Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 2010

Consensual review edit

File:Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10916-Burgweg-Jupiter.jpg edit

  • Nomination Sculpture of Jupiter --Mbdortmund 14:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion

 Oppose Background distracting --Schlurcher
 Support good quality --George Chernilevsky 18:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 13:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10791-Burgallee-Saturn.jpg edit

  • Nomination Sculpture of Saturn --Mbdortmund 14:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion

 Oppose Background distracting --Schlurcher
 Support good quality --George Chernilevsky 18:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 13:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 22:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10864-Burgallee-Mars.jpg edit

  • Nomination Sculpture of Mars --Mbdortmund 14:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Background distracting --Schlurcher

 Support good quality --George Chernilevsky 18:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 13:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 Support I find this one the best of the image set of this sculpture. --High Contrast 16:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 22:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10868-Burgallee-Mars.jpg edit

  • Nomination Sculpture of Mars --Mbdortmund 14:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Background distracting --Schlurcher

 Support good quality, nice composition --George Chernilevsky 18:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 13:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 22:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Ingapirca roadside pig.jpg edit

  • Nomination Roadside pig in the Andes of southern Ecuador.--Cayambe 15:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Big is a bit underexposed --Schlurcher 17:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC).
    • I ment, that there is too much backgound. --Schlurcher 09:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question Underexposed? I don't understand... --Cayambe 18:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  SupportGood and QI for me.--Jebulon 00:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  SupportGood and QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 13:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 22:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Wasserwerk Urfahr 1 (DFdB).JPG edit

  • Nomination Water works Urfahr in Linz --Dein Freund der Baum 21:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Nice clean shot of appealing subject. Perhaps a touch dark, but QI to me. --Avenue 12:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Except the sky is all blown out. --Elekhh 05:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You're right - seems I misread the histogram. I'm withdrawing my support, sorry. --Avenue 21:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blown sky (why didn't you do this ? But it's OK, I don't mind being the 'bad' guy ;-) --Ianare 19:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You're right, I should have. Sometimes it takes me a while to fully change my mind. Now I  Oppose too. --Avenue 15:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see a little perspective distortion below --Jebulon 14:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- --Jebulon 14:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Oysters.jpg edit

  • Nomination Oysters in a supermarket. --Dschwen 00:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good. --kallerna 10:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose a great part of the picture looks OoF and then is unsharp, IMO.--Jebulon 13:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC).
    • The Oysters in the center are perfectly sharp even at over 12 Megapixel image size. The rest I consider background, having maximum detail on each and every oyster is not necessary IMO. Also please note that the front right shows the moving water the oysters are in. --Dschwen 13:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC).
      • OK I understand what you mean. I saw that it was moving water. I'm interested to see the evolution of this review. Thanks for answering.--Jebulon 13:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think any of the oysters are entirely sharp at full size, but the three main ones are sharp enough at full screen and a bit more. QI to me. --Avenue 11:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Juliancolton 21:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Elekhh (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Náchod CoA - Hotel a divadlo Beránek.JPG edit

  • Nomination Náchod - coat of arms above the entrance to the hotel Beránek --Pudelek 09:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good. --Cayambe 11:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI'm sorry, the top of the photo is horizontal, but the plinths of the statues are not on the same level. Perspective distortion ?sorry I'm afraid I forgot to sign--Jebulon 16:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Jebulon is right; the distortion could easily be repaired --Mbdortmund 00:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose on this picture the correction of the distortion is worse than distortion --Croucrou 11:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per crocrou. --Elekhh 01:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1 to User:Croucrou, on this picture the correction of the distortion is worse than distortion. Скампецкий 11:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 02:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Pigeo.JPG edit

  • I'm pretty sure that's CA around the white bird. It's also detectable on the white-headed bird a bit further left. But it's not extreme; I can't see it in the 800x600px preview image, for instance. I like the photo, too, but I wonder if you've considered cropping off some from the bottom and especially the top? I think it might look better with only half the height. --Avenue 15:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • ✓ Done, cropped. My lords, I have to apologize. You are right with the CA around the white bird. And I'm very sad because I only see that bloo@?ù*$£y CA now on this photo and it is your fault...--Jebulon 21:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 20:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Murmansk from Omni Hotel Murmansk 2.jpg edit

  • Nomination View to Murmansk from Omni Hotel Murmansk. --kallerna 14:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support OK. Would better as a pano ;-) --Ianare 19:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The picture seems to have a quite disturbing tilt (1.5 degrees) which should be corrected for QI status. /Dcastor (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info Fixed. --kallerna 13:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Vihtoja.jpg edit

  • Nomination Finnish vihta (in East Finland called vasta), made of birch. It is used in traditional sauna-bathing for massage and stimulation of the skin. --kallerna 14:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Question is it really sharp ? If not, it's a pity, because this picture looks like a nice and poetic still-life. I need other reviews to be sure of my vote--Jebulon 22:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - Sharpness isn't a problem for me. Juliancolton 13:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - Ok. --Jebulon 16:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Elekhh 23:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Girl Septermber 2008-1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Portrait of a beautiful girl -- Alvesgaspar 21:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • is this image not already known here? And I've doubts about the protection of the personal rights of this very young person...--Jebulon 23:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think it should be our concern in QIC. Please see my comment below, about the Russian lady image. -- Alvesgaspar 10:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
    • That is correct. Personality right are not a concern here. I assume the girl consented to uploading her image here, further compliance with her personality rights is the responsibility of the user of the image, as is stated in teh Personality Rights Warning on the image page. --Dschwen 15:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice. --Dschwen 15:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for answering.--Jebulon 16:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. Can you add country where the picture was taken? Yarl 17:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support really good --Mbdortmund 19:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • WAIT!!! Can a photograph of a QI photographer be QI? -- Queeg 11:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • ? --Mbdortmund 19:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support nice! --Jovianeye 20:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Avenue 15:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Avenue 15:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Canada Goose in GGP.jpg edit

  • Nomination Canada Goose--Mbz1 16:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion did you try a little lighter exposure? --Mbdortmund 19:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
    Thank you for the comment. I could make it lighter, but I like it the way it is, so I am putting it for discussion.--Mbz1 20:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it as it is. --Pko (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support A very nice shot, although the bright halo around the bird's front looks slightly unreal. QI anyway. --Avenue 15:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. Yarl 17:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Yarl 17:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Huhkon kartano, Raisio, 18.4.2010 (2).JPG edit

  • Nomination Brinkhall Manor in Raisio, Finland. The history of Huhko Manor dates back to the 16th century. The oldest parts of the present main building date from the 18th century. The Empire-style appearance is from 1837-1842. --Makele-90 17:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Looks good. --Dschwen 17:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted.--Ankara 20:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
    • What can I say to that? Not much, except: You are wrong, it is pretty straight. Look at the verticals. --Dschwen 15:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
      • My mistake. --Ankara (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the composition. Dark bushes before the house are distracting and they are obscuring the main subject. --Pko 23:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Composition ok with me: shows building in the landscape. Not FP but QI. --Elekhh 05:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Natural ventilation high-rise buildings.svg edit

