Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 2007

• 
  • Nomination Female African Lion (Panthera leo) at the Toronto Zoo. -- Relic38 22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Light is not good, lion is somehow blending with the wall behind, unfortunate foreground and sharpness is not top notch neither. Sorry. Lycaon 23:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Larus argentatus second winter juvenile, at the military port of Zeebrugge, Belgium. Lycaon 11:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Although at full res not 100% perfect, this IS a great picture, very sharp and vivid, well balanced, nicely lighted and absolutely QI worthy (voor de muggenzifters: vier zwarte puntjes op de kop, spooklijn boven kop en bovenlijf, enige schemering rond de poten). -- MJJR 21:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mountain pass (przełęcz Brona) in Żywiec Beskids, Poland --Pudelek 19:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice view. Is the pole leaning, or is the picture tilted? If the picture is tilted, please correct. -- MJJR 21:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)  Comment pole is leaning --Pudelek 22:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
     Comment Based on the trees in the background, this photo has a CCW tilt that needs correcting. - Relic38 04:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)  Comment I think the trees may be tilted for the same reason the sign is tilted and there's snow stuck to only one side of the pole. Calibas 04:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Comment
    new version -Pudelek 09:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
     Comment I noticed that the rotated image became less sharp. I tried rotating the original myself in Photoshop and it retained the sharpness. See here: . - Relic38 14:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    now is edited version - Pudelek 14:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Great Blue Heron - Acarpentier 13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Too dark really. Lycaon 15:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Cathedral Virgin Mary--Beyond silence 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Dolphins (delphinidae) at Loro Parque Dolphinarium. Updated version to address Lestat's comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice composition, focus, DOF and resolution. Even more so given that it is a moving subject in mid-fly. Luis Dantas 23:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mountain pass (przełęcz Brona) in Żywiec Beskids, Poland --Pudelek 19:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very nice snow view (is it already snowing in Poland?!). -- MJJR 21:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
     Comment yes, 1400 m above sea level :) --Pudelek 22:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Masked owl Benjamint 13:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion The wow might actually sound more like 'cute' in real life, but here I type wow. -- carol 05:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Former wall redesigned as decorative arcades. Będzin Castle, Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion As disturbing an image as the whales and far more interesting. It will be nice to have this photograph when the description at wikipedia catches up. -- carol 06:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A dolphin (delphinidae) at Loro Parque Dolphinarium.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion photo good for QI --Pudelek 19:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sunk boat in Pontedeume, Galicia, Spain. --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 20:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion The sunny parts of the buildings in the background are slightly overexposed, but in general it's a good picture. -- MJJR 21:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A HŽ DMU (RegioSwinger) --Orlovic (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline I like the subject and composition, but the picture lacks contrast and saturation. -- MJJR 21:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Seal (Otariidae) in Loro Parque. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline poor composition --Pudelek 19:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination one of the typical yellow-painted arrows that mark all the pilgrimage ways to Santiago de Compostela --Aracuano^talk 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good detail. Perhaps you can crop the picture a little bit more at the left side? -- MJJR 21:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A leaf-cutter bee (Anthidium florentium) collecting nectar form a Lantana camara flower - Alvesgaspar 00:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice. Calibas 04:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Lizard (Sauria), shot in august 2007 on Belosarayskaya kosa --Butko 13:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Unfortunate point of view, the reptile seems to have no back legs, or no tail. Also, the species (or at least the genus) should be identified - Alvesgaspar 17:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hibiscus tea. --Butko 12:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Overexposed top right and several other locations, very hard contrast due to suboptimal lighting angle, focus problems (dof or artist's intent?) in image corners --JDrewes 13:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Granular сoffee. --Butko 12:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Focused only in the center and the bottom right. Field curvature or dof? Lighting better than the other two, mainly due to the more forgiving surface structure of the target --JDrewes 13:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination kokeicha - japanese tea. --Butko 12:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Lighting a bit strange, strong ca/glaring at image corners (top right), dof issue top left, very hard lighting. Maybe you can take those images form further away with better overall sharpness (not using such a wide angle)? --JDrewes 13:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination pretty big image of the only 2 cm small "Smooth Newt". Fabelfroh
  • Decline Most of the animal is out of focus. Poor exposure solution? - Alvesgaspar 18:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Furka- and Grimselpass, Switzerland.--Simonizer 20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice quality and sharpness though I would prefer a little more light and intensity in the greens. But I suppose that couldn't be done with the available light. Good composition, as usual. Alvesgaspar 18:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hypera zoilus Attend the size of 6-7 mm --Richard Bartz 13:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion His back end is blurry but the front end is so sharp. I don't want to accidentally step on this one, which is also clear in this photograph. - carol 05:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dried apricots --Butko 05:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice, shiney colors, ok sharpness.--JDrewes 13:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A female Eristalis tenax (drone-fly) profiting from a sunny October.Notice the hairy eyes. - Alvesgaspar 10:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion While this is not the finest of your images, it is still easily QI for me. You are spoiling me... --JDrewes 13:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A statue of the van Eyck brothers. –Dilaudid 10:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Unfortunate crop. Lycaon 07:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)  Comment Any suggestion as to how to improve it? –Dilaudid 21:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC) --If you're shooting with a 50mm prime, you'll have to take a couple of shots and stitch them, or you can use a wider angle lens. Dori - Talk 00:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Head of a female Volucella zonaria, one of the largest and most beautiful hoverflies in Europe - Alvesgaspar 22:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very good. Colors are wow. Acarpentier 00:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Orcas (Orcinus orca) at Loro Parque.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Bad crop left and right. - Till 15:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
     Comment the crop is bad, but I love this photograph. It is as disturbing and wrong of an image as the one of the dog that had been shot. Is there a way to fix the crop or another similar image in that set? -- carol 07:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The famous Leaning Tower, part of the Santa Maria Assunta Cathedral in Pisa, Italy. Please note that the camera was carefully leveled (using a water-level) since in this case you cannot use the building as a measure :-) --JDrewes 13:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline There is banding and posterization from the light source on the right, the detail is somewhat lacking (even for a night shot), and the people ghosting on the left is disturbing. Dori - Talk 03:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Baptistery, part of the Santa Maria Assunta Cathedral in Pisa, Italy. Please note that the camera was carefully leveled (using a water-level) in this image, too, since in Pisa the Tower isn't the only tilted building :-) --JDrewes 13:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good work. -- MJJR 21:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• * Nomination Michail Timofejewitsch Kalaschnikow @ Izhevsk --Richard Bartz 12:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC) * Promotion I like the picture. I think it should be "statue of..." though ;-) --JDrewes 13:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Nomination Michail Timofejewitsch Kalaschnikow @ Izhevsk --Richard Bartz 12:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion I like the picture. I think it should be "statue of..." though ;-) --JDrewes 13:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Great Blue Heron Wing View. --Acarpentier 02:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion A bit dark, but very good detail. Dori - Talk 03:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Montreal St-Joseph Oratory. --Acarpentier 01:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Too (much) dark (parts), really. Might be saved by a substantial crop. Noise levels are quite low however. Lycaon 05:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC) - Thanks for review, I'll go there again and try for a HDR. ;) Acarpentier 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC) -I don't think you need HDR, just don't go so late, go right after sunset. Dori - Talk 00:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Pontiac Pathfinder 1953 Hood Acarpentier 01:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline The hood is severely cut off so composition-wise is a no go. Dori - Talk 03:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A male hoverfly (Eristalinus taeniops) collecting nectar from a yellow hawkweed flower. I'm nominating this one just for aesthetical reasons, but I'll understand if the reviewers can't stand more flies... Alvesgaspar 20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion You'll know we can't stand more fly pictures when we stop promoting them. ;) Calibas 22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Caterpillar D10N bulldozer at work. MathKnight 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Poorly aligned and distracting border, lack of detail in individual images (the resolution just doesn't cut it), and stacking doesn't serve to illustrate anything particular. Thegreenj 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A beautiful bee-fly of the Bombyliidae family (Villa sp.), so-called for the furry appearance - Alvesgaspar 10:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Great, good composition, sharp. Acarpentier 20:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Re-nomination (stitching errors fixed): View of Saint Peter's Square, Rome. Panorama of 4 exposures. - Till 17:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice shot. Issues addressed. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 07:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Silesian Beskids. --Lestat 20:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Not really a "wow" picture, but a nice view of decent quality. -- MJJR 20:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Broken Killdeer egg with dead hatchling in background. --♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 04:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Insufficient DOF. Lycaon 06:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A vizcacha in the Sur Lipez desert, Bolivia. --Nattfodd 23:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion QI for me. Lycaon 06:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Svyato Mihailovsky Cathedral Izhevsk Russia --Richard Bartz 21:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion good for IQ -- Pudelek 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A HŽ electric loco --Orlovic (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Somewhat flat and cluttered, lacking contrast. Also it isn't straight. –Dilaudid 21:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Phasia hemiptera --Richard Bartz 13:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good colours, sharp. Lycaon 16:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hyloicus pinastri Caterpillar --Richard Bartz 13:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very sharp, focus, colors... Acarpentier 15:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Maize for popcorn, cultivated in Hungary, producer UNO FRESCO TRADEX--Butko 05:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Could you say something about the variety of maize? Lycaon 05:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)  Info I don't know about variety, but I add information about origin --Butko 05:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Nice light and detail.--Beyond silence 10:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Cathedral Virgin Mary--Beyond silence 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Crowded and cut tourists. Lycaon 07:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sunflower from Silesia (Helianthus L) -- Pudelek 16:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Qi for sure --Thermos 15:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Great Blue Heron--Acarpentier 23:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion For motion control --Thermos 15:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Electromagnetic Spectrum, showing examples of the scale of the wavelength. --Inductiveload 21:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Comment Isn't the pl. of Butterfly "Butterflies"? --JDrewes 23:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed it is. Sorry, stupid mistake. Inductiveload 23:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC) - This is a very well done diagram, though it is oversimplified. Is there any way to show that bodies with a certain temperature don't emit only at a single wavelength? I also suggest to insert "degrees Kelvin" or "absolute temperature" in the temperature scale . Alvesgaspar 08:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    I changed the wording and added a Celcius scale to the temperature (it was already in K). I didn't think it was a good idea to convert 10000000K into exact C, because that implies precision that just doesn't exist in the diagram (but I reckon 273 is significant difference out of 10000). New version is at this temporary location. Inductiveload 18:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC) - Excellent, a good candidate for other flights... Alvesgaspar 19:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Opole (Oppeln) - Cathedral and city wall -- Pudelek 19:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Too much wall, unfortunate perspective, noise. Lycaon 07:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Opole (Oppeln) - Cathedral and hotel "Piast" on the Oder river - Pudelek 19:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Perspective, quite noisy. Lycaon 07:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Cathedral of Strasbourg. Great colours & details, original composition Absolutecars 22:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Rice --Butko 05:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice light and detail.--Beyond silence 10:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination "Duda Lasø", a 45 year old former police ship anchored in Upernvaik harbour, Greenland. -- Slaunger 21:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Sorry: subject not sharp enough for QIAcarpentier 01:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Old car in a field near Star Valley in Wyoming --Flicka 20:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion nice photo! Pudelek 23:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Walls of Dubrovnik--Beyond silence 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline in my opinion - too crowded - Pudelek 23:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Walls of Dubrovnik--Beyond silence 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Bad time of day, harsh light, lacks contrast and graphic elements--Tomascastelazo 01:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Maize by Butko, nom by Lycaon 07:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion I like the colors and composition, better lighting and I'd support this as FP. Calibas 03:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Interior view of Santa Maria in Cosmedin, Rome. HDR image. - Till 19:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline The angle is disturbing; imho the view should be either centered or more to the side. Furthermore, the image doesn't convey a sense of space and the chairs damage the composition. –Dilaudid 21:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Gulf Fritillary Butterfly --Digon3 17:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion I would oppose based on unsharpness of the head again, but the composition is pretty good, so waiting for a second opinion. --Nattfodd 15:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Detail--Beyond silence 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Rhacophorus schlegelii. --Joi 13:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Extremely shallow DOF, especially the unfocused top-of-the-eye(?) is disturbing me. I also see very hard noise artifacts, looks oversharpened. --JDrewes 17:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The old city hall of Marseille, near the Vieux Port, frontal view--JDrewes 12:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Decline CA fringing, cut tourist. Lycaon 06:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination An inflorescense of a flower (Bidens cernua) with great detail and big resolution. Fabelfroh 11:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality, sufficient DOF. Lycaon 18:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination An infructescense of (Orthilia secunda), great resolution. Fabelfroh 14:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline It's somewhat noisy; you could have used a lower ISO sensitivity? –Dilaudid 15:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A group of sleeping Caribbean Flamingos (Phoenicopterus ruber) at the Toronto Zoo. --Relic38 02:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
