Catarinella 17:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some parts of the car are OE, some others are UE. What did you do with Adobe Phososhop? --Coyau 12:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Plus colors are oversaturated and look fake. --Coyau 17:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, but this picture is definitely a QI. It was even made a QI a couple days ago until I uploaded a new version. --Massimo Catarinella 11:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    • What do you mean, it has been reviewed already? when, and why renominate? --Eusebius 07:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I've renominated this version, because the white balance of the other one was off. --Massimo Catarinella 16:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 07:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Watermelon Transaction.jpgEdit

Watermelon Transaction.jpg

  • Nomination In a KK market, Sabah, Malaysia --Dcubillas 09:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very noisy. kallerna 14:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much noise. --Eusebius 10:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment too much noise? compared to what? a day shot at base ISO? its a spontaneous shot in a poorly lit market at night... for what it is, I think the image quality (noise level) is more than acceptable. Dcubillas
    I agree on the difficult conditions but I maintain my oppose on the resulting image, it is both noisy and unsharp. Sorry! --Eusebius 20:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 12:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

File:CoteDeGraniteRose2.jpgEdit

CoteDeGraniteRose2.jpg

  • Nomination Pink granit coast, Britanny, France --High Contrast 15:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg temporary oppose Tilt (cw) on the right side, otherwise a great picture. Can you fix it ? --Richard Bartz 13:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have seen clearer/cleaner images of this coastline. --Herbythyme 13:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think quality is ok, I would support with tilt correction. --Eusebius 07:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 12:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Blesk.jpgEdit

Blesk.jpg

  • Nomination: Lightning strikes a tower. --Jonathunder 04:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Awesome !!! --ComputerHotline 13:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Many dust spots, they should be removed. --Eusebius 21:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw --Eusebius 12:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Silene nutans (flowers).jpgEdit

Silene nutans (flowers).jpg

  • Nomination: Nottingham Catchfly (Silene nutans) near to Saas Fee, Switzerland. -- Lycaon 08:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Compression artifacts, DOF problem --Twdragon 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps not enough space on left. --Siipikarja 00:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Compression artefacts are completely absent, DOF is shallow on purpose (one flower). Lycaon 13:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Obvious QI. Should probably not completely fail at FPC, even. -- carol (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't really like the top-left flower: it's neither completely in focus nor clearly intended to be out of focus. --Carnildo 20:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment My thoughts exactly. --Siipikarja 21:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good picture, DOF works for me. --Eusebius 21:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If only one flower is the subject of this image (as DOF and comment above suggest), then there is a composition problem, it should be more tightly cropped to emphasise the subject, with only sufficient out of focus background as is needed to show context. --Tony Wills 10:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Tony Wills, the depth of field or composition would have been fine, but the combination of the shallow DOF and the other flowers just out of focus is distracting. --PieCam 13:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Eusebius --Estrilda 00:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> draw --Eusebius 12:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Veľká Fatra - panorama-czysta.jpgEdit

Veľká Fatra - panorama-czysta.jpg

  • Nomination Panorama of Veľká Fatra from Park Snow Donovaly, Slovakia --Pudelek 12:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The annotations spoil the image. Upload a version without. --Henrik 14:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info ok - now it's version without anntotations (and with correct description) --Pudelek 21:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe {{Overlay legend}} useful? --Tony Wills 11:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - now it is still too difficult for me --Pudelek 12:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMHO OK --Mbdortmund 16:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

File:NYC_CentralStation_amk.jpgEdit

NYC CentralStation amk.jpg

  • Nomination: Busy central station, NYC --AngMoKio 22:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice picture, nice motion blur and reasonably sharp picture. Despite the somewhat blown central window, very good exposure under very dificult circumstances.--PieCam 02:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilt CCW. Lycaon 22:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I somehow agree with you....but i think it is not a tilt. It is a barrel distortion - and so far i didnt find the right way to fix such problems. --AngMoKio 22:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw --Eusebius 10:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Couple-lib-r-8 (by).jpgEdit