  • Nomination A schematic showing the natural ventilation used in the Eastgate building in Harare by Fred the Oyster --Jovianeye 04:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very interesting and useful. I understand ! Better than the source. I regret copyrights problems cause I would be happy to see a phtograph of this building, and know more about this zimbabwean architect. --Jebulon 13:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose In my view a bit too simple - just a few arrows and lines. --High Contrast 09:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 Support confirmed--Jebulon 21:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 Support fine work and very useful Скампецкий 11:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 22:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Fritillaria imperialis lutea.JPG edit

  • Nomination a whole plant of a yellow crown, Parc floral de Paris.--Jebulon 22:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 09:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you know what ? It could be my 50th QI!--Jebulon 14:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, don't want to disturb the birthday party, but is a very busy composition, light is not ideal and has few overexposured areas. I think it deserves some discussion. I just want to make sure your 50th is a really good one :) --Elekhh 13:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Too late, my friend, the 50th is already another one...lol !--Jebulon 17:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Some area overexposed but acceptable. QI and Best in scope... --Archaeodontosaurus 12:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, overexposed, CA, too large DOF. --kallerna 14:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as others. Furthermore, I don't like the crop (bottom of the plant is cut off) sorry. --Ianare 19:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Schlurcher 17:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --kallerna 14:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Russian lady 2.jpg edit

  • Nomination Old russian lady. --kallerna 16:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Doubts about personal rights ? --Jebulon 21:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment - There are several QI and FP showing ordinary people and personal rights shouldn't be our concern at QIC. As far as I know the present Commons policy about the depiction of recognizable persons is to insert a "personality rights" template into the image files, warning for the possible restrictions on their use. -- Alvesgaspar 10:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, I think Alves is entirely correct here. --Dschwen 15:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Ok many thanks for answering. French law is very sensitive with these problems (as you know perhaps...). If this russian lady ask in a french court of justice about violation of her "private life", she will win the trial...--Jebulon 16:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose composition : subject should be walking into rather than out of, the frame. --Ianare 19:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 19:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Echium April 2010-2.jpg edit

  • Nomination A Purple Bugloss -- Alvesgaspar 09:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too much of the image and flowers out of focus. DOF sould have been considered to cover the flowers and leave the background blurry --Tomascastelazo 16:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I ask for other opinions. The assessment is contraditory in its terms. -- Alvesgaspar 22:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any problems within this picture – QI to me. --Dein Freund der Baum 13:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good, but I can't concentrate on anything because of the background. Sorry. --kallerna 17:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Agree with Kallerna. Normally I'm not one to object to natural-looking backgrounds, but this is a bit too busy. Juliancolton 17:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems to be a matter of taste, I think the short DOF is the only possibility here to set an accent on the main object --Mbdortmund 00:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the flowers that are in focus are beautiful and sharp but they're not put foward by the rest being too busy. I also can't concentrate on the subject for a while 'cause my eyes move to understand the background. I guess this means you could do better for this one. --Letartean 03:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support In small preview the backgroud is to présent but if you loot the picture at 100% the background is enough blurry, QI IMO --Croucrou 11:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree with opponents, and agree with supporters.--Jebulon 20:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Archaeodontosaurus 15:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition is too busy --Lawboy25 14:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Meets QI criteria. Lycaon 18:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Promote?   — Lycaon 18:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Monastery of El Escorial 05.jpg edit

  • Nomination Monastery of El Escorial, Spain --Bgag 14:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Ok imho --Berthold Werner 15:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blurry parts, artifacts in the sky --Carschten 16:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I think these are acceptable. --Berthold Werner 09:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Artifacts visible even on thumbnails. --kallerna 14:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful composition, minimal artifacts that are acceptable --Archaeodontosaurus 09:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support per Archaeodontosaurus. --Cayambe 14:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 11:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Flower April 2010-6.jpg edit

  • Nomination Flower of Coleostephus myconis -- Alvesgaspar 14:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Just another flower --Lawboy25 12:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC) --  Comment - Not a legitimate reason for opposing. Please stop the childish behaviour -- Alvesgaspar 13:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)  Comment I do not think the subject is interesting or in any way special, hence no QI --Lawboy25 15:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Lawboy25 please withdraw or reconsider your assessment, following QI criteria. "Not special" is not QI criteria. --Elekhh 00:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support- i am not a fan of centered compositions but i dont find any reason why it shouldnt be a QI -LadyofHats 12:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I was about to support, but the image has some sharpness issues.  Oppose. --Dschwen 13:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - too dark. Скампецкий 16:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 18:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Palmetto Park Rd and Mizner Blvd 2.jpg edit

  • Nomination Palmetto Park Rd and Mizner Blvd 2 --Ianare 03:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment...in Boca Raton, Florida, USA.--Jebulon 14:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI don't like the exposure on this one, a bit too light. --Dschwen 15:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO good enough. Yarl 17:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support as Yarl.--Jebulon 09:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   ----Jebulon (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Silo i Eslöv-1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Grain silo in Eslöv, Sweden. /Dcastor 22:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose noisy sky IMO, sorry.--Jebulon 17:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support In my opinion, the noise is not that much disturbable and does not hide details. And the detalisation of this silo is very high. Скампецкий 13:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice sky, but noisy and blured antennas. - Elekhh 03:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 03:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Church of the Protection of the Theotokos in Rubtsovo 16.jpg edit

  • Nomination Church in Rubtsovo --Lodo27 19:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Nice and sharp, but the tree in the foreground obscures too much of the subject for me. Some overexposure and perspective issues too. --Avenue 11:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The trees are really close, so a less obscured image of this facade doesn't seem to be possible, and winter is a good choice for taking the photograph. The image appears to be useful and in use. --Elekhh 05:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - Agree that the trees are unavoidable in this instance. Juliancolton 13:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree some obscuration seems unavoidable here, and that winter is a good time, but I think a less obscured view of the main tower would be possible; the Russian article's lead image, for example. There's no indication given that the photo's main subject is the rear facade, and the angle doesn't seem ideal for that either. Meanwhile there are the other problems to consider. The overexposure is on the building as well as the snow. It isn't a bad shot, but I'm still not seeing it as a QI. --Avenue (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Neutral As I see it is a building in a park, so all four facades are relevant, even if not equaly important. But the point you make about the potential to have a less obscured view of the main tower (image taken from further left) appears to be valid, so I switch to neutral for now. --Elekhh 23:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose the tree against the background of the church. Not interesting. Скампецкий 16:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 14:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Lincoln_Log_Cabin_3.jpg edit