     Comment Full size fails to load. Please check (or reupload). Lycaon 08:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
     Comment Strange, as it loads for me no problem. It was over 5MB so I've reloaded at 3MB, please try again.
  • Promotion Maybe a dab dark but otherwise great. –Dilaudid 15:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    Now it is OK. Pity it is so obviously in a zoo, it could have been FP otherwise. Lycaon 18:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Fishing in the waves. Foz do Arelho, west coast of Portugal. Improved version of a picture alredy submitted to QIC - Alvesgaspar 00:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice picture. Please remove the unnatural little black dot on the beach at the right of the fishing-line. -- MJJR 20:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC) - Thank you for noticing, that was a dead pixel - Alvesgaspar 21:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View of Saint Peter's Square, Rome. Panorama of 4 exposures. - Till 18:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Nice shot but IMO vertical stiching error. Look at the second statue, starting from the left, on the bridge of the Castel St Angelo. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 21:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
     I withdraw my nomination *sigh* You are right. I already invested a lot of time to fit the four parts together, but I didn't notice this one. - Till 11:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    Sticher is a tough job, I know. Lycaon 19:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Heron fishing. Acarpentier 15:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    Needs location info. Lycaon 15:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC). Done. ;) Acarpentier 03:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
     Comment Amazing shot! But could the vignette be reduced? –Dilaudid 15:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC) -- Sorry I dont understand, a vignette? Acarpentier 16:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Vignetting is not disturbing. QI for me. Lycaon 19:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC) en:Vignetting Calibas 00:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC) - Thanks, I understand now, ;) Acarpentier 01:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination U-Bank Tower in Tel Aviv, with its trident form. MathKnight 09:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Too tight crop, especially on the left; colour noise & artefacts. –Dilaudid 21:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Eastern Grey Squirrel (Sciurus carolinesis). --Acarpentier 02:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    If you took this in Quebec this is most likely an Eastern Grey Squirrel (Sciurus carolinesis) Calibas 03:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    Again, you are right. Correcting. ;) Acarpentier 04:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    Fixed. Acarpentier 03:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Sharp, good composition. - Relic38 22:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination "Dinamismo Olímpico", an sculpture in central Brasília --Luis Dantas 23:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good enough for QI. -- MJJR 20:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Worker honeybee (Apis mellifera) - Alvesgaspar 10:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Amazingly detailed hairs on the bee, albeit the flower seems a bit oversaturated --JDrewes 12:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Neon sign at the Gibson Guitar Showroom in Austin Texas. The picture was taken in March, 2007. Pictured submitted by User:SteveHopson - SRauz 02:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Too small. Lycaon 08:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Overview of the Gothic St. Vitus Cathedral in Praha. MathKnight 13:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Too small. Lycaon 15:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Manneken Pis. –Dilaudid 09:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Not sharp enough. Lycaon 15:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Park in Pławniowice. --Lestat 17:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion The big dark branch in the upper centre is a little bit disturbing, but nevertheless the quality of the picture is QI worthy. -- MJJR 20:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dolphins (delphinidae) at Loro Parque Dolphinarium.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Cap on the first plan disturbing. --Lestat 20:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A Vicuña (a wild cousin to llamas) near Arequipa, Peru. --Nattfodd 16:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion very nice -- Pudelek 21:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination White Duck. --Acarpentier 02:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good detail, I think this is a hybrid between a domestic duck and a native one. Calibas 03:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC) You are probably right, and he is always hanging out with a group of mallard duck. Acarpentier 04:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Oxalis pes-caprae, Israel--MathKnight 18:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Two reasons to decline: the image is too noisy and needs a crop on the flowers. I remeber, as a child, chewing the stems of this plant. We used to call it the "vinegar herb" - Alvesgaspar 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A colourful shield-bug (Nezara viridula) - Alvesgaspar 18:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Too small, really. Lycaon 08:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC) - Sorry, I didn't realize - Alvesgaspar 10:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• * Nomination Hotel and Casino New York New York in Las Vegas --Flicka 15:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC) * Promotion Wonderful composition, some tweaking of the levels might soften up the lighting if you want to nominate this for FP. Calibas 16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Nomination Hotel and Casino New York New York in Las Vegas --Flicka 15:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Wonderful composition, some tweaking of the levels might soften up the lighting if you want to nominate this for FP. Calibas 16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Beautiful hoverfly in the morning sun (Eristalinus taeniops) - Alvesgaspar 08:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice shot, sharp, color Acarpentier 13:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
     Comment Could you geolocate these photographs of flies so that people making travel plans can know where all these flies are and adjust according to personal tastes? -- carol 01:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Beautiful hoverfly in the morning sun (Eristalinus taeniops) - Alvesgaspar 08:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Again also a nice shot, sharp, color Acarpentier 13:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
     Comment Could you geolocate these photographs of flies so that people making travel plans can know where all these flies are and adjust according to personal tastes? -- carol 01:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC) - Sure, Carol, I'll do that. This one was shot in Lisbon, near my house. - Alvesgaspar 10:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger). --Calibas 04:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion really good photo, nice background. Fabelfroh 15:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination An american black duck. A female mallard duck. --Acarpentier 01:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Are you sure on the ID? Kinda looks like a Mallard to me. According to Sibley's Guide American black ducks have an olive beak without a black center, though it could be a hybrid. Just noticed they shouldn't have those white stripes either, pretty sure this is a Mallard. Calibas 03:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC) - You are right, so it's a female Mallard. I'll rename this. Acarpentier 12:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks, now corrected. ;) Acarpentier 13:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC) I love the subtle colors and composition. Calibas 16:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Summit of the Chachani (to the left, seems a bit lower), 6075m high, and Mt Fatima (highest on the photo), the highest of the three volcanoes above Arequipa, Peru, in october 2007. --Nattfodd 19:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice view and detail.--Beyond silence 13:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Buick mid 50's hood ornaments. --Acarpentier 01:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice detail --Thermos 07:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Gulf Fritillary Butterfly --Digon3 17:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline The head of the bug is unsharp and the grass in the foreground is very distractive. --Nattfodd 15:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination An AM receiver built on stripboard. --Inductiveload 23:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good shot, clear view of the circuit. --Nattfodd 15:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination altar of a minister --JuliusR 21:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion IMHO, this shot would meet QI standards if it had categories attached to it and a clearer description. I am not sure about "altar of a minister". Instead of Minster mainly used in the UK, I would suggest the term monastery church (Klosterkirche). Is it the high altar? Any rough idea when the altarpiece was manufactured?--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 07:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC) -Thanks for your review. It is the high altar! I changed the description as you suggested and added a category.--JuliusR 23:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    Prolems solved. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 07:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Cortinarius flexipes --LC-de 12:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good shot though sharpness is borderline. --Nattfodd 15:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hymenocallis speciosa flower. --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 11:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Poor lighting resulting in very few details and overexposition in the center of the flower. Also too high DoF and uninteresting background. --Nattfodd 15:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Canon from Artellery Museum, St. Petersburg #!George Shuklin 15:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Sharp enough, the shadow on the left is a bit disturbing though. --Nattfodd 15:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Balconies on an Auckland apartment block. Self-nom --Ingolfson 09:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Review The sky is too noise, Can you improve?--Beyond silence 06:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Sigh, not really, the original is like that. Unless somebody else has software that can. Ingolfson 13:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Use Gimp, it's free: http://www.gimp.org Calibas 15:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Frombork. --Lestat 17:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Tilt/perspective issues + artefacts/noise in the greens. Lycaon 18:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Zacher insecticide factory (Vienna, Austria). Perspective corrected. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 13:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion A bit awkward format and a bit small, but good quality, so still QI. Lycaon 17:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Detail of the center section of the Palais Longchamp, Marseille, France.--JDrewes 12:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion The tree bothers me a little but not enough to decline. A different crop perhaps? Calibas 03:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A bouquiniste (second hand books reseller) stand, in Paris -- Benh 21:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice shot. Geotagging it would be nice. -Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 13:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
     Done Benh 09:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Cathedral of Strasbourg Absolutecars 22:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Bad perspective. --Lestat 17:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• * Nomination Statues at the beach of Esbjerg (Denmark)--AngMoKio 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC) * Decline Bad crop, overexposed parts. --Lestat 17:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Nomination Statues at the beach of Esbjerg (Denmark)--AngMoKio 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Bad crop, overexposed parts. --Lestat 17:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Euphorbia bulbispina by Eric in SF. Lycaon 20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline In my opinion this should be cropped as a portrait instead of landscape. Calibas 02:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Bad crop. --Lestat 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Slum on the mangrove, in Haiti.. --le Korrigan →bla 18:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Beautiful image. --Nattfodd 13:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination River Kraszna at Mátészalka, Hungary--Szilas 16:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Unsharp, underexposed. --Nattfodd 13:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A tiny (~6mm) hoverfly collecting nectar from a flower (Sphaerophoria scripta) --Alvesgaspar 10:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Fine color balance, focus and overall aestethic effect. Not a small feat for this kind of macro picture.--Luis Dantas 23:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: The Hauraki Gulf with bird wheeling above. Self-nom --Ingolfson 09:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Review May some noise reduction helps.--Beyond silence 18:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Tiny European tree frog by Christian Fischer -- Infrogmation 23:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice shot, sharp, good DOF, colour. - Relic38 00:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Restitch by JaGa of the one below. --Digon3 19:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Good stitch, but perspective is completely wrong now. Lycaon 21:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination great resolution, sharpness and colors. Do you think that this image also qualifies for a featured picture ? Fabelfroh 18:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion I really don't know, some parts of the insect are not perfectly focused. But it is a beatiful picture, good enough to QI - Alvesgaspar 20:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Beautiful compound eyes of an unusual hover fly (Eristalinus taeniops) - Alvesgaspar 10:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Could use a little more DOF but the eyes make the picture. I wonder why they're striped like that. Calibas 21:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination 50 buick hood --Acarpentier 18:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion The spirit of the 50's --Thermos 16:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ultrastructure of a chloroplast--SuperManu ^SuperMessage 09:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice schematic-Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 06:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Masked owlBenjamint 13:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion A QI for sure --Thermos 16:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Nature reserve Hainberg --Simonizer 23:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline CW tilt (see chimney). Lycaon 00:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC) I don't think it minor problem enough to decline. --Beyond silence 13:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    Tilt is easily corrected, and as such always relevant. And BTW, if you don't agree, then move to CR. Lycaon 16:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    No contest forthcoming. Lycaon 05:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Cactus wren perched on a cactus --Carnildo 19:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Size, unsharp. --LC-de 19:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Besides being unidentified (hopefuly that will be corrected soon.) is there anything else that would disqualify it from QI? --Digon3 17:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
     CommentSubject is sharp, however it is underexposed when compared to the background. White flowers can be tricky.- (Relic38 22:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Decline Unfortunate lighting. Lycaon 06:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. during a speech in Urbana, IL. --Dschwen 04:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Great resolution, colors and lightning. Acarpentier 15:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Close up of anther and anther cap of Psychopsis papilio by Mbz1 --Tony Wills 03:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Flash usage is too obvious with specular highlights and the shadow in the lower part of the image. Too bad, because it was sharp and illustrative. --Nattfodd 16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sleeping Caribbean Flamingo (Phoenicopterus ruber) at the Toronto Zoo. --(Relic38 01:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Promotion Beautiful image, would have been perfect without the other flamingo in the lower left corner. Still very QI. --Nattfodd 16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Euphorbia labatii by Eric in SF. Lycaon 20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Strange noise in the background . I'll promote if it's fixed. Calibas 02:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