Thomas Bresson - Couple-lib-r-8 (by).jpg

  • Nomination: Sympetrum sanguineum sexual intercourse --ComputerHotline 08:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Macro and action.--Mbz1 01:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed BG, lack of sharpness. Lycaon 20:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think an over exposed background is quite acceptable, as is an out of focus background. It is the exposure of the subject which is important. I also think sharpness of the subject is quite sufficient. But I would question the cropping, too much distracting background, especially top right corner. --Tony Wills 10:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lack of sharpness --High Contrast 09:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not so bad, so it is difficult to make a picture --Böhringer 16:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> draw --Eusebius 10:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

File:TV station on Chopok.jpgEdit

TV station on Chopok.jpg

  • Nomination TV station on Chopok, Slovakia --Pudelek 19:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image is underexposed, the snow should be much closer to white--PieCam 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info new version --Pudelek 11:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite nice now, the geolocation data should ge added though. --PieCam 04:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Notyourbroom 05:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 14:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Jasná Ski Resort - skilift on Chopok.JPGEdit

Jasná Ski Resort - skilift on Chopok.JPG

  • Nomination Jasná Ski Resort. Skilift on Chopok --Pudelek 20:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Too dark. --Eusebius 10:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I've brightened up the image, and I think it's good enough for QI. Mattbuck 13:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    About brightness, yes. I remove my opposition but I attract your attention on the slight posterization induced by the processing... Could be a problem. --Eusebius 14:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CCW tilt. Lycaon 20:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment snow a little blue --Mbdortmund 23:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find it very interesting. Nice composition and technically ok --High Contrast 14:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ala High Contrast --Böhringer 11:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 14:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Confucius_temple_Kaohsiung_amk.jpgEdit

Confucius temple Kaohsiung amk.jpg

  • Nomination Confucius Temple, Kaohsiung, Taiwan --AngMoKio 21:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky is over-exposed --Alejo2083 11:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry but the sky is not overexposed --AngMoKio 13:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky is too light and appears to be overexposed. The details in the sky are washed out. Otherwise the picture is nice. --Siipikarja 17:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    • where there are no details in real there cant be any in the picture...the sky simply was light grey. --AngMoKio 19:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Then it was just an unfortunate day to take the photograph. --Siipikarja 15:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
        • well it seems so....though I don't have a problem with the sky at all as it is far away from being white and thus disturbing. But that is just my opinion... --AngMoKio 16:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
          • All in all, it's a shame that the sky is what it is because otherwise the picture is great. Have you tried reducing the brightness of the sky using an brightness/contrast adjustment layer and a gradient layer mask? --Siipikarja 19:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I double-checked on both Gimp and Photoshop: the histogram is definitely over-exposed (mainly the blue channel) --Alejo2083 00:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I know that...still it is not a white/overexposed thus disturbing sky. It was a grey and dizzy sky and that's what the picture shows there were no details that could be visible or are lost. Might be that the sky seems too "boring" next to a colourful building, but there simply was no blue sky. --AngMoKio 00:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I think even if the sky is not 255 on the histogram, it can be over-exposed if it is distractingly bright, which is the case in this image IMHO. As AngMoKio said, the sky was grey, not white.--PieCam 15:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Alsfeld-Rathaus und Suedseite des Marktplatzes.jpgEdit

Alsfeld-Rathaus und Suedseite des Marktplatzes.jpg

  • Nomination Marketplace in Alsfeld with the famous late-gothic town hall --Mylius 02:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support. This is a wonderful example of a low-ISO, long-exposure shot. I was expecting a noisy, grainy mess when I saw the thumbnail, but I was very pleasantly surprised by the cleanness of the full-resolution version. Please sign your comment.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose perspective, distortion --Pudelek 08:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Pudelek. --Eusebius (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas_Bresson_-_Fort-monceau-1_(by).jpgEdit

Thomas Bresson - Fort-monceau-1 (by).jpg

  • Nomination Monceau fortifications (court). --ComputerHotline 12:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. This is flickr image, so nomination is invalid. --High Contrast 20:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I am the photographer. I put my image on Flickr AND on Commons. --ComputerHotline 09:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Does your Flickr gallery get more activity after the nomination of one of the images which points to it here? -- carol 00:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info No. --ComputerHotline 08:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition and angle do not reveal enough context. Jonathunder 14:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Jonathunder --PieCam 17:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Chopok - old chairlift1.jpgEdit