  • Nomination Lincoln Log Cabin, State Historic site, Illinois. --Dschwen 16:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion overexposed ? let's discuss --Ianare 14:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support a little bit overexposed but imo okay. Nice sharpness. QI for me --Carschten 12:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - Fine for me. Juliancolton 14:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Fine for me too, nice detail. But is there a fine CCW tilt or is the whole front facade and chimney tilted? --Elekhh 22:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 12:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Télviec Crane Homme Profil Droit.jpg edit

  • Nomination Teviec Human Skull, Mesolithic. Picture by Archaeodontosaurus. Yann 10:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support good --Mbdortmund 11:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose already nominated and promoted, if I'm not wrong.--Jebulon 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    Had a different background, imo --Mbdortmund 16:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    This image is NOT promoted. Besides, this is no reason. --High Contrast 18:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Next with white background? And then blue, and then...? It's the same image whatsoever. --kallerna 16:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Derivative work of other FP/QI, however not essentially different and not in use in any Wiki. --Elekhh 19:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    Elekhh, a quality image must not be used in any wiki. --High Contrast 20:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    I'm aware of that, what I was pointing at is that the other version is used in Wikis, therefore more valuable. Note that Value is part of QI criteria, and given that the potential value of this image is diminished by the fact that another nearly identical version is in use on wikis, I find it reasonable to oppose. --Elekhh 01:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, value is part of QI criteria. But where do you see a problem in this case? --High Contrast 14:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Anser caerulescens CT6.jpg edit

  • Nomination Snow geese --Cephas 21:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Yes.--Jebulon 21:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes It's beautiful but befor promotion there dust who need to be clean, i put mark on it --Croucrou 20:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Dustspots fixed and imagenotes removed. Juliancolton 13:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    • now i can  Support it --Croucrou 16:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support very nice --Carschten 15:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Archaeodontosaurus 17:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Croucrou 16:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Dome of Baptist Church, Jordan.jpg edit

  • Nomination The dome of the John the Baptist Church at the Jordan River at the Jordanian-Israeli border. --High Contrast 09:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn Dustspot ? Please see note.--Jebulon 22:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)- Decline because of non corrected dust spot.--Jebulon 16:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot see the "note" because the annotations-tool is not working (on my pc). Although I look for your dustspot, but I couldn't find it --High Contrast 18:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I've removed the note. The dust spot is in the sky, at the extreme left, above the half below (approx). Very visible if you may roll your image with your mouse quickly.Visible in the thumbnail too. I change my vote for other reviewers. --Jebulon 22:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Jovianeye 16:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pigeon Point Lighthouse and wildflowers.jpg edit

  • Nomination Pigeon Point Lighthouse and wildflowers--Mbz1 03:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Beautiful. --AFBorchert 05:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  OpposeCould be cropped a quarter below, IMO. Need a discussion--Jebulon 10:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I love the composition, all is sharp and well exposed, QI IMO --Croucrou 15:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Not bad as it is and crop would still be possible at any time. --Elekhh 22:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support per Elekhh and AFBorchert. --Avenue 13:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - Composition is fine IMO; I just wish the lighthouse and water were in better focus. Juliancolton 13:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support okay to me, but why so a small resolution? --Carschten 15:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photograph! --High Contrast 14:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment So people complain when I for once upload a downsampled picture (over a fullsize version!), but people fail to comment here. I believe the correct term for this would be Hypocrisy... ...or a simple oversight :-) . --Dschwen 21:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, Daniel, they know that I am not nearly, not even close as good photographer as you are (and I mean it), so people just have pity on me :)--Mbz1 01:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
That is sweet of you, even though it is a lie ;-). Anyhow... --Dschwen 01:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • ... of course I  Support this beautiful well composed (square works) picture. --Dschwen 01:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 8 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 09:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Suckling_goat.jpg edit

  • Nomination Goatling sucks mother's udder --Скампецкий 17:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion

 SupportGood --George Chernilevsky 18:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the lighting is a bit unfortunate. --AngMoKio 08:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  •  Support main object accentuated by the lighting, I like it --Mbdortmund 18:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - Lightning could be better, but still a good illustration. Juliancolton 13:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 09:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Victory Monument Chicago.jpg edit

  • Nomination Victory Monument at Chicago, USA --Jovianeye 22:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  CommentI have a problem with the top cropping, but not enough to decline.--Jebulon 09:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The original shot was tilted so I rotated it 0.66 CCW and cropped it with a 3X4 aspect ratio. I have re-cropped the original to allow some more space on the top, but now it is not 3X4. --Jovianeye 16:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Bit noisy but not more than some other QIs. --Elekhh 20:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 09:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Azogues Ecuador Igl San Francisco.jpg edit

  • Nomination Azogues, Ecuador: Main altar of Iglesia San Francisco. --Cayambe 14:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good, although the crop could be better on top. --kallerna 14:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • -I'm sorry, the crop on top is really a problem for me. And the altar is a bit tilted above. Let's discuss, please--Jebulon 22:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • then  Oppose.--Jebulon 16:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose poor crop --Ianare 19:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose poor framing, and I believe some WB issues as well. --Elekhh 20:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 09:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Egg case in lichen-encrusted crack.jpg edit

  • Nomination Egg case in lichen-encrusted crack. --Avenue 04:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good. Скампецкий 12:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Needs some ID. Lycaon 07:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I've added this for the egg case. I have no idea about the lichen, sorry. I can't identify the tree from its bark, but could go back if necessary. --Avenue 09:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support That's fine, thanks. Lycaon 09:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose great subject but not sharp enough. notafish 12:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 09:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Kupanskoe 8338.jpg edit

  • Nomination Kupanskoe village in Russia, seen from the bell-tower.--PereslavlFoto 17:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  NeutralLooks overexposed in some parts, otherwise fine. Let's discuss it --Ianare 19:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Bright sunny day, if you are speaking about the whitest countryhouse.--PereslavlFoto 14:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Not sure about overexposure. Good and useful to me. QI IMO.--Jebulon 00:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Could be locally overexposed but it does not distract me. Nice DOF, good picture (although the centred position of the electrical installations is not great). --Eusebius 11:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
    It was hard for me to move the bell-tower from where I made this photo .--PereslavlFoto 15:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   ----Jebulon 00:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Brno, Crematorium.jpg edit

  • Nomination Crematorium in Brno, --Podzemnik 13:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support good --Pudelek 15:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, not too sharp, dirty sky colour.--PereslavlFoto 16:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per PereslavlFoto --Carschten 17:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed white. --kallerna 13:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support For me the white is just white i verify with the histogram of this picture and i don't see overexposed problem. for me this picture is enough for QI --Croucrou 12:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support looks good and... useful for me. (only the representation). lol. --Jebulon 21:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per PereslavlFoto --Ianare 19:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 09:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Porto Covo April 2010-1.jpg edit