     Done Lycaon 09:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)What a strange plant. Calibas 17:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Gascon language isoglosses. --Willtron 10:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Sorry but I cannot evaluate a diagram that I don't understand. If the isolines represent the spatial distribution of some variable parameter, how can they cross? - Alvesgaspar 11:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    :Well, I think that is a diferent concept. Isoglosses can be crossed cause every isogloss is independent. For a further information about isoglosses read about it here in wikipedia--Willtron 13:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    What represents the figure roughly ranging from 500-800? Cities, villages? -- Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 13:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    :The numbers between 500 and 800 are small willages --Willtron 15:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    IMHO, these figures overload the schematic. It draws attention out of the main subject: isoglosses of Gascon. I would suggest leaving main cities or villages and remove unnecessary information. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 07:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    :OK, I'll do it and renominate. Thanks --Willtron 13:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    per Alberto Fernandez Fernandez. Lycaon 06:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: A honeybee feeding on nectar (Apis mellifera)- Alvesgaspar 11:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Château de Pourtalès in Strasbourg, France Absolutecars 18:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline I like the original composition, with the shadow in the ground. But the tree at left is so blurred... Alvesgaspar 20:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Overexposed. Sorry If you want renominate a fixed version.--Beyond silence 08:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Pill woodlouse (Armadillidium vulgare) is a common land-living crustacean about 10mm long, with 7 pairs of legs and 14 segments in its body. When disturbed it rolls up in a quite perfect spherical shape (see "other versions" in the image file) - Alvesgaspar 16:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion I find the quality sufficient for QI, A bit bright background maybe. Lycaon 12:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dendrite. by Mbz1 --Tony Wills 03:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Main topic not sharp. Lycaon 06:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Jacksonville Skyline in Florida, USA. --Digon3 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Sorry, the stitching errors and too obvious, even in thumb size -Alvesgaspar 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Jacksonville Skyline in Florida, USA. --Digon3 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline I wanted to promote this one, it looks so nice in thumb size! But then I saw that horizontal stitching error - Alvesgaspar 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    :This is a beautiful pic. Got the originals? Someone would probably fix the stitch for you. I'd like to take a shot at it myself. --JaGa 23:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination beautiful window of a minister --JuliusR 21:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion No problems, nice quality -> QI - Alvesgaspar 21:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Peablue on a flower --Laitche 15:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good picture, nicely detailed. Lycaon 17:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Gascon language isoglosses. Renominated, only main cities --Willtron 15:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good schematic. IMHO, I would add a light frame around it.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 17:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Blue swirly render Benjamint 13:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline No categorization, no date, no explanations how it was done. Alvesgaspar 22:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)  Oppose Sorry, but I don't see any value on this other than for using as a background Dori - Talk 22:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sleeping grass - Mimosa pudica by Eric in SF. Lycaon 20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Sharp, good colour, composition, very good overall. - (Relic38 01:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC))
• 
  • Nomination European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) --LC-de 21:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion It would benefit from a higher F, but it's good enough as it is. Adamantios 13:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: A tiny (~6mm) hoverfly collecting nectar from a flower (Sphaerophoria scripta) - Alvesgaspar 10:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Mergus Merganser sideview --Richard Bartz 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Great photo. Good color even if it seem to be taked while a cloudy day. Acarpentier 15:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Diffraction of a planar wave through a narrow slit. Too simple? --Inductiveload 21:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Simple is beautiful, but please insert a white (or coloured) background - Alvesgaspar 22:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    :Done Inductiveload 00:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ham antenna tuning unit (come on, its not so boring :) Adamantios 21:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Noisy and overexposed (tops of screws, washers, capacitors, etc). Sorry. Inductiveload 21:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Scan of the intro pages of s:en:Public School History of England and Canada, featuring map of England and Wales circa 1892. Self-scanned. Doodledoo 15:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks like a nice quality scan, though the colours seem a bit washed out (but maybe they are just like that). What I don't understand is the need for such a big image, a little larger than the original book should be enough - Alvesgaspar 22:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC) I tried a smaller version but the text in the map was quite blurred and impossible to read - I do agree that it could be smaller, but my photo software is *terrible* at compressing images... if anyone wanted to make a better, smaller version, that would be awesome. Doodledoo 23:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    A nice scan - also shows off the hatching shading used by the printers at the time, and even the composition of the paper. In this case, I think the bigger the better. Inductiveload 00:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hymenocallis speciosa flower-- Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline White flowers are always difficult. Flower is sharp and background is good, but too overexposed for QI. Sorry. - (Relic38 01:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
• 
  • Nomination Boa constrictor constrictor or red tail boa constrictor Gnangarra 15:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline nothing in focus. Lycaon 16:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC) suggest you nominate it for deletion then Gnangarra 16:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    What? The focus is a tiny bit in front of the snake, but that doesn't keep it from being a perfectly usable picture. w:WP:POINT? Thegreenj 18:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: A daughter of Pyrrha, sculpture by Lorado Taft in front of the Graduate Library at UIUC. Dori - Talk 03:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Another daughter of Pyrrha, sculpture by Lorado Taft in front of the Graduate Library at UIUC. Dori - Talk 03:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Copernicus monument in Chorzów (Upper Silesia) -- Pudelek 22:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Please sign your contribution. -- MJJR 20:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    May overexposed, can you improve?--Beyond silence 06:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    Borderline case QI. I miss some sharpness for a fixed object. Just makes the cut. Lycaon 16:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Basilica of Koekelberg - new version--Szilas 12:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Significant amount of noise. --Leafnode 13:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC) I'd adjust the levels, sharpen slightly and downsample. This is a QI, just needs some work. Calibas 03:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks, Calibas, I uploaded this new version according to your proposals.--Szilas 04:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Too noisy, lack of sharpness and also needs a slight perspective correction. Lycaon 16:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Blacksmith Plover, Vanellus armatus, on its nest. —JerryFriedman 23:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline not sharp. Lycaon 00:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A reproduction I’ve made of a Leonardo da Vinci profile. --Acarpentier 14:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline It is not possible to evaluate the reproduction without showing the original. Anyway, the drawing technique seems quite different from Leonardo's - Alvesgaspar 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC) To be honest, I would never be able to compete on that side and made this drawing 10 years ago. But I was submitting for the QI of the capture, is it ok or we evaluate on the drawing here?-- Acarpentier 00:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    Was the paper pink??? Lycaon 00:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    No you were right, I've corrected it and replaced it.Acarpentier 01:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC) -- Decline: I'm sure this drawing is quite valuable for yourself but can we say the same regarding the Wikimedia community? - Alvesgaspar 11:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)You are right. I was wondering what would append with this one. Tanks ;) Acarpentier 11:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A schematic diagram of the portion of a PHW CANDU nuclear reactor inside the containment building. --Inductiveload 14:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very good schematic that incorporates previous remarks. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 15:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Brown Falcon Benjamint 12:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Great details, sharpeness. Impressive. Bravo. Acarpentier 14:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Belgian Air Force Sea King RS01 helicopter on a practice mission. Photograph taken at sea from the RV Belgica. Lycaon 08:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very good quality, but feeling of motion suffers from the extreme crop - Alvesgaspar 17:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Beach of Tenerife in sundown; footprints in the sand.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Extensive blown highlights in the sea, trivial composition - Alvesgaspar 17:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Firewood with some gun pillet's --Acarpentier 03:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good DOF and good exposure. Inductiveload 14:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Indian Rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis) at the Metro Toronto Zoo. -- (Relic38 03:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Promotion Good and detailed. There is some motion blur but that helps giving the sensation that the animal is moving. Pity about the fence but I suppose it is unavoidable - Alvesgaspar 08:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Penguin in Loro Parque; close-up.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline no id. Lycaon 21:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination pretty composition Absolutecars 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline tilt. Lycaon 16:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Rainbow Lorikeets, top and tail --Cygnis insignis 14:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Acceptable quality, good composition, nice colours. Lycaon 17:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A begonia in a moody light. Dori - Talk 14:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Missing species id. Lycaon 16:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hammerfest twilight shot with rising moon. --Andiinthehouse 13:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Noisy, no discernible details. Lycaon 08:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination After the beauty here is the beast. A flesh-fly of the Sarcophagidae family (Sarcophaga sp.) sucking some fluid with its mop-like mouth part - Alvesgaspar 11:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Needs better sharpness. Because of the small size, resampling is not an option here. Lycaon 08:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A bumblebee feeding on nectar (Bombus terrestris) - Alvesgaspar 11:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good detail, and composition, flash created some minor harsh lighting. - (Relic38 03:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
• 
  • Nomination Two of the three most important objects on Ribnitz' market place: fountain and church. --rimshot 15:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment I have the feeling that the picture is tilted --Richard Bartz 18:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)  Question Better now? The perspective was slightly over-corrected on the first version. --rimshot 15:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    Promote looks great now. Morven 12:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Loco --Orlovic (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion If you wanted to illustrate the whole train this might be OK, but the locomotive is too small to count as a clear main subject. --Florian Prischl 14:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Pardon, new description: loco with tank cars --Orlovic (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Promote seems good to me. Morven 12:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Montreal, Canal de Lachine. --Acarpentier 03:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice sharpness, composition. Calibas 06:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dogrose Khachmaz region.-- Abasov 19:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)xinaliq.az
  • Decline I suppose the subject of the picture is the rose bud. But the bud is too small and overexposed, and the image is cluttered with foreign elements. Please go first to Photography critiques to get some advice - Alvesgaspar 20:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Malva sylvestris var. mauritiana --♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline What a shame, the composition is very nice but the image is blurry! Can you go back there and take another shot with a correct exposure solution (lower speed and higher F number), so that a larger DOF is possible? - Alvesgaspar 20:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC) --Unfortunately, the Malva is back home in Canada; I won't be returning until Christmas. Oh well, no biggie (I should mention I know nothing about taking photographs; I just luck out with a good one every once and a while.)
• 
  • Nomination Recently shot Grønlandshund in Upernavik, Greenland. See image page for details. -- Slaunger 12:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Poor doggie, good picture though and very poignant. Calibas 06:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination a big and detailed photo of a rare plant with its fruits. Fabelfroh 11:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good species pic. Lycaon 23:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A difficult one: panoramic view of Sitges from the breakwater of the beach La Ribera (Spain). - Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 15:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion  CommentYou need to straighten the horizon in the left part of the photo - all buildings and trees lean to the right in that area - quite distracting IMO. -- Slaunger 18:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    That's better, but now the horizon of the sea to the right is not horizontal. Needs a little CW correction. Add some horizontal control points if your sw allows that. The image is not thaat sharp. Especially the palm leaves. Motion blur or stitching errors? -- Slaunger 09:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    OK. Better now. How about the noise in the sky, could you get rid of some of it - perhaps downsample a little? -- Slaunger 13:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    Issues resolved. -- Slaunger 14:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Powerline towers. Vassil 21:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Too noise, sorry. --Beyond silence 12:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Palais du Rhin in Strasbourg, France Absolutecars 18:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good enough compostion and nice quality. What I don't like is the symmetrical foreground - Alvesgaspar 20:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Aquila chrysaetos frontal view --Richard Bartz 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Focus is on grass not on eagle eye, background colors and tones too similar to subject color. This one loses on comparison with your other great shots. --LucaG 21:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)For a fair review you should compare it with this :) --Richard Bartz 13:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    * Yes I did. To me it's too soft compared with this and this ;) More seriously, your picture is very good but the eagle is a little too soft and confused with the background IMHO. --LucaG 21:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Sharp.--Beyond silence 21:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Aquila chrysaetos another close up --Richard Bartz 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion I like everything but the crop, is it possible to shift it to the right? Calibas 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC) This is the only version i have --Richard Bartz 13:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Sharp, composition.--Beyond silence 21:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Gypaetus barbatus closeup --Richard Bartz 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Scary fellow, excellent quality - Alvesgaspar 20:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Fuligo septica, a slime mould, with a track of its mobile phase. --LC-de 08:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Overexpd. --Beyond silence 21:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination flowers of Common Foxglove (Digitalis purpurea) --LC-de 08:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Near acceptable detail for me. --Beyond silence 21:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Salvinia auriculata in Pantanal, Brazil. -- Mateus Hidalgo 04:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Salvinia auriculata in Pantanal, Brazil. -- Mateus Hidalgo 04:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Glacier of Argentière, French Alps -- Benh 20:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Surreal. Too bad it wasn't a clearer day. Calibas 23:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Floodgate in Békés --Beyond silence 20:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Sharp enough, nicely lit, I like it Morven 21:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A dead brown rat injured such that it is bleeding through its mouth--Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Distravting bacgr., plastic object, uncategorized --Orlovic (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC) - Irrelevant and uninteresting - Alvesgaspar 23:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination St Paul's Cathedral and Millenium Bridge from the Thames riverside, London. --Nattfodd 14:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion I remember having seen it at FPC, and was a bit sad it didn't get featured... Benh 20:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign, sorry)