Chopok - old chairlift1.jpg

  • Nomination: Chopok, Slovakia. Old chairlift - excluded from use --Pudelek 19:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Very cool --Böhringer 21:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image is underexposed, the snow should be much closer to white--PieCam 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw --Eusebius 11:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Whiteface Mountain from Lake Placid Airport.JPGEdit

Whiteface Mountain from Lake Placid Airport.JPG

  • Nomination Whiteface Mountain from Lake Placid --High Contrast 09:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline * Image quality is probably there -- will the real photographer show themselves. More interestingly, this is the image history and its example of bots and humans not interacting very well. -- carol 22:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why the "discuss" status? Your comment is the only one, is it a support?? Image shouldn't be in CR. --Eusebius 08:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
A more than fair question. The image and the nomination provide a few problems which are not obvious in the thumbnail and not addressed in QI requirements.
  1. Licensed with attribution required but no attribution was given in the nomination.
  2. Image page contains bot spam about needing the categories checked and the categories weren't very good.[1]
While discussing if the image page here should be upto commons standards before being considered to be QI is probably best discussed on the QIC talk page, an example is right here for participants to express opinions of. "Discuss" was the word I put in place of "Nomination" here. -- carol (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good in thumbnail, insufficient quality in full size: severe lack of details. Lycaon 14:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

File:African Lion Panthera leo Male Pittsburgh 2800px adjusted.jpgEdit

African Lion Panthera leo Male Pittsburgh 2800px adjusted.jpg

  • Nomination African Lion Panthera leo Male by Ram-Man --Mbdortmund 13:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --PieCam 14:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Impressive picture, but strong CA on the legs. --Eusebius 16:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A lion stand in the snow?--Charlie fong 13:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition, good exposure and sharp. TimVickers 04:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
And pretty strong CA. Am I the only one to see them? --Eusebius 08:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heh, not even "pretty" CA. More like "Significant Quality Reducing CA" around legs. -- carol (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Did somebody mention The CA on the legs? Lycaon 15:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Moon from Lac De Monteynard- Avignonet edit1.jpgEdit

Moon from Lac De Monteynard- Avignonet edit1.jpg

  • Nomination The Moon from Lac De Monteynard Avignonet.The image was taken by User:Herbythyme.--Mbz1 18:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tree on the right is distracting. --Eusebius 11:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you,Eusebius. The tree is gone.--Mbz1 17:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Colours look strange on the blueish hill in the middle ground. --Eusebius 18:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You mean, where the lake is?--Mbz1 18:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The hill above the lake, yes. --Eusebius 19:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The sun had gone off there a while before so that is how it looked!--Herbythyme 19:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm very sure that the image is accurate representation of the way the hills looked. I'm not sure at this point, if I should post process it to remove the blueish color, but may I please ask you te let me know what do you think? Thank you.--Mbz1 21:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The general colour is accurate, that's not my point. I think there might be some kind of chroma noise near the top of this hill, but I'm not really sure (and it's not worth an oppose for me). --Eusebius 21:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I tried to get rid of this. May I please ask you to take another look,Eusebius? Maybe now you find it worth to promote it? :) Thank you.--Mbz1 22:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather support the non-denoised version (if you care to revert), it shows better details on the hill's skyline. Noise on this part is probably acceptable. --Eusebius 21:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Done, Thank you.--Mbz1 01:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support At last. --Eusebius 07:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 11:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Hoge_der_Aa2.jpgEdit

Hoge der Aa2.jpg

  • Nomination Canal, Groningen, the Netherlands --Wenkbrauwalbatros 22:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong CA in the sky, could be geotagged, plus not extremely sharp. --Coyau 21:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Don't agree. I find the quality sufficient for QI. Lycaon 22:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support the picture is OK --Mbdortmund 23:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support agree with supporters --AngMoKio 16:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 11:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Nízke Tatry in winter.JPGEdit