  • Nomination The port of Porto Covo at the end of the day. -- Alvesgaspar 18:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Good composition in general, but the small portion of a buoy(?) just visible on the right edge spoils the atmosphere for me more than it probably should. --Avenue 01:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)--✓ Done -- That was not difficult to fix... -- Alvesgaspar 11:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose Because of poor lighting you overexposed the image and it looks washed out- not QI --Lawboy25 12:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
     Support I think you've chosen the right exposure time --Dein Freund der Baum 12:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
     Support The sky might be a bit flat, perhaps, but that enhances the restful atmosphere here for me. --Avenue 13:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
     Comment Too much sharpening (although I understand why), 'ringing' on the edges of the headland and the lower rocks. --Fred the Oyster 16:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lawboy25 --Croucrou 16:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support. This is not overexposed at all. Lighting conditions are less than ideal and require a large dynamic range, but overall quality is passable for QI. --Dschwen 03:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose poor lighting, too dark --Ianare 07:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too dark for me --Jebulon 14:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment - According to the rules, voting should have been closed and the image promoted 48 hrs after Dschwen's support. -- Alvesgaspar 16:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
      •  Comment - No, the rules state that it can be closed after 48h not that it must be closed. And basically the longer the image is here for discussion the broader the input. However I am not sure how to handle nonsense comments like "overexposed". --Elekhh 20:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    •  Info -- Let me quote from the CR rules above: #3: After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision - Promoted or Not promoted - will be registered at the end of the text and then executed; #4 In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the image will stay in Consensual Review for a maximum period of 8 days, counted from its entry (the bold is mine). This means, in my view (btw, the very first CR rules were written by me), that a picture only stays after the 48 hr period in case of draw. Your interpretation opens the possibility of arbitrary decisions or random outcomes, which is not Commons FPC or QIC tradition. Maybe this question should be further discussed in the talk page? -- Alvesgaspar 10:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
      • My reading of the text is not so unequivocal as yours. Current pracitice is that images stay longer... and I don't see a problem with getting broader input. With the idea of compulsory closure after 8 days again I am not so sure if practicable (unless done by bot) and/or useful, however have to note that by applying these rules according to your interpretation this candidate would have been closed prior to Dschwen's vote as a draw, therefore not promoted. --Elekhh 23:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Precisely, that would have been the correct thing to do. Doing otherwise is to allow ambiguity and arbitrarity -- Alvesgaspar 23:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 09:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Flower April 2010-7.jpg edit

  • Nomination Coleostephus myconis inflorescence -- Alvesgaspar 09:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeUnsharp. With that camera and from that distance you should be able to see every detail of the stamens. Hand held? --Fred the Oyster 12:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Respectfully disagree. That is putting the QI bar too high and variable with the camera and creator -- Alvesgaspar 12:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry and oversaturated. Under such controlled conditions, a better result is mandatory.--Lawboy25 19:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality is good enough IMO. Could be better but this isn't FP --Ianare 02:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Same opinion --Archaeodontosaurus 06:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ianare. Juliancolton 19:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy background, unsharp, oversaturated, bad framing. --kallerna 11:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Framing is OK IMO. Elekhh 20:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose could (should ?) be better...--Jebulon 14:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Could you be more precise how ? Let's focus on constructive criticism, not just voting. --Elekhh 20:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The photographer is a great one, and he knows how to take better photographs. He don't needs my critics, but i'll be more clear : I agree with Kallerna, except for oversaturating. And please note that I'm generally not only a voter--Jebulon 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for unfortunate wording, there was no intention to suggest anything like that. Changed my previous edit. --Elekhh 01:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
No worries ;)---Jebulon 16:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- I've the feeling that standards here are not the same for every photographer (I'm not complaining, just noticing). And tt is not true that the picture is blurry (by the normal QI standards) or oversaturated (unless nature is oversaturated). As for framing, that is a question of taste and I clearly prefer mine -- Alvesgaspar 08:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment --I'm deeply sorry, my friend, but I feel that the petals are here a little unsharp, and the background looks to me a little bit noisy. But I agree with you : ware the photographer somebody else, maybe should I be (a very little) less careful. That's only because I like generally your pictures very much, and I try too maintain the high level of your QIs. Ever friendly,--Jebulon 16:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   -- Elekhh (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Beiteddine - drapeau libanais.jpg edit

  • Nomination Lebanese flag. It's not downsampled, it's cropped. --Eusebius 19:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support A little bit unsharp, but all in all ok. --High Contrast 09:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I am not so sure of this one, is a bit unsharp, a bit overexposed and the center is in shadow. --Elekhh 02:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 20:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Yawning Calico (DFdB).JPG edit

  • Nomination Yawning Calico --Dein Freund der Baum 20:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline * Support good shot, QI for me.---Jebulon 22:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose white fur has blown highlights --Ianare 02:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with Ianare -LadyofHats 12:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --PetarM 13:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blown highlights are too extensive. --Avenue 01:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support not bad, QI for me --Pudelek 12:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed around the area of interest. --Eusebius 11:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Eusebius 11:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Solanum tuberosum Vineta20100419 12-2.jpg edit

  • Nomination The tubers of potato ‘Vineta’. --Bff 16:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment I think there is something with white balance, the background has violet tint. --Pko 20:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
     Comment It's an artificial background, and I created this background with a violet tint. --Bff 06:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    Background looks very unnatural. Where are the shadows? Juliancolton 13:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    You can compare with the original photo: File:Solanum tuberosum Vineta20100419 12.jpg. --Bff 08:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)-

 Support No issues, I think. I can see some shadows, and I find it's an interesting composition and background. QI to me.--Jebulon 21:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC),

 Oppose lets discuss I'm not so happy with the background. --Schlurcher 16:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose I prefer the original photo. IMO terrible background and color combination--Ankara 21:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

File:RO B Carol Park green woodpecker.jpg edit

  • Nomination A green woodpecker in Carol Park, Bucharest. Andrei Stroe 20:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Background noisy, but good otherwise--Jebulon 20:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy and not crisp enough for the size. Lycaon 09:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy underexpose and perhaps with Balance problem, but good Composition, perhaps it could be correct --Croucrou 16:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Miles_City_aerial.jpg edit

  • Nomination Aerial shot of Miles City, Montana. Not perfect at full res, but pretty darn good for a shot from a domestic flight across the country. And some credit for identifying the city please, that was detective work! ;-). --Dschwen 16:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Yes, not sharp at full res, but sharp enough IMO. Nice light, shadows show the topography well. --Avenue 17:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, IMO not sharp even on thumbnails. --kallerna 14:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • When I downsize the photo to 1800x1200px, features that should be sharp look pretty sharp to me. Not the trees along riversides or messily shadowed areas in town, but geographic features like roads, sharp topographic outlines, and holes in ice on the river. --Avenue 23:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp --Croucrou 16:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose At thumbnail size, nothing strikes the eye. There are many things but seems random IMO. So I went for full res trying to see something cool but it ain't very sharp so still nothing comes out. I'd say it's a good idea but it didn't come out right.--Letartean 01:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