• 
  • Nomination A Vizcacha in the Atacama desert, Chile --Nattfodd 14:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline I'd like to support, but a bit blurry at full suze... due to shake ? Maybt it can be saved by appropriate postprocessing Benh 20:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)  Comment too deep DOF -> animal blends into background --Leafnode 09:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Workers dismantling a construction crane.JPG Ben Aveling 13:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Lack of a proper subject or of a clear view of what the people are doing. Also a pretty heavy color aberration (purple fringe). --Nattfodd 14:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dismantling a construction crane.JPG Ben Aveling 13:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Chromatic aberrations (purple etc. fringing) visible, and the crane appears out of focus; cars in foreground appear to be in focus instead. Morven 21:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Copernicus monument in Chorzów (Upper Silesia) and his fan ;) -- Pudelek 20:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Men on the right destroy composition. --Lestat 16:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Tree Dragon Benjamint 12:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion sharp --Beyond silence 21:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Langley Aerodrome - an old aircraft from the turn of 19th and 20th centuries. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Somebody declined this picture without giving a reason and without signing; as this is unacceptable, I changed the status again to 'Nomination'. -- MJJR 20:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    Decline; image is out of focus for practically the whole airframe, and the background is very distracting. Morven 21:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Fireworks --AngMoKio 19:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion What about a version with the fireworks centered? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC) I am not a fan of centred compositions. It was meant to be like that. --AngMoKio 12:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Good composition, not too noisy. For me QI --Lestat 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Pearlbush (Exochorda racemosa). -- Ram-Man 03:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Insufficiently distinct from background, which dominates the subject. Morven 21:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: A ringed-billed gull --Fcb981 22:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Review To quote Sibley's guide, "Gull identification represents one of the most challenging and subjective puzzles in birding ... some species go through as many as eight different plumage stages". Are you sure this is a ring-billed gull? This looks like a young gull and there are many species throughout North America that have black rings when young. Calibas 01:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    I'm pretty damn sure, I could be wrong but the plumage looks right for a Ring-billed as well. Not that I am any kind of gull expert -Fcb981 01:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Boulders in top of Spruce Knob mountain in West Virginia, USA -- Jarekt 21:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline very noisy and exposure issues. Lycaon 10:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    As per Lycaon with some composition problems too, that make for a pretty dull shot. --Nattfodd 14:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hovering hoverfly (Xantogramma pedissequum). I've been chasing these little fellows for a long time, with poor results. This is the best I could do after dozens of shots -Alvesgaspar 12:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Sharp enough, clean shot with an original subject. --Nattfodd 14:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Crystal Formations. --Digon3 00:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion It is really big and really sharp but the total white background is weird. Transparent background would be better maybe. Was the original background so terrible? -- carol 07:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC) I own the rock so the original backgound was two white pieces of paper. I usally remove the backgrounds of my rock and shell macro photos. --Digon3 12:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Well sized, sharp image, and the white background isn't enough for refusing QI, though a small soft shadow would have helped make it look less artificial. --Nattfodd 14:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A small hoverfly feeding in the sun (Episyrphus balteatus) - Alvesgaspar 09:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality and a great thought-out composition. --AngMoKio 12:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Brown rat showing the underside --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 19:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Overexposed, unsharp. Dori - Talk 02:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Aquila chrysaetos close up --Richard Bartz 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very good composition, excellent colors. I'd like a little more DOF (soft beak) but sure enough for QI. --LucaG 21:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Gypaetus barbatus frontal view --Richard Bartz 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Is it real? Perfect background, good DOF. Richard you are ColorFreak now! --LucaG 21:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Gypaetus barbatus another closeup --Richard Bartz 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Visual and technical both excellent, your works always impress me. Acarpentier 16:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination La magie des lanternes from the Jardin botanique de Montreal --Acarpentier 17:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Underexposed, I'm afraid the nice colors don't make up for it. Dori - Talk 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)  Question I have adjusted the contract of the image and some other setting, in reality it is more exposed that it apear here, do you think I can upload a new version? And will I have to re-submit? Acarpentier 11:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC) --In my opinion there isn't much in the photo for a night shot QI. You can of course upload new versions and/or request consensual review. Dori - Talk 17:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC) -- No I think you are right, it's not really valuable too. ;) Thanks for your review. Acarpentier 20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Paperbark Maple by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT. -- Ram-Man 13:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion It just meets the size requirements but is sharp enough for the size. Thegreenj 02:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Tree Dragon close up, this one isn't sharpened :) --Benjamint 04:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice! Calibas 01:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Composition is so so but quality is very good --Richard Bartz 15:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Crow searching food from wastebag, Helsinki, Finland --Thermos 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Would have promoted if not for shadow at the back, but not distracting enough that I would decline it. - YooChung 00:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Underexposed. - Till 10:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Remains of the old spa in Hell-Bourg. Self-nom --Ingolfson 09:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Sorry, doesn't meet minimum size requirements --LC-de 09:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View into Milford Sound area from Homer Saddle. Self-nom --Ingolfson 09:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Very nice view but very unsharp too. Sorry, no QI --LC-de 09:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Inside the Funk/ACES library at UIUC. Dori - Talk 03:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion You have an excellent eye for composition, wonderful shot. Calibas
• 
  • Nomination Manly Beacon and Red Cathedral viewed from Zabriskie Point, Death Valley. --LucaG 20:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Un altra imagine incredibile da Luca. Dori - Talk 02:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Los Christianos or Playa de las Américas, Tenerife. Interesting colors at sundawn.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Very noisy and unsharp. I regret, but this is really not a QI. -- MJJR 20:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Pelecanidae in Loro Parque, nice reflection in the water.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Good composition, but eneven lighting. Dori - Talk 03:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A Katydid (Tettigoniidae) in a suburban setting. --♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 18:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion The DOF could be a bit wider, but still QI IMO. Dori - Talk 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Shaggy Ink Cap (Coprinus comatus) --LC-de 17:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Some small parts are overexposed, but otherwise very nice picture: good composition, colors and sharpness. -- MJJR 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination New version: panoramic view of the Schneeberg. Previous oversharpened version can be found here [1] - Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 13:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice picture, now technically good enough for QI -- Pudelek 20:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hight Tatras seen from Malolaczniak (Poland) --Leafnode 06:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice view, technically good enough for QI. -- MJJR 20:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Seesaw Thegreenj 03:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Sorry, this is not a photo of a seesaw. It's a photo of some blue metal thingy. --Leafnode 05:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
     CommentI'm afraid I don't understand your decline. Composition? Thegreenj 14:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)  Comment Yup. Extreme closeup with short DoF makes that I don't know what the subject is. I see only piece of metal with chipped off blue paint. --Leafnode 07:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A female paper wasp taking a sunbath (Polistes sp.) - Alvesgaspar 18:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice macro. Thegreenj 19:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Fortified church in Brensbach/Wersau --Reiner Müller 18:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Uneven lighting, and overloaded composition. Dori - Talk 03:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The park of the Basilica of Koekelberg in autumn morning light--Szilas 16:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Not enough light, and the fog isn't so prevalent as to enhance the composition. Dori - Talk 03:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Well worn snout of Porcellino of Florence --Thermos 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Decline The lighting isn't very good resulting in poor detail. Dori - Talk 03:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) caterpillar. -- Ram-Man 03:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very nice. Thegreenj 15:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Chicken (hen) Thegreenj 03:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Technically fine, interesting composition --Leafnode 07:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Trichopoda pennipes, a gorgeous fly of the Tachinidae family. Neotropical species, now established in Europe but still not common. A lucky catch, really -Alvesgaspar 20:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks like there's some slight camera shake but nice focus on the fly and wonderful colors. Calibas 01:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Today I feel like making difficult nominations. Yes, this is just a sunset and all sunsets are pretty but I believe this one has a nice quality too - Alvesgaspar 18:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment I think it's slighly tilted CW, but maybe it's only my imagination, because left part of horizon is in shadow. Tell me that I'm wrong and I'll promote this picture :) --Leafnode 07:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC) - There was indeed a slight cw tilt of about 0.6º, as well as some barrel distortion caused by the lens. The tilt was corrected - Alvesgaspar 07:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)  Support Promoted. I think that it's well made photo of difficult subject - it's hard to make technically proper photo of a sunset --Leafnode 07:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Today I feel like making difficult nominations. A very unusual and beautiful midge, a Drain fly (Clogmia albipunctata). Yes, the size is small but so it is the fly (about 4 or 5 mm long) - Alvesgaspar 18:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Difficult nomination, indeed. For something that small, perhaps it is alright for the resolution to be a bit under, but with that size, it really is too oversharpened and lacking in detail to promote. Thegreenj 01:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)  Info - Not oversharpened, maybe overcontrasted by the use of flash. As for the detail, I think that it is just not possible to do much better without a better lens and lighting - Alvesgaspar 07:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination University of Silesia - Faculty of Law and Administration --Lestat 17:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Cool building and good picture to boot (I apologize to those who don't know English idioms very well but I love using them). Calibas 01:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Titicus Reservoir, part of NYC water supply system --Daniel Case 14:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline It's a bit crooked. Calibas 01:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)  Oppose Terrible quality! Noise, artifacts, oversharpening, tilted horizon - collection of faults --Leafnode 07:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Monocot flower --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 13:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good clear picture, well exposed. --MichaelMaggs 19:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dar es salaam beach overlooking the Indian ocean --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 13:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Tilted, unsharp --Leafnode 07:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Scrub wren, not singing this time, but slightly better quality and better enc, I think--Benjamint 09:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Acceptable quality, though size on the limit. Lycaon 13:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Brown hare, quite a steep hill in the bg... Benjamint 09:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Poor cropping. Lycaon 13:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The basic operation of a CANDU Reactor -- Inductiveload 08:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline - IMHO, one very important functional element is missing: the nuclear fuel loading machine (see for ex. [2]). CANDU reactors were designed to allow fuel rods to be changed without shutting down (as in RBMK reactors). - Problems with colors. Green is used for concrete (reactor building or radiation shield?) and Zircalloy (pressure tubes).
    - What do you think about adding the secondary circuit to show that generated steam goes to a turbine to produce electricity. (see for ex. [3] or [4]). If not, I would suggest the words "steam" and "water" instead of their symbol.
    - IMO, the reactor building (radiation shield) could removed in this schematic (see for ex. ). Ready to help you with that. -Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 16:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Opole (Upper Silesia). Park, bank and town hall -- Pudelek 21:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Composition is too crowded for my tastes. Calibas 03:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Milkweed Tussock Moth (Euchaetes egle). -- Ram-Man 03:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Reasonably sharp and illustrates subject, but colors look washed out. May need to adjust levels. --YooChung 01:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Oregon convention center in Portland OR USA --Fcb981 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Clean, sharp image at nighttime. - YooChung 17:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A firtree in Khachmaz.--xinaliq.azAbasov 20:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline No identification. Lycaon 10:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination One of two Litchfield Towers of University of Pittsburgh. Note: my first photo edited with GIMP (to remove encroaching building, see File:Litchfield Towers 02.JPG for old version. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • WARNING: third template parameter added – please remove.
• 