Nízke Tatry in winter.JPG

  • Nomination: Nízke Tatry (Low Tatras) in winter. View from ski trial (Jasna Ski Area) --Pudelek 19:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image is underexposed, the snow should be much closer to white--PieCam 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info new version --Pudelek 11:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think the exposure and contrast are perfect, but I'm not crazy about the composition. Should include geolocation data--PieCam 04:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info + location --Pudelek 13:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> draw --Eusebius 11:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Cornell Bailey Hall March09.jpgEdit

Cornell Bailey Hall March09.jpg

  • sorry, tilted --Mbdortmund 06:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Which way do you perceive it to be tilted? Before submitting, I fixed a 0.2 degree tilt using the measure tool in Photoshop and tried to be absolutely as precise as possible. It's something I've already worked on for this shot, which is why I'm curious; either I did it wrong or there's an optical illusion. --Notyourbroom 13:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • IMO it should be rotared CCW, but if the image was checked, I'm ready to Symbol support vote.svg Support. It is a good image.--Mbz1 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ok, because looking at the bottom of the steps, I would have thought it needed a bit of CW rotation, if anything. Maybe the horizontals are just slightly distorted. It's a rather wide-angle shot. --Notyourbroom 21:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I tried to measure the upper edges of the building and PS says that it should be rotated 0,24° to the left. I thought it would be more, perhaps of the wide angle distortion, sorry. --Mbdortmund 21:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Please see this derivative image. I marked three lines I measured, and next to the lines, I marked how much Photoshop would have needed to rotate the image to make it level along those lines. As you can see, there is a small discrepancy between the higher and lower parts of the image, but the middle is almost perfect. Thus, I'd argue it's as straight as practically possible. --Notyourbroom 22:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentAs the lines show, the image is keystoned with the left side larger than the right. That's what's giving the impression of being tilted. You can fix this by doing a perspective correction. --Carnildo 22:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I did my best to distort the geometry to make all of the lines straight. Try loading new, old in different tabs and flipping between the two. --Notyourbroom 18:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg QuestionReally difficult choice, which is your candidate? --Mbdortmund 01:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoWell, I uploaded the new version on top of the old version, so I suppose that makes it the candidate for consideration now. I have no plan to revert to the old one. :) --Notyourbroom 04:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support difficult to get it better --Mbdortmund 19:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 21:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Aberystwyth castle edit1.jpgEdit

Aberystwyth castle edit1.jpg

  • Nomination Aberystwyth Castle by user:Herbythyme --Mbz1 04:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Overexposed sky. --Eusebius 11:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Any better? Thank you.--Mbz1 15:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks better at least. Isn't it tilted to the left? It's difficult to spot for sure. --Eusebius 09:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lots of chroma noise (e.g. in the stones and in the grass right). Also some CA. Lycaon 10:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Uploaded corrected version.--Mbz1 15:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Didn't really work, did it? Look at the sky above the castle now, and at the fields to the right. Lycaon 19:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I did. May I please ask you what should I be looking for? Is it noise again? Thank you.--Mbz1 20:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You may. Luminance noise in the sky, loss of detail (even posterization} and chroma noise in the fields. Lycaon 12:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. The thing is that I do not see anything you're talking about, except maybe very minor loss of details at the top of the castle. I would appreciate very much, if somebody could take another look at the image. Maybe there's something wrong with my monitor. Eusebius,may I please ask you, if you see all the problems Hans is talking about? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 15:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Lycaon 21:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Au Lebernau.JPGEdit

Au Lebernau.JPG

  • Nomination Winter in Vorarlberg --Böhringer 22:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportnice winter --Pudelek 15:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I realize I always complain about this, and that the cameras never automatically expose these shots correctly, but the snow should be white (not clipped histogram white, but much furhter to the right). The shot is underexposed.--PieCam 01:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good composition.--Mbz1 23:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the image, but piecam is right. It is too underexposed. Pbroks13 17:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - To me it is white enough -- Alvesgaspar 11:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems to be OK --Mbdortmund 01:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Lycaon (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)