File:SMP April 2010-1b.jpg edit

  • Nomination The bay of São Martinho do Porto, Portugal. View from the village. -- Alvesgaspar 12:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion The image falls off to the right. --Dschwen 14:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
-- ✓ Done -- Fixed -- Alvesgaspar 11:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice. Yarl 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ianare 14:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 14:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MJJR 19:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Porvoo Cathedral.jpg edit

  • Nomination Porvoo Cathedral. --kallerna 09:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good. --Cayambe 13:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose -excessive distortion to me --Jebulon 14:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose per Jebulon, and I marked a stitching problem --Carschten 15:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's not a stiching problem... And IMO the "distortion" is a good effect, makes the image much more interesting. --kallerna 16:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sometimes I like "your" distortions, but this time it's excessive to me. Not a good effect IMO, sorry. But I understand what you mean.--Jebulon 21:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Okay. Anyways, thanks for reviewing! --kallerna 06:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Jebulon I think the mark you put on the cable is not a switch error but un old cable. Kallerna to you take this picture with à fish-eyes ? I like composition with fish-eyes distortion but here I don't saw what the distortion add here --Croucrou (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment No, I made the effect with Hugin. --kallerna 18:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Croucrou I did'nt put any mark... Maybe Carschten did ?---Jebulon 16:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • yes, I did it --Carschten 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 21:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Diptera sp.jpg edit

  • Nomination Diptera on a flower. --ComputerHotline 16:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Please, help the reviewers by giving different names ! This one is QI for me...--Jebulon 17:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC) --
  •  Oppose -- What about the species? -- Alvesgaspar 18:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not effort done at identification. Lycaon 14:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me --Carschten 15:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    •  Request QI requires a reasonable ID, which is lacking here (flower nor fly). Lycaon 16:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lycaon --Ianare 01:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • ---------------- No more votes allowed according to the rules -- Alvesgaspar 23:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC) ------------------
  •  Oppose per Lycaon, and also: flower overexposed and insect not completely sharp. -- MJJR 19:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Araneae.jpg edit

  • Nomination Spider in front of a flower. --ComputerHotline 16:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Could have been sharper, but I love the composition.--Mbz1 17:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC) -
  •  Oppose - No species ID, not entirely on focus -- Alvesgaspar 11:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as above. Lycaon 14:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me --Carschten 15:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    •  Request QI requires a reasonable ID, which is lacking here. Lycaon 16:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lycaon --Ianare 01:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • ------------------ No more votes allowed, according to the rules... Alvesgaspar 23:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC) -------------------
  •  Support The composition is fantastic and the spy is very sharp --Croucrou 19:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. --kallerna 05:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Pieni suklaatehdas, Porvoo.jpg edit

  • Nomination Facade ofPieni suklaatehdas (Little chocolate factory) in Porvoo. --kallerna 10:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Too tight of a crop, removes too much of the context to really get a feel for the place. Adam Cuerden 01:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    I like the crop, for me it could be even tighter at the bottom. -- H005 20:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The crop looks ok to me. --Cayambe 13:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The picture tells us something about Finland and Porvoo. A bilingual city in a bilingual country.--Ankara 13:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop not so great, agree with Adam Cuerden. Approximative lighting. A nice picture, not a quality picture in my books. notafish }<';> 12:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the half cropped windows and I miss perspective correction --Berthold Werner 08:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Pyrus communis buds to flowers p.gif edit

  • Nomination Pyrus communis, animation of bud progress. It is my first gif, so any comments will be good --Przykuta 15:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Wszystkie obrazki mają jakieś dziwne kolory. Tak chyba nie powinno być? --Crusier 15:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    Result of being GIF 256 colours. but QI? JDavid 16:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose I don't think this kind of image suits this kind of image format, sorry. --99of9 13:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose I think it's a good idea, but no image is sharp here, IMO.----Jebulon 21:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I think a strip with full color would be more interesting... Looks dull a bit, no? --Letartean 00:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose Resolution is far below the QI minimum of 2 MP. This should be enough to decline. See the rules. --Johannes Robalotoff 16:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Vicinity of Pigeon Point Lighthouse.jpg edit

File:Trier Hauptmarkt 17.jpg edit

  • Nomination Trier, a building at the market place --Berthold Werner 07:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support QI to me--Jebulon 10:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose Not sharp enough. --Coyau 14:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
     Support Sharp enough for QI in my opinion. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 08:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Krak des Chevaliers 01.jpg edit

  • Nomination Krak des Chevaliers, Syria --Bgag 21:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose too soft --Pudelek 11:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC).
  •  Support Not so soft to me. Let's discuss ?--Jebulon 09:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, yes, too soft, actually completely screwed up by excessive (in-camera?) de-noising. At this resolution certainly not QI. --Dschwen 13:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm generally mistrustful with so definite words as "yes, too", "completely", "excessive", and "certainly". I envy those who are so sure, because of my permanent doubts... By the way, maybe this pic is too soft...--Jebulon 08:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think that it is quite obvious that noise reduction spoiled the picture. The effect is so strong that you should not mind Dschwen using drastic words in this case. Otherwise it is a nice picture. What a pity. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, it looks like an "oil painting" effect had been applied. Look especially at the grass below the building. --Ikar.us 00:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 08:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Pivoi2.jpg edit

  • Nomination a violet flower of a Paeonia suffruticosa.----Jebulon 22:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very good. Please, in the file description, add where the picture was taken. :-)--Cayambe 09:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done, but was already geocoded...--Jebulon 16:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor lighting and white balance issues. Lycaon 09:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor lighting ruins this. The image looks washed out. --Matthew Proctor 12:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 06:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Engelsburg-Rom.JPG edit

  • Nomination My favorite picture from my trip to rome: Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome --Schlurcher 17:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
    •  Comment - From where Floria Tosca threw herself to death after her lover was shot... -- Alvesgaspar 14:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice view, but blurry --Ianare 14:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Imho only the left and right sides are a bit blurry. I cutted the sides a little bit, but the atmosphere suffers a little bit. --Schlurcher 16:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 16:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Kupanskoe 8337.jpg edit

  • Nomination Shop in Kupanskoe village, Russia. --PereslavlFoto 15:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose overexposed --Ianare 14:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Not at all! Previous version was, and in current version the exposition is fixed.--PereslavlFoto 15:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • exposition is not really fixable in software, even with RAW in most cases. But let's discuss. --Ianare 00:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Where is the problem place?--PereslavlFoto 10:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • notes added --Ianare 17:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no FFFFFF places, the brick details are visible, the wall colour is pink but not white. It _was_ overexposed in the previous version (please compare). To make this place less bright means to make the picture gray and dull and less vivid. Generally speaking, the previous version was more true in showing the real scene. Human eye could not catch any details on that wall.--PereslavlFoto 14:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose On the current version, the overexposure wasn't completely correct, and the composition is not enough good to forget the over exposure --Croucrou 23:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Where is the problem place?--PereslavlFoto 10:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with over exposed notes added by Ianare, and for me the cables in foreground cut the composition --Croucrou 23:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the tendency to require artificial photos and  Support this one. --Ikar.us 13:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Croucrou 23:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10837-Burgallee-Flora.jpg edit