  • Nomination Damselfly in Autumn --Laitche 16:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good detail and you really nailed the focus plane. Calibas 19:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mules on South Kaibab trail, Grand Canyon. --LucaG 15:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Great image!--Mbz1 16:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A driving DTM racing car --AngMoKio 19:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Hard subject, good shot. Is there a kid driving this car ? --Richard Bartz 21:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC) The kid sits on the laps of the driver (Jean Alesi). But the car had a high speed..lucky kid. --AngMoKio 08:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Can you please add this to the image description, thanks --Richard Bartz 11:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Done. --AngMoKio 12:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Basilica of Koekelberg in autumn morning light--Szilas 16:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Underexposed, unsharp. Lycaon 10:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). -- Ram-Man 03:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Can you crop this so that it is mostly the hawk in the frame? That face has such an attitude but for me it gets lost in the foliage. -- carol 04:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Topic too small with unfortunate background and lighting. Lycaon 11:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). -- Ram-Man 03:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Topic too small with unfortunate background and lighting. Lycaon 11:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Camera Kodak Pocket Instamatic 200 ---- Mateus Hidalgo 04:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline The lighting is not very good, and in a controlled environment it should be. There is also noise as a result in the underexposed areas. Dori - Talk 05:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Form of marchal(?) of artillery of USSR army (Odintsov), form artellery museum. #!George Shuklin 21:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good lighting and detail, QI. Dori - Talk 05:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Brown Hare with about 30px more at the top than last time--Benjamint 12:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion The crop is still tight, but there is really good detail and lighting that make it QI in my opinion. Dori - Talk 05:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Great Egret (Ardea alba). --Calibas 03:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good exposure, sharp. -- (Relic38 00:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
• 
  • Nomination Pearlbush (Exochorda racemosa). -- Ram-Man 03:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline It's not bad, but not sharp enough IMO (I don't believe this shows all the details a similar shot could). Benh 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Morning Glory flower. -- Ram-Man 03:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Despite the shallow DOF (and my non knowledge about this plant), I think enough relevant details are in focus. I like the colours also :) Benh 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) caterpillar. -- Ram-Man 03:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Wow ! I'd like to nominate it at FPC... wonder if it has chances (to me yes). Benh 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A bay checkerspot butterfly --Fcb981 22:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Can we get a larger version? There's a 2 megapixel requirement for QI. Calibas 01:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    oops, forgot about that one, not really anyway to get a larger one -Fcb981 01:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Ineligable. Thegreenj 14:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Stained glasses of cathedral of Metz, France -- Benh 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion High detail for QI. --Beyond silence 19:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Oktoberfest is a two-week festival held each year in Munich, Bavaria, Germany during late September and early October. It is one of the most famous events in the city and the world's largest fair, with some six million people attending every year. --Richard Bartz 16:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good good sir. Very sharp (and surprisingly some noise in dark areas ???) and very nice composition. Benh 22:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Polished Petrified Wood. --Digon3 22:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline I find the absence of a shadow disturbing since there is light on the subject. Can something be done about that? -- carol 06:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    *I agree with carol and would like to add that the background is especially disturbing the subject where it is transparent (yes, this happends with every background, but maybe a black background will still take away less attention from the subject). I also think the description should contain measurements and specifications on the piece, because from the photo it is hard to judge its size and impossible to tell where it came from, etc. --Florian Prischl 12:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Paperbark Maple (Acer griseum). -- Ram-Man 03:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good sharpness. --Beyond silence 08:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Paperbark Maple (Acer griseum). -- Ram-Man 03:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice light and composition. --Beyond silence 08:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Cheondang waterfall. --YooChung 00:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good composition. Looks like there's some camera shake, you may want to downsample but at this resolution I'm not gonna decline. Calibas 01:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Hawthorne bridge in Portland OR USA --Fcb981 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice. Calibas 01:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Southern causeway of Molana Priory that connects the former island of the River Blackwater to the mainland, located in County Waterford, Ireland --AFBorchert 21:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline There is a big stain above the tree. Can yo remove it? --Simonizer 22:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Entrance of Verdon canyon, France -- Benh 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice work! Calibas 01:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Forest in Swallow Falls State Park, Maryland, USA -- Jarekt 21:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
• 
  • Nomination Dutton Brook on the hike to the top of Ampersand Mountain Adirondacks NY, USA -- Jarekt 21:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Beautiful place (reminds me the forests here), but I think it's a bit overexposed, and soft... too bad. Benh 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hovering hoverfly (Xantogramma pedissequum). I've been chasing these little fellows for a long time, with poor results. This is the best I could do after dozens of shots -Alvesgaspar 12:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Sharp enough for an QI. Effective use of DOF. Minor JPEG artifacts around the legs. --Siipikarja 14:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    
• 
  • Nomination Hovering hoverfly (Xantogramma pedissequum). I've been chasing these little fellows for a long time, with poor results. This is the best I could do after dozens of shots -Alvesgaspar 12:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Wow :-) --Tony Wills 12:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
     Support Sharp enough for an QI. Effective use of DOF. An interesting angle, however, a side profile would work even better than this, but one can only guess how hard it is take one. --Siipikarja 14:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    
• 
  • Nomination Frosted signpost on Połonina Caryńska. Blue color are due to late hour and cloudy weather, and pinkish due to sunset --Leafnode 11:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion While I haven't been there, I know the feeling and this signpost really conveys that feeling. -- carol 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Black backed gull co-operates with photographer! --Tony Wills 07:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Not an easy shot: if you want some detail in the blacks the whites become a little overexposed. But I think this is near as good as it could be. I like the detail in the legs. I like less the framing a bit too tight - Alvesgaspar 17:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Tower of Babel in Arches National Park near Moab, Utah. -- Jarekt 20:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Extreme JPEG artifacts, noise and unsharpnes, although it is actually hard to tell the difference between the three with this quality. Additionally, the photo lacks information on the original author (Shannon Martin) - who is she/he, where are the original images located, etc. The perspective is great, though. --Florian Prischl 20:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)  CommentThanks for advice I will try to trace the sources of jpeg artifacts and fix them. As for Shannon he is a friend who actually took the pictures, on the trip we were both present. He was not interested in doing anything with the pictures but agreed for me to donate them to public domain. Should I include that story with the picture? -- Jarekt 02:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
     Oppose Horrible JPEG artifacts. Save a new version of the picture with maximum quality/minimum compression to get rid of the artifacts. --Siipikarja 14:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    
• 
  • Nomination The Oktoberfest is a two-week festival held each year in Munich, Bavaria, Germany during late September and early October. It is one of the most famous events in the city and the world's largest fair, with some six million people attending every year. --Richard Bartz 16:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Great quality and nice composition. Which lense is that? --AngMoKio 21:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Canon EF 70-300mm --Richard Bartz 22:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hybrid Gladiolus cultivar "Priscilla". The levels have been adjusted but not the colours. --Pharaoh Hound 18:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Oversharpened --Leafnode 10:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
     Oppose Noise, especially in the background. --Siipikarja 14:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    
• 
  • Nomination Lace Monitor--Benjamint 04:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion I'd love to promote this but it's too small, is it possible to get a larger version? Calibas 04:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
     DoneI've replaced it--Benjamint 12:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
     Support A QI by all measures. Where is this shot? Could you geocode it, please. (It says South-eastern Australia in the description, but coordinates would be great) --Siipikarja 14:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    
• 
  • Nomination Shark Tooth. --Digon3 00:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Needs a little more DOF. Calibas 00:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC) * Comment Is this better? --Digon3 15:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
     Comment The one with the white background is better. But is there a need for the huge amount of backgound? --Siipikarja 14:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    Nice composition for subject, detail acceptable. --Beyond silence 08:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Climbers in Red Rocks of Nevada --Jarekt 20:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Slight overexposure and smudging due to noise reduction in a point-and-shoot, but the overall shot is really good, and that's what counts. -- Ram-Man 03:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Domestic flies mating (Musca domestica) - Alvesgaspar 15:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline A combination of unsharpness and low resolution. -- Ram-Man 02:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Rainbow in polish mountains (Beskid Żywiecki) --Pudelek 14:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion This is the bare minimum quality and resolution, but it accomplishes the goal reasonably well. -- Ram-Man 03:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Jarrah tree Eucalyptus marginata Gnangarra 13:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion High resolution, long view, acceptable detail.--Beyond silence 12:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Taiwan complex (home of the first casino) in Tirana, Albania. Dori - Talk 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline The composition seems a little off to me, I think you should either crop the top and left to draw more attention to the fountain or crop the bottom and right for more emphasis on the building. Calibas 05:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    I thought about that but the other crops looked worse to me so I'd rather it remain like this. Dori - Talk 05:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
     Oppose I dislike the composition. The picture is not in harmony. --Siipikarja 14:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    
• 
  • Nomination The Oktoberfest is a two-week festival held each year in Munich, Bavaria, Germany during late September and early October. It is one of the most famous events in the city and the world's largest fair, with some six million people attending every year. --Richard Bartz 16:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice shot and good quality. But I don't understand why people are willing to pay ... for suffering - Alvesgaspar 20:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Oktoberfest is a two-week festival held each year in Munich, Bavaria, Germany during late September and early October. It is one of the most famous events in the city and the world's largest fair, with some six million people attending every year. --Richard Bartz 16:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline The quality of the image is good but not the composition. The picture is cluttered with too many elements and the crop is extremely tight - Alvesgaspar 20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Oktoberfest is a two-week festival held each year in Munich, Bavaria, Germany during late September and early October. It is one of the most famous events in the city and the world's largest fair, with some six million people attending every year. --Richard Bartz 16:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Messy composition - Alvesgaspar 23:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sculpture on the town hall of Paris, edit. Vassil 19:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion I think you've gone too far with the levels, but it's better than the other one and QI IMO. Dori - Talk 21:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sculpture on the town hall of Paris. Vassil 12:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment I would adjust the levels a bit, and also crop it so that the sculpture is in the center and you don't see the structures on the left and right (for some that may be too tight a crop, but I think it would be a better composition). Dori - Talk 14:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Comment Thank you for your advice, I uploaded a new version. Vassil 19:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Thank you for reviewing the edit. I withdraw my nomination Vassil 09:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Example of "Glass wall architecture" as employed by "Sanomatalo" in Helsinki, Finland --Thermos 15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)--
  • Decline This is some shot, and you shouldn't give up from doing the best of it ! Unfortunately there is some obvious noise and pixelation (lower left and upper part of structure), and also some ugly highlights at the top. Please go back to the digital dark room and try to fix it - Alvesgaspar 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC) I removed the weird stuff in the lower right corner, sharpened, downsampled and made slightly more blue: . Calibas 01:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Now that I think about it, this has questionable encyclopedic value. Hard to tell what it is or even how large it is from the picture. Calibas 01:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Thank you for edits Calibas. The idea of the image is to illustrate construction technology used in glass walls. I think we do not have one in Wiki. --Thermos 04:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC) - Sorry, but the edits didn't result well. Please feel free to move the pic to CR, I think it deserves some talk - Alvesgaspar 19:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC) I think I have to do some work with this image, maybe later on. I don't think CR is needed, I fully accept the reviews.
• 
  • Nomination Rosary in Żywiec. --Lestat 22:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Blurry, overexposed parts --Leafnode 10:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Church of Transfiguration in Lviv. --Lestat 22:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment The geometrical distortion is really distracting. Can you correct it? -- Slaunger 06:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)  Oppose Unsharp - I've seen many of your pictures and most of them are like that. Maybe it's time to buy new camera? --Leafnode 10:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination AWF in Katowice. --Lestat 22:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Harsh lighting, chromatic aberration, composition (passer-by) --Leafnode 10:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Srub wren vocalising--Benjamint 04:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion sharp --Beyond silence 08:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A Xbox 360 controller with black color. Rico Shen 16:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Crop too tight, the photo is very unsharp and tilted counterclockwise, the background is disturbing. --Florian Prischl 16:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Jackdaw in flight, Helsinki, Finland --Thermos 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment The image page could benefit with some more details: Add the location in the description. Why not add the Birds in Finland cat too? And I suggest you add some geodata. Concerning the photo I think it is a nice and sharp catch, I have never seen a corvus from that angle before. If you improve the image page I will promote. -- Slaunger 19:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    Improved image page, i.e. added location and category. --Thermos 03:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    Issues fixed. Promoted. -- Slaunger 09:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
     Support Sharp, good use of DOF, nice composition. QI.
    