  • Nomination Sculpture of Flora --Mbdortmund 14:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Bad angle --Schlurcher 17:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)- Not "bad", because the photographer knew what he was doing (I hope !). Must be discussed and not so simply rejected, IMO it's Flora and not Florar, I've corrected --Jebulon 10:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, bad angle and background. --kallerna 14:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support interesting angle, the only bad thing is that the head of the statue is unsharp; otherwise good. --Carschten 15:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose pro: interesting view, colours, exposition, lighting. con: DOF. DOF should be either very small to concentrate on a interesting detail or it should cover the whole object. Neither is the case here. btw: If there are trees, there are trees. -- Smial 13:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 15:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Colosseum-Rome2.JPG edit

  • Nomination: Colosseum outside --Schlurcher 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Review  Support Good. --PetarM 21:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective issues and noise. Lycaon 09:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The colours and the atmosphere are very strong concerning the Colosseum itself, perhaps it would be nice to work a little bit on the left side of the picture which could be a bit darker, perhaps slightly cropped. --Mbdortmund 22:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I cutted the left side a little bit. --Schlurcher 09:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbdortmund 13:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion disturbing IMO. --Elekhh 20:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    I uploaded a new version File:Colosseum-Rome3.JPG. Better? --Ankara 10:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

voting was long closed. Lycaon 22:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  •  Support this version. Perspective must not be corrected in any case, often a 100% correction leads to strange distorted views, that are not appropriate to the subject, and do not give us a good impression of the "real thing".. -- Smial 13:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Elekhh 20:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Cadmium-crystal_bar.jpg edit

 I withdraw my nomination for QI --Alchemist-hp 21:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 13:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brněnská přehrada, zahájení plavební sezony 2010 (16).JPG edit

  • Nomination Bratislava ship and Praha ship at Brno Reservoir. --Podzemnik 08:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC))
  • Promotion
  •  Support Please, add geotag. --Cayambe 14:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Photo is tilted --Pudelek 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 Comment Geotag added, I did small rotation, is it better now? --Podzemnik 08:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • weak  Support composition OK but a bit noisy --Mbdortmund 13:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 01:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Jonstorps kyrka interior-3.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Pulpit in Jonstorp village church, Sweden. /Dcastor 22:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  OpposeComposition not Q: 1:1 proportion between foreground and background not so good; croped chandelier distracting and makes the composition look busy. --Elekhh 19:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC).
 Support That's funny: I feel exactly the opposite opinion for all the points...--Jebulon 21:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Interesting, how do you feel than about the hardly identifiable wooden object in the middle, the bottom crop, and the deeply dark area on the right ? --Elekhh 01:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree about the chandelier comment, but cropping it out would mean cropping the altar rails, which would be worse IMO. For similar reasons the piano can't be completely cropped out. Taking pictures in busy environments will cause framing problems. The 1:1 composition is what I like with this photo, compared to most other pulpit pictures. It keeps focus on the pulpit and yet places it in context. /Dcastor 11:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Elekhh 23:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Intrus.JPG edit

  • Nomination: Little game : where is Charlie ? Petit jeu : trouvez l'intrus.--Jebulon 20:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
     Comment Seems a little bit unsharp. Скампецкий 12:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Not sure...--Jebulon 23:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Review Perhaps a little soft, but it's not bad, and I think the contrast is the point of this one, not the detail. QI to me. --Avenue 13:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    Not identified. Lycaon 11:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Everybody knows here that I'm very careful to identify species, but this pic is NOT a scientific or a botanic one. It's only a joke, a wink, something smiling or humoristic. It's a serious photo (maybe technically bad, ok) of a non serious subject. Is vegetal humour possible here ? I hope so. If not, then decline...--Jebulon 15:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Nomination should be closed by now, according to the rules -- Alvesgaspar 23:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC) -----------------
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Jovianeye 16:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Leuchtende Taschenlampe.jpg edit

  • Nomination Flashlight --Carschten 19:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose some noise, I'm afraid.--Jebulon 22:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    I denoised a bit. Better or not enough? --Carschten 14:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info I uploaded a new version with less noise and higher resolution --Carschten 14:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support imo acceptable now --Mbdortmund 13:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for this perspective: it takes at least two images --Archaeodontosaurus 08:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Better for me. I change my vote and support now.--Jebulon 22:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   ----Jebulon 22:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Kaitaisten silta, Taivassalo, 22.10 (2).JPG edit

  • Nomination The Kaitainen Bridge is located Taivassalo, Finland. --Makele-90 15:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion Need a little crop left to be well centered, IMO. Otherwise good, I'll propose a promotion if fixed--Jebulon 21:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The centered composition works well here, imo. --Cayambe 18:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I had misunderstood Jebulon's comment. I'll support once the slight left crop will be done. --Cayambe (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 Comment Cropped. --Makele-90 16:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 16:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Better now.--Jebulon 22:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   ---Jebulon 22:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

File:TT Kotlářka - Sídliště Řepy, Krematorium Motol, Tatra T3R.PLF.jpg edit

  • Nomination Tatra T3R.PLF.jpg in Prague — Jagro 21:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Very cluttered --Matthew Proctor 00:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
     Question What does cluttered mean? A composition issue? --Ikar.us 12:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
     Comment Yeah, composition. The background is very busy, and there are lots of things competing for the viewer's attention. That there are lines running away from the tram in various different directions (tracks, road markings on left, road markings on right, overhead cables both parallel and perpendicular) doesn't help either. --Matthew Proctor 03:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
That's what Eastern Europe cities look like... No reason against the image for me. --Ikar.us 18:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. --Cayambe 11:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support too. --Ikar.us 11:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support too. --PS-2507 13:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 00:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Peter Stehlik 2009.05.12 Lidice 002aa.jpg edit

  • Nomination Memorial place Lidice / Czech Republik --PS-2507 08:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeUnsharp, and a lot of noise when viewed in full resolution. Jafeluv 12:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sharpness is not worse than with many other quality images. I've reduced some noise and uploaded a new version, please review. -- Smial 15:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness insufficient, also dust spots. Lycaon 11:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Lycaon 11:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Свиблово церковь Троицы 02.jpg edit

  • Nomination Trinity church in Sviblovo, Moscow. --S[1] 09:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Perfect perspective, otherwise also good. --Ikar.us 16:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpening halos. Probably needs perspective correction. (Less important: Red CA at the columns left.) --Johannes Robalotoff 18:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree on the haloes, also strong CA. Lycaon 11:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Lycaon 11:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Icterus spurius PP2.jpg edit

  • Nomination Orchard Oriole --Cephas 23:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Nice composition, if lighting were better would suggest FP --Ianare 15:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)  Comment Very nice shot. But the large dark regions on the bird where no structures can be seen any more make me a bit unhappy. Do you have a RAW file so that you can do a curve correction without boosting noise too much? --Johannes Robalotoff 17:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not enough details for the size. Unfortunate lighting. Lycaon 10:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree about the lighting. Detail on the bird is much too dark. --Matthew Proctor 03:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Lycaon 11:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Kampfläufer.jpg edit

As they cannot run away there, I will try again and also try to find the right id. --Schlurcher 08:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Terlezky-2010-ondatra 8464.jpg edit

  • Nomination Terletsky park in Moscow, ondatra zibethicus swimming. --PereslavlFoto 17:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Head out of focus. Lycaon 22:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice little hairy monster, but indeed unsharp, and not the best composition (top view, tail cut, habitat very blurry). --Elekhh 00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad focus, poor colour depth, among other… --Pymouss 15:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 04:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Kaljaa.JPG edit

  • Nomination Beer cans and bottles. --kallerna 08:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion I'm sure you knew that I'd promote this one...;) QI to me--Jebulon 10:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The night before was a funny one. ;) --Kallerna 05:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, but the day after ? ;)...Nevertheless, it's very sharp !--Jebulon 14:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose One of can is overlighted by a cameralamp reflection. In full resolution there is a noise. JDavid 12:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know if I have to confirm my support. IMO, I have to. Then, I confirm, and I'm happy to  Support this image. The cameralamp reflection on a metallic object is not a problem to me, and I don't see really noise. --Jebulon 21:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 08:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 13:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Fieramilano Rho Pero 33.JPG edit

  • Nomination Fieramilano Rho Pero --Böhringer 20:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline --  Support H005 21:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)  Info Unfortunately no FOP in Italy. --Elekhh 22:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
     Comment I do not think this is of relevance to the QI status. If it's illegal, it should be nominated for deletion and its legal status be discussed there. -- H005 15:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 Comment Suitable copyright is a condition for QI. --Elekhh 05:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 Comment http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Italy --Mbdortmund 14:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 13:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Fieramilano Rho Pero 01.JPG edit

  • Nomination Fieramilano Rho Pero --Böhringer 20:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline --  Support H005 21:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)  Info Unfortunately no FOP in Italy. --Elekhh 22:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
     Comment I do not think this is of relevance to the QI status. If it's illegal, it should be nominated for deletion and its legal status be discussed there. -- H005 15:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 Comment Suitable copyright is a condition for QI. --Elekhh 05:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 Comment http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Italy --Mbdortmund 14:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 Comment Is there any copyrightable content? -- Smial 13:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 Comment Perhaps the architecture. --Mbdortmund 16:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 Comment by Massimiliano Fuksas. --Elekhh 21:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 Comment so what do we do ? Can we promote a view of a copyrighted monument ? Must we ask for deletion of the files ?--Jebulon 16:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I donot that the exhibition area in MilanPublic is. On the other hand I do not know also whether the fair manager has something against the publication of these images. :-) --Böhringer 18:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 13:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Syrphidae sp (1).jpg edit

  • Nomination Syrphidae sp. --ComputerHotline 08:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 08:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC) --
  •  Oppose -- ID missing -- Alvesgaspar 10:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Ianare 08:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Eusebius 10:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Östra Broby kyrka-1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Östra Broby kyrka, town church of Broby, Sweden. /Dcastor 12:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 17:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Cayambe with respect to sharpness. But the tower leans visibly to the left. Would support if this perspective effect were corrected. Overexposure on the wall on the left is somewhat borderline, because color begins to deviate from reality due to blown red channel. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 Info Thanks for your review. I uploaded an edited version. /Dcastor 22:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Johannes Robalotoff 21:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Östra Broby kyrka-2.jpg edit

  • Nomination Östra Broby kyrka, town church of Broby, Sweden. /Dcastor 12:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 17:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Again the tower leans left. Would support if this is corrected. Exposure is good here. Don't mind the minor CA at unimporant parts far left and right (like the fire station left). --Johannes Robalotoff 20:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I tried to correct the leaning tower... --Mbdortmund 01:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp, beautiful colours and good correction of the leaning --Croucrou 16:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support OK now after correction. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)) 20:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Johannes Robalotoff 21:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Anne d'Autriche et le Dauphin C des M.jpg edit

  • Nomination Médaille Anne d'Autriche et le Dauphin, Paris.--Siren-Com 13:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Bad ID. Sorry, but the latin text explains clearly that the young boy is already the king (Louis XIV), and no more the "Dauphin". And I dislike the blue background (is it not a rule about backgrounds for coins, as it exists for stamps ?) --Jebulon 14:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done you're right, corrected, but it was like this on the Cabinet des Médailles's document. Changing color is possible - Siren-Com 15:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Le Cabinet des Médailles se plante, ça peut arriver ! This boy was the king since 1643. Ok, lets discuss about the background...--Jebulon 21:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done Ok, I put white background - Siren-Com 12:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 Support --Mbdortmund 22:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

  •  Support now, I change my first vote.--Jebulon 23:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   ----Jebulon 23:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Aquapark Liberec 3.jpg edit

  • Nomination Aquapark Liberec --Pudelek 12:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportNice picture. --Cayambe 17:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose composition issues: cluttered, column in the middle, strong light into the camera. --Elekhh 22:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Light in the middle of the picture is really to strong. --Pymouss 15:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Eusebius 10:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Aquapark Liberec 02.jpg edit

  • Nomination Aquapark Liberec --Pudelek 12:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Unsharp. --Elekhh 01:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 Comment In my opinion is sharp --Pudelek 09:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Side of the pool unsharp, but I also oppose on compositional grounds. --Elekhh (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose Like the other one, strong lights are very disturbing. --Pymouss 15:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 19:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Brandtaucher Dresden.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Brandtaucher - one of first submarines. Militärhistorisches Museum der Bundeswehr in Dresden, Germany --Pudelek 21:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Review Is this image not already promoted ? ----Jebulon 21:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
     Support QI for me. --George Chernilevsky 06:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose IMO underexposed, no details. Compare to this or this. --kallerna 07:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Mbdortmund 13:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Glass car silos, Wolfsburg.jpg edit

  • Nomination The two glass silos in the Autostadt in Wolfsburg. --High Contrast 15:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  InfoBeautiful picture, sharp, good colors, but the top of the tower is larger than the bottom like if you try to correct perspective distrotion and you correct it too much. --Croucrou 12:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
    • If you correct it I will support It --Croucrou 19:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, perspective correction too strong (not much), slight barrel distortion not corrected. Otherwise very good! -- Smial 15:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Morpho peleides (6).jpg edit