• 
  • Nomination I believe it's a tithonia rotundifolia. I really like the colors on this one. Space on the right is to get some of the foliage as bg. Dori - Talk 14:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice colours, good composition. I like it as it is - Alvesgaspar 15:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Northland Green Gecko (Naultinus grayii), Orana Wildlife Park, Christchurch, New Zealand. --gobeirne 05:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline The subject is unevenly lit and partially obscured and the painted background does not really help. Sorry :-) --Tony Wills 09:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Black ice growler from a recently calved iceberg near Upernavik, Greenland. Crop by Calibas of this original, a previous nominee. -- Slaunger 22:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Shows the subject well, good detail for a photo of ice --Tony Wills 09:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Unidentified Butterfly, any help on identification would be appreciated. Digon3 22:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion I'd say it was a Urbanus proteus (Bean Leafroller, Long-Tailed Skipper)[5], though I can't be sure from your pic whether the tail is long enough --Tony Wills 01:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC) That is it, thank-you. Digon3 14:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC) The bokeh around the edges especially the left has weird lines going through it and the lighting is a little drab but overall it's well done. Calibas 04:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A beautiful blow-fly of the Calliphoridae family (Chrysoma albiceps) - Alvesgaspar 15:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good clear image, good detail --Tony Wills 10:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A jumping spider of the Salticidae family (Menemerus semilimbatus)- Alvesgaspar 15:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion I like this image it is sharp and quite nice. I think the file name ("Spider September 2007-1.jpg") is not the most meaningful one and description should mention where it was taken. But all this is easy to fix. -- Jarekt 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Vittel race course --Simonizer 22:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Correct picture and good enough quality though the compositin is a little boring. I didn't know you were a fan of horse racing... Alvesgaspar 09:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A llama (Lama Glama) in front of the Machu Picchu archeological site. --Nattfodd 16:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good enough for QI despite the head being overexposed and lacking detail - Alvesgaspar 22:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Inflorescence of Sambucus canadensis, the American Elderberry, taken in a bog on my farm. --User talk:SB_Johnny 13:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion This is not an easy subject to shoot, I know from my own experience. Although sharpness is on the soft side I think it is good enough for QI - Alvesgaspar 22:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Stained glass window in Dubrovnik --Beyond silence 12:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Sharpness and artifacts. This looks upsampled - if so, please do not; upsampling is a waste of file size. Thegreenj 22:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A picture of some fossils in a rock wall. By Mbz1. Doodledoo 23:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Most of this isn't in focus, a higher f-stop and this would be a QI. Calibas 01:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    I agree. I'll try to take another image or look up some images from my archive.The thing is that these particular fossils were very high in the beach wall. Me and they were at a very, very different level. I'm not sure f-stop would have helped with the focus. Thank you for the nomination, Doodledoo, and thank you for the comment and advice,Calibas--Mbz1 15:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Silesian Planetarium in Chorzow (Königshütte) -- Pudelek 19:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice composition & detail. --Beyond silence 12:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination St. Peter and Paul fortress, view from kronverk (other version) #!George Shuklin 19:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Links lichtblauwe randjes en ook niet scherp genoeg. Lycaon 20:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    Right version has good blue color? #!George Shuklin 22:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC) --I don't think the wall is a big deal, and the colors are great, but it's just a bit too exposed. Dori - Talk 03:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, whis wall is a part of building. Removing it impossible :) #!George Shuklin 08:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination St. Peter and Paul fortress, view from kronverk. #!George Shuklin 19:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Colors are rather washed out and the main subject is blocked by a brick wall.
    This wall is part of the fortress. Can you make photo of the home without wall? #!George Shuklin 08:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Calibas 03:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Kronverski canal, St. Petersburg. #!George Shuklin 19:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Overexposure and lack of contrast, colours washed out - Alvesgaspar 09:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Marigold flowers (tagetes patula). Dori - Talk 18:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion The flower in the center is very beautiful though a little soft. But the composition is not right, the image should be cropped at right and top. And, of course, the proper ID should be included... Alvesgaspar 22:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
     Done please take another look. Dori - Talk 00:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC) - This one is on the borderline. I'll give the benefict of the doubt though the focus is on the soft side and the picture still needs an aditional crop at right - Alvesgaspar 22:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Humulus lupulus --Lestat 22:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment I wanted to promote this because I love hops, but the focus is a little soft at the lower part of this image. Do you have another? -- carol 03:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC) - For me it is out of focus and overexposed, sorry - Alvesgaspar 09:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A view of downtown Tirana, Albania. Dori - Talk 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good sharpness, lots of details. --Nattfodd 16:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The statue of Skanderbeg in Tirana, Albania. Dori - Talk 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Not a good angle, and underexposed statue, without enough details. --Nattfodd 16:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Two fiery skippers (Hylephila phyleus). --Calibas 02:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion I think you really nailed the focus plane. Dori - Talk 03:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Vendome column, on place Vendome, Paris. Benh 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Excellent detail, good composition, a bit distorted and the lighting could be a little better but still a QI. Calibas 02:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Calipers used to measure small things precisely. Photograph by Falcorian nominated by --carol 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Not bad but it's too close a crop for me. Might be kinda confusing if you haven't already seen a caliper. Calibas 20:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Main Hall of Opera Garnier House in Paris. This picture isn't as crisp and detailed I'd have loved to because I had to take the shots handheld... But I find the view impressive :) Benh 19:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Yet, acceptable sharpness and noise levels for QI. Lycaon 19:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC) - Très bien, même avec la main levée (?) - Alvesgaspar 20:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Female drone-fly (Eristalis tenax). The designation comes from the amazing resemblance with the drone of certain races of honey bees. Of the many shots I took of the species this is the one I prefer, for its golden colouring and detail. -Alvesgaspar 17:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion You can never have enough perfectly centered images of honeybees bugs. -- carol 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    or flies that mimic bees. : ) Calibas 20:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC) - Exactly so ;-) - Alvesgaspar 20:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination German Police Coastguard ship in Zeebrugge military port. Lycaon 12:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Sky is quite noisy and overexposed in s, but the subject is excellent... I'm not sure, any other opinions? Doodledoo 15:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC) -- The sky is not overexposed (no burnt white parts): that's the kind of skies we have very often here in Flanders... But in the middle of the picture there is a strange blue spot in the sky, and also some ghosts around the superstructures behind the ship. Nevertheless: an interesting subject indeed, and excellent sharpness and colors. MJJR 20:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC) A little grainy in some s but excellent detail and good composition, promoted. Calibas 20:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hall in Pittsburgh.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Overexposed. Doodledoo 15:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Port building in Koper, Slovenia--Szilas 12:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Too much vignetting. Going a couple of stops down probably would have helped with this problem. Also the subject choice is a bit puzzling unless you just wanted the color contrast. Dori - Talk 03:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Railway station in Istria --Orlovic (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline The sky is really overexposed.
• 
  • Nomination A male Phasia hemiptera - of family Tachinidae --Richard Bartz 01:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good shot of a hairy butt. Calibas 03:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A bumblebee feeding on nectar (Bombus terrestris) - Alvesgaspar 15:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion What a hilarious white behind on that thing. QI detail. Doodledoo 20:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Magere Brug ("Skinny Bridge") is a bridge over the river Amstel in the city centre of Amsterdam. --S Sepp 13:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Rather harsh light, but image in general good enough for QI. -- MJJR 20:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Manhattan Skyline. --AngMoKio 16:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Could you correct horizon tilt and small dot (plane?) in the sky at the left side? -- MJJR 20:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC) I tried to improve the pic in general a bit now. --AngMoKio 21:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Really good view! Detail is near acceptable. --Beyond silence 12:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC) -- Nice view; technical quality now just acceptable for QI. -- MJJR 20:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Log cabin representing first building of the University of Pittsburgh, in the shadow of giant Cathedral of Learning.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Overexposed. Lycaon 09:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination White Duck, Canada -- Acarpentier 19:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline No detail on feathers due to overexposure - Alvesgaspar 00:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The bryce canyon in Utah, USA --AngMoKio 17:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Purple fringing, sharpness, light. I've seen better. Lycaon 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC) If you can fix the colors this has my vote. Calibas 03:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View over Yosemite Valley, California --AngMoKio 17:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Not perfect, but good enough for QI. I love Yosemite. Calibas 03:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A male Phasia hemiptera - of family Tachinidae --Richard Bartz 01:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. Lycaon 13:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Chrysotoxum bicinctum is a hooverfly --Richard Bartz 01:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. Lycaon 13:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hostel "Bacówka nad Wierchomlą" - Beskid Śląski in Poland - Pudelek 21:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Poor composition, with the structure and people at right and the stairs in first plan. Maybe another point of view? Also, slight chromatic aberration - Alvesgaspar 20:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Catholic church in Fridek-Mistek (Czech Republic). -- Pudelek 21:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Tilt/perspective. Lycaon 17:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ranunculus circinatus --LC-de 16:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Poor composition, image is cluttered and chaotic. The subject should be made more conspicuous. One of the flowers( which is part of the subject) is unfocused - Alvesgaspar 20:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Caladenia flava or cowslip orchid Gnangarra 13:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment If the orchid is rare and/or protected, it is better not to be too specific about the finding location. Lycaon 13:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC) - The flowers are beautiful but out of focus. Needs a crop, there is too much empty space - Alvesgaspar 20:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination An interesting photo of a sandstone concretion found on a beach in California. By Mbz1. Doodledoo 23:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion good clarity, its QI detail, is orientation correct? Gnangarra 13:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
     Comment Picture needs to be rotated clockwise by 90°. Also I'm missing something to compare the object with, to give it a scale.- Till 13:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    I wonder why you believe that the image should be rotated? It is how it was in a beach wall. Here are for, example, a bigger piece of the wall with 2 concretions: and here a wide angle shot of the wall As you could see it was kind of impossible to provide a scale for the object--Mbz1 16:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
     Comment The description only said beach, it didn't mention a wall. If you don't know the spot, it's hard to get an orientation in that picture. Of course, with those two additional pictures it's easier to get an impression of the setting. So my suggestion would be to enhance the image description. - Till 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, you are right. I'm going to add it to description right now and thank you for your time and for the comments.--Mbz1 20:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
     Question One more thing, Mila, could je also give an indication of size (e.g. in mm) on the description? Lycaon 08:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    I will. I'd like to tell you something more about this beach. Few months ago, when I took the image of the concretion, the whole beach was covered with rocks and huge boulders. At one point we should have done almost a rock climbing to get through. I've been to the beach few days ago again. There are no rocks any more. They all were covered by the sand at least 7 feet high. I could not find this concretion any more either. Maybe it was weathered away, but I believe it is just under the sand. I'm going also to add one more image from the same beach wall, which shows fossils. There are many fossils in this wall.--Mbz1 14:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Polish mountain hostel in Śnieżnik (Glatzer Schneeberg), Kłodzko Valley (Grafschaft Glatz). -- Pudelek 18:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Please geocode. Is it not Glatzer Schneegebirge instead of Schneeberg? See [6] Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 07:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    Geocode done. This is exactly Glatzer Schneeberg [7], Pudelek 09:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    * Oppose and decline. Composition is cluttered by the trees and the ground, what should be the subject according to the title is mostly hid by trees. Also, for a real mountain panorama, this photo contains too much trees and ground. --Florian Prischl 01:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    This is not mountain panorama, but picture of hostel between trees --Pudelek 09:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Manhattan Skyline at early morning. --AngMoKio 16:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline A very beautiful composition looking great at thumb size. But the quality is not good enough: some of the buildings are unsharp and there is purple fringing. Also needs a geometric correction of the lens distortion - Alvesgaspar 20:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mater Dolorosa Cementary in Bytom. --Lestat 15:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment But the statue represents an angel, not the "Mater Dolorosa" - Alvesgaspar 16:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Mater Dolorosa is the name of cementary. --Lestat 18:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)* Oppose and decline due to the strong fringing and general unsharpnes. --Florian Prischl 00:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mushrooms on a tree branch. --Dori Talk 03:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment In this case some taxonomical information would be very valuable. --LC-de 19:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC) If someone has it, please add it (I wouldn't know). --Dori - Talk
    No id, low dof, colour cast. Lycaon 13:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Wilkanów (Wölfelsdorf) and Śnieżnik Mountains in Kłodzko Valley --Pudelek 22:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline *weak oppose- the image is a bit noisy and has bad light. but the composition is interesting-LadyofHats 19:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    Agree. Sorry but as far as I know there are no weak oppose votes in QIC -Alvesgaspar 20:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Female Superb Fairy Wren with an insect in her beak--Benjamint 09:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Unsharp, bad lighting and a bit noisy. Why this exposure choice? - Alvesgaspar 10:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Pyrrhocoris apterus --Lestat 22:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice, sharp enough picture. Lycaon 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A bumblebee feeding on nectar showing the long tongue (Bombus terrestris) - Alvesgaspar 15:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion QI. I'll let the last one to another reviewer :) Benh 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Yet-to-be-identified white mushrooms growing on a palm tree in front of a prison building on St Joseph's Island. --Arria Belli | parlami 15:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline As you say, not identified, and on top of that heavy with compression/processing artefacts. Lycaon 16:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Main station in Bremen, Germany. --Dschwen 13:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good job, this time I can't see any stitching errors. There are two identical blotches in the sky - Alvesgaspar 16:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    Please remove those two dust spots, then it is definitely a QI. Lycaon 16:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Allegory of war and law - Prunksaal - Austrian National Library. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 13:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good colours and detail, I like these "trompe-l'oeil" paintings where you never know what is really 3D and what isn't. I presume that the shadows at left and right couldn't be avoided - Alvesgaspar 16:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Steve Jobs and Bill Gates on stage at D5 2007. --Joi 12:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Frog perspective, unfortunate crop --Lestat 19:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Boundary stone on the top of mountain Śnieżnik (Glatzer Schneeberg).--Pudelek 18:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Please geocode. Is it not Glatzer Schneegebirge instead of Schneeberg? See [8] Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 07:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    Geocode done. This is exactly Glatzer Schneeberg [9], Pudelek 09:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Too cold WB and overexposed parts. --Lestat 22:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination French weapon, from museum. #!George Shuklin 05:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline There is an obvious geometric distortion in the image (see the labels) due to a less than optimal point of vue. But that could be corrected as well as the uneven lighting - Alvesgaspar 16:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A contre-jour image of a cross. --Dori Talk 03:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline Posterized sky at left and right - Alvesgaspar 22:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    Do you know if there is there a way to desaturate without posterizing? Dori - Talk 01:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC) - When we desaturate, or transform into B&W, we are reducing the number of colours thus contributing to posterization. I really don't know how to avoid it, but I'm very clumsy in editing. Have you tried to simply transform the pic into B&W? - Alvesgaspar 08:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC) - Yes I did, still happened. Dori - Talk 13:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensual Review

Marseille Palais Longchamp Wasserfall

• Nomination The main Waterfall at the Palais Longchamp, Marseille, France. --JDrewes 12:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
• A fine natural scene!--SeaSide 14:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Seaside is Drewes. Lycaon 08:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• I protest this for reasons I left on Lycaon's user talk page.--JDrewes 12:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Quote: "While SeaSide is my father, and therefore "a" drewes, he is not me (Jan Drewes). Is it illegal for family members to promote? ".

• I don't think it is a good idea to have your father or son promote your images. See Meatpuppet. Lycaon 15:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support But apart from the (quite rightly) discussion about father & son, what about the quality of the picture, which seems to be rather good? -- MJJR 20:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• If you like it, promote it. I didn't like it, but not that much as to oppose it ;). Lycaon 01:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose >> Promoted to QI -- Alvesgaspar 13:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fleecy Milk Cap

• Nomination Fleecy Milk-cap (Lactarius vellereus) --LC-de 09:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion

 Comment I like the composition, but not sharp enough. I would promote a sharpened version (sample provided on the right). - (Relic38 23:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
 CommentI don't like the edited version. It looks a liitle bit oversharpened and therefore unnatural to me. But we should move ist to CR if you are different minded. --LC-de 15:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose Neutral Overexposed. Sorry (unsigned comment by User:Beyond silence 08:38, 17 October 2007)

  You know that Lactarius vellereus is a nearly white mushroom? --LC-de 19:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Support I actually find the original version fit for QI. Lycaon 12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Due to composition, which I find a bit too cluttered and distracting for the main object. Dori - Talk 22:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I'll support either version, although I still would like a bit more sharpening on the original, even if it's not as much as I added. - Relic38 00:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 18:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ponts couverts

• Nomination Good light, good composition Absolutecars 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Neutral It's tilted uniformly counter-clockwise a few degrees; a straightening would help a lot. 75.84.118.176 01:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think it's tilted, I've put the camera. This photo was not take from the front (but from left) Absolutecars 17:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support As nominator. --Beyond silence 08:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose CA halos. Lycaon 13:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Other than the noise in the sky, I agree with the nominator. - Relic38 00:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Good enough for QI -Pudelek 00:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> Promoted to QI - Alvesgaspar 13:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• This image was promoted by QICbot instead of waiting for CR as it hadn't been moved to CR properly --Tony Wills 22:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

File:Absolute ponts couverts 02.jpg|

• Nomination Good light, good composition Absolutecars 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion It's tilted uniformly counter-clockwise a few degrees; a straightening would help a lot. 75.84.118.176 01:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Good light, good composition--Beyond silence 08:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Suorvajaure_in_stora_sjofallet_park

• Nomination Suorvajaure from Vakkotavare, in Stora Sjöfallet Park, northern Sweden --Nattfodd 23:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Problems in the clouds - a pity, since this is otherwise such a beautiful picture. Thegreenj 23:35, 23 October 2007
  •  Comment(UTC) Which problems? Please detail. --Nattfodd 07:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The sky looks "doubled" (Ghosting? Phantoms?) as if you overlayed two pictures, and the wind moved the clouds between exposures. I find that irritating. Maybe you can recompose without this artifact? It would really make a nice scene without this. --JDrewes 15:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Since this is a tone-mapped HDR from three exposures, it makes sense for this kind of artifacts to appear, but I thought I had corrected them all. Can you please detail where you see them? Thanks. --Nattfodd 07:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I see it the strongest at the lower right of the clouds, but it is present pretty much everywhere. Just look at the vertical edges of the cloud layers, there is always some kind of echo there (maybe compare with one of the single frames you hopefully still have)--JDrewes 12:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cape fur seal in Rostock

• Nomination sleeping cape fur seal in the zoo - rimshot 15:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support good for QI --Pudelek 23:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much artefacts not sharp enough and general 'snapshot' composition. Lycaon 09:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much artefacts --Beyond silence 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose artefacts --Lestat 22:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC) (was already declined. Lycaon 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dragonfly