  • Nomination: Morpho sp. --ComputerHotline 16:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Review  Support nice --Mbdortmund 21:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose Should be identified to species, especially coming from a butterfly garden! Lycaon 21:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC) ---- There are some morpho sp. in this butterfly garden. --ComputerHotline 18:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 Support Good colour depth, nice framing. --Pymouss 16:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose Missing ID prevents QI. "Morpho" is genus, not species. And even this is missing in description field. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 CommentIs nobody able to find out the species, the pictures are really good. --Mbdortmund 00:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Johannes Robalotoff 21:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Heliconiinae_sp_(5).jpg edit

  • Nomination Heliconiinae sp. --ComputerHotline 16:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support good --Mbdortmund 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fails proper id. Especially coming from a butterfly-garden. Lycaon 21:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good colour depth, nice framing. --Pymouss 16:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Missing proper id. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose missing id --Ianare 05:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ianare 05:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Trifolium repens 0522.jpg edit

 Comment Because I made a mistake in id, I cancel nomination.Please delete this photograph --池田正樹 14:56 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Mbdortmund 13:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wuppertal-100522-13399-Tasto.jpg edit

  • Nomination Fountain in Wuppertal --Tasto 16:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Interessante Szene, überdurschnittliche Qualität, toll --Carschten 17:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose Subject is cropped. --Berthold Werner 06:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose I like the subject, but disagree with the angle of view. Maybe a symmetrical (front) view could permit to avoid a part of the horrible background. Sorry. --Jebulon 15:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 19:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Rüstkammer, Dresden - tournament armor.jpg edit

  • Nomination Rüstkammer, Dresden - tournament armor --Pudelek 12:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Ok to me. --Cayambe 12:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not sure of the white balance let's discuss about this --Croucrou 11:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I imagine that this kind of photo is very hard to take, but here I see: perspective distortion (look at the door's frame in background); overexposure of the shield and of the horse's head feathers; bad crop IMO(the spotlights above); and a strange light (reflect) above the window. Too much "yellow" too. I'm sorry. --Jebulon 15:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ----Jebulon 15:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Rose 2010-2b.jpg edit

  • Nomination Garden rose cultivar (Rosa canina): 'artsy version' -- Alvesgaspar 12:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The other is better IMO, parts are overexposed, others under. --Ianare 05:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC) -- This was done on purpose and the iluminated parts are not overexposed. May I have another opinion, please? -- Alvesgaspar 13:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Not overexposed (though quite bright). Nice use of light, and more attractive IMO than the other shot, which seems flat in comparison. --Avenue 22:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nor over- neither underexposured, I would say well contrasted. But I disagree with your choice about focus. The shadowed petals in foreground are too unsharp IMO. Sorry--Jebulon 14:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ----Jebulon 14:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Pacri.jpg edit

  • Nomination a closeup of a blue peacock Pavo cristatus male displaying in La Rochelle, France --Jebulon 22:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion looks overexposured / overprocessed --Mbdortmund 04:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)  Comment I don't see overexposure. (Some isolated slightly overexposed pixels still do not have a visual effect.) The unreal impression that made you most likely say "overprocessed" comes from the hard flash light. (Flash fired, see exif information.) I'm unsure if this stands against promotion. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)  Support-not perfect but quite nice composition. --Elekhh 22:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 13:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

File:RO B Sergiy Bubka Davis Cup.jpg edit

  • Nomination Ukrainian tennis player Serhiy BubkaAndrei Stroe 13:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Supportgood --Ianare 06:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose Ball right on the edge, subject originally unsharp and too obviously sharpened/postprocessed. --Eusebius 10:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI, all the postprocessing included a crop and a minor color correction; no sharpening. I can recrop: do you want the ball in or out of the frame?—Andrei S. Talk 13:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO, the (overexposed) ball is a training ball, not the ball he plays with. Therefore, seems to be useless. Furthermore, right arm, and racket, and left foot unsharp (does not add to the dynamic). Sorry.--Jebulon 14:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ----Jebulon 14:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Berndorf Forschungsgut Kremesberg.jpg edit

  • Nomination Kremesberg, an agricultural teaching and research facility, Berndorf --Herzi Pinki 23:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support very nice --Ianare 08:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Neutral --Ianare 03:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photo gives a distorted picture of the house. Compare to satellite image.--Ankara 09:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • yes I was aware of that, I don't think it's necessarily a problem. --Ianare 17:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • IMO potentially misleading and unnecessary distortion. What's the point? But as you pointed out, otherwise a very nice photo.--Ankara 19:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • true that. --Ianare 03:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 21:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

File:St.PankrazenInStambach.jpg edit

  • Nomination Small church St.Pankrazen on Masenberg, Styria --Herzi Pinki 21:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Sorry, very nice view, and composition, but far below 2 Mpixel. -- Smial 01:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC
     Comment sorry, my fault - I've uploaded now the full sized image. --Herzi Pinki 06:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC))
  •  Oppose - Unbalanced composition. I would like to see less space on the left and more on the right, but without that structure. -- Alvesgaspar 18:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice composition --Croucrou 22:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not the compo, but the structures are a real problem.----Jebulon 14:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Oedemeridae sp (1).jpg edit

  • Nomination Oedemeridae sp. --ComputerHotline 08:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 08:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC) --
  •  Oppose - ID missing -- Alvesgaspar 10:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Poor flash lighting, unsharp. -- Alvesgaspar 11:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Ianare 08:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info I've identified it. --ComputerHotline 08:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Actually, if it weren't for the Exif, I wouldn't have been able to tell that the photo was taken using a flash.Andrei Stroe 13:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Croucrou 19:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 14:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Zygoptera sp.jpg edit

  • Nomination 2 Zygoptera sp. --ComputerHotline 08:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood. --Cayambe 09:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC) --
  •  Oppose - Sharpness way below QI standards -- Alvesgaspar 10:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose no ID blurry --Ianare 08:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    •  Info Look the page of the image. --ComputerHotline 08:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • still not sharp, unfortunately --Ianare 18:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 21:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Formel3_Dallara_F308_Wittmann_2010_amk.jpg edit

  • Nomination Formula 3 Euroseries panning shot. --AngMoKio 18:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Unsharp IMO, sorry.--Jebulon 21:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The front part is sharp. The motion blur on the back of the car is sth very typical for panning shots of that angle and adds imho to the dynamic of the pic. --AngMoKio 22:40,
I'm admirative, but not convinced but your argument. I disagree with your opinion about adding to the dynamic sorry. Lets wait other votes.--Jebulon 13:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes there is a small lack of sarpness on the car But that's normal on a panning shots. if AngMokio close the diaph he could have a car sharper but the background wont be so beautiful, and we don't feel the speed. this picture is really good IMO --Croucrou (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the shot is very well done, and I don't consider the slightly unsharp rear end of the car to be a problem. --MichaelBueker 15:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Croucrou 22:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Kanarienvogel Golster Fancy.jpg edit

  • Nomination Domestic Canary --Carschten 18:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Angle of view very unusual. To me very interresting. Be careful his food. --Archaeodontosaurus 07:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose feet cut off --Ianare 07:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree to Ianare --Berthold Werner 07:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Berthold Werner 07:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)