• Nomination Dragonfly. --Joi 05:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  OpposeNot identified. Lycaon 08:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I don't think QI need species desription, otherwise detail is great! --Beyond silence 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please read the guidelines on identification. Thegreenj 04:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please don't make up your own rules without consensus, Beyond Silence. Lycaon 05:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make it, I read it: "have meaningful title and description. This should include the scientific names for minerals and Taxa naming for plants, animals etc."

meaningful title and description Done It writes should include the scientific name, not must. --Beyond silence 08:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Sorry, but the image is extremely noisy and with artifacts (see the wings). It is a darter from the Libelullidae family, most probably a Sympetrum sp. - Alvesgaspar 10:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment - Maybe fewer artifacts in the cropped one I just posted on the right? -- Joi 04:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The new version looks upsampled (scaled larger). Plus there's strange dark bars running vertically through the background. Calibas 05:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Interesting. It's not enlarged... it's just cropped tighter from a 39MP image. I'm not sure exactly which bars you're talking about. Which section and how big? Curious for future reference. Thanks. -- Joi 06:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The entire background has very faint dark vertical bands running through it, perhaps from jpg artifacts. I highly recommend switching your software to either GIMP (it's FREE!) or Photoshop. Calibas 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment - The picture really looks as it were wildly upsampled. Just look at the pixelation and the size of artifacts! - Alvesgaspar 07:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It could be Capture Pro trying compensate for noise in the dark area. I'm not sure. Maybe I can correct for it in the noise/sharpening settings. I was just using the default settings. If this is the only thing wrong with the image, I'll work on it. I've never really worked on noise like this before. -- Joi 07:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Island 'If'

• Nomination The Island 'If' near Marseille, with the famous Chateu d'If. Picture taken with a 600mm equivalent FOV.--JDrewes 12:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]]
• Decline
•  OpposeVery noisy. Lycaon 18:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment Could you point out where the noise is, please? I see only the water. At 100 ISO, 1/320sec, I wouldn't know where the noise would be coming from? --JDrewes 22:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That's just the problems, the detail/focus on the water is that low that it turns into noise. Lycaon 23:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Lycaon, out of focus is NOT noise and you should not characterize it as that. It is of course acceptable for something which is not the subject to be out of focus in a photo, and I think the water is acceptable as out of focus for that reason. I do feel that the island is a little lacking in contrast, though. Morven 07:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• I know ;-). But the result is similar. Lycaon 08:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Still, as a matter of usefulness, you should not call it 'noise' if it's not noise. I've noticed that quite a few of your comments on images here cite 'noise' where others don't see it, or call other artifacts 'noise' - e.g. JPEG artifacts from over-compression, CA, etc. 'Noise' has a technical definition in photography and calling things that aren't noise 'noise' will confuse people and not help them improve their images. Morven 09:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose - The image looks overexposed, unsharp and with lack of contrast. Alvesgaspar 09:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ack Alvesgaspar. --Nattfodd 11:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per the above. –Dilaudid 21:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Formations

• Nomination Crystal Formations --Digon3 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Sharp and detailed. I'm not a big fan of shallow DoF on a repetitive pattern but it works well here. --Nattfodd 15:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, I disagree. Mineral should have been lint-free first. Lycaon 06:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Do you have any suggestions on how to clean it? I ran it though water and went through it with a toothpick trying to get it clean. --Digon3 13:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Ultrasonic bath (careful! might dislodge crystals or concretions) and/or compressed air (available in canisters from electronic parts shops) should help a lot. Fine tweezers (N°4 or finer) and a magnifying glass are also handy. Lycaon 13:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Result (after 8 days in CR): 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Alvesgaspar 13:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Warthog at the Toronto Zoo

• Nomination Warthog (Phacochoerus africanus) at the Toronto Zoo. -- Relic38 23:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Inadequate composition and colours, unfortunately. –Dilaudid 09:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Yeah, it's tough to get colour from a grey animal. -Relic38 16:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Second opinion, anyone? -Relic38 02:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree, grey animals shouldn't be colourful, but maybe a grey animal vs. a non-grey background? Except for some streaks of green, colour distribution in this image is rather uniformous - unfortunately, lowering perceived contrast. Also, the rear of the other warthog disturbes image composition.--JDrewes 16:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Apart from the colour (needs more yellow), de behind of its twin is disturbing. Lycaon 19:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks for the excellent feedback. I took these pictures at the zoo my first day with the new camera (Canon XTi/400D). Lots of fun! Three QIs and counting! :) - Relic38 00:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Palace in Pławniowice

• Nomination Palace in Pławniowice. --Lestat 22:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Oversharpened. --Nattfodd 15:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Realy? Maybe another opinion about this photo? --Lestat 16:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unfortunate lighting, overexposed sky. Lycaon 23:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Looks fine to me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose unfortunately backlit; lighting too poor for QI, in my opinion. Morven 09:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unfortuantely, I have to agree with Lycaon and Morven on the lighting. - Relic38 00:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Bougainvilleablüte

• Nomination Bougainvillea by Marina0725 --Anna reg 13:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Too low DOF, there are only a few mm in focus. Nice colours though. Lycaon 14:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I think it has near acceptable detail for QI. --Beyond silence 13:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Good one, Beyond silence ;-). Near acceptable means: just not good enough!. Lycaon 13:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I use it as enough good for not oppose. Can be not useable at native English (I'm not that). My language near doesn't mean more or less, only near. --Beyond silence 20:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose Too low DOF, the subject seems dreamy. –Dilaudid 21:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very nice colors, but the DOF is not to my taste, though i'am wondering at a app of f11--Richard Bartz 11:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> Not promoted - Alvesgaspar 13:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dworcowa Street in Katowice.

• Nomination Dworcowa Street in Katowice. --Lestat 16:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Noisy, unsharp, perspective problems. Lycaon 17:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC
• I don't agree with You. Primary, this is a high resolution photo (approximately 15MP). You may downsize and resample it if this sharpness isn't enought for You. Moreover this is max. sharpness from my camera. Secondary, perspective is in my humble opinion very good for near panoramic photo. See here: [10]. Maybe You fell that perspective is better, but I don't think so. --Lestat 19:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
•  OpposeI have to agree with Lycaon, though I would call it distortion rather than perspective (see the silver-blue fiat to the bottom-left, it looks way too flat, and the hotel right behind it has serious sharpness issues). True, some of this may be fixed by downsize-and-resample, but that should be done before the image is evaluated (read: the viewer shouldn't have to do it, you should!). --JDrewes 13:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination --Lestat 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Penguin close-up at Loro Parque

• Nomination Penguin (Spheniscidae) at Loro Parque Penguinarium. Moved here with expanded description. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Please nominate with nominations, not at CR. BTW, very noisy, very unfocussed. Lycaon 23:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but you'd have to downsample (scale) this far below the QI requirements to make it sharp. Calibas 02:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 22:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

1954 Pontiac hood ornament.jpg

• Nomination 1954 Pontiac hood ornaments --Acarpentier 02:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Composition seems a bit off to me. Calibas 17:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Just wondering of the others opinions. Acarpentier 02:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Calibas: main topic is almost falling out of the picture :). Lycaon 12:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 Definilty not for QI ;) Acarpentier 02:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohio University Southern Campus branch

• Nomination Ohio University Proctorville branch --JaGa 15:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Noise, composition. Lycaon 17:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  •  Question Where is the noise? --JaGa 17:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Everywhere in the grass. Lycaon 20:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Support --Lestat 18:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - It is a shame but I have to agree with Lycaon. The picture has a wonderful composition and colours, but the jpeg artifacts in the grass are too obvious. Also, why is the balustrade up in the tower so blurry? - Alvesgaspar 22:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the explanation Alvesgaspar. I'm just learning, and I was hoping to get info on where I need to improve, now I've got it. I hadn't noticed the balustrade problem - maybe there wasn't enough contrast with the background for the sharpening to make it stand out. If I redid this picture - fixed the grass issues and the balustrade, I've got the original after all - would it be tacky to repost? --JaGa 23:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Post as a new version (don't overwrite) and resubmit. Lycaon 06:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't overwrite...? --Beyond silence 08:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• • He could overwrite but it confuses the voting (which votes were for which version?), so it is simplest to upload as a separate file. Then we can vote on the different versions (sometimes we think the original is better) and easily see both versions side by side. --Tony Wills 10:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment If you add an artificial sky, it is advisable (for QI and FP even required) that you add a retouched template. Lycaon 22:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 13:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fishing boat in Cap-Haitien

• Nomination Fishing boat in Cap-Haitien, in haiti.. --le Korrigan →bla 18:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support not overwhelmingly sharp and it could benefit of some noise reduction but i like the colour contrast and composition --Ikiwaner 19:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Less sharp than nomination above. Lycaon 16:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much noise. Dori - Talk 16:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not very confident in using Photoshop, so how can I remove noise ? Any of you could help me with this ? le Korrigan →bla 07:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think you can get the noise out without losing too much detail. I'm afraid as shot it's not a QI image. Dori - Talk 23:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 05:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Kettős-Körös river2

• Nomination Kettős-Körös river--Beyond silence 21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  CommentI believe this has a CW tilt, also adding the location coordinates would be helpful. If those were fixed I think it's a QI. Dori - Talk 22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose Not sharp enough for a still landscape. Lycaon 08:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment It's enough sharp IMO. --Beyond silence 15:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 22:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lac Blanc Pano.jpg

• Nomination panoramic view of Lac Blanc and Col du Calvaire. --Simonizer 17:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC))
• Decline
•  SupportToo dark, too lacking in contrast. Morven 20:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Much improved new version addresses those problems.Morven
•  Oppose bad lighting, and I think it will be hard to save it even with postprocessing. Very noisy at full res. Benh 19:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose dark, noisy. Sorry --Beyond silence 21:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose ack opposers. Dori - Talk 01:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 05:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Jacksonville Skyline Panorama 2

• Nomination Jacksonville Skyline in Florida, USA. --Digon3 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  SupportCorrect picture and nice composition though a little on the soft side - Alvesgaspar 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Looks like a good picture, but can you fix the verticals (they open up towards the top)? Maybe also a little bit of noise reduction in the sky - Not a vital problem though. Inductiveload 23:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral This is a tough one. While overall easily reaching QI standards, the stitching error, one quarter up the Mōdis building has been as good as repaired (well enough for QI) on the concrete sides of the building, but it is still running through the glass panels. Also the perspective is borderline. Lycaon 12:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I uploaded an edit that hopefuly fixed the stitching error and denoised the sky.Digon3 17:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Very nice ! But still a stitching error on the glasses from the second building from the left Wachovia building. What do you use for stitching by the way ? Benh 20:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For this, a old demo of autopano. I tried it with Hugin at first, but it made several more stitching errors that I could not get rid of. Digon3 21:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Strange because it doesn't seem very difficult to stitch. If you use Hugin, and in case you don't know (we just found that), be careful with this : when optimizing control points, each iteration starts from the results of the previous optimization... What we do is duplicating our project before optimizing, and if some correction are needed, we start from the saved, unoptimised project. Benh 19:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Great view, nice detail! QI --Beyond silence 08:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Good enough --Thermos 16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Indeed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> Promotrd to QI -- Lycaon 22:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

O.101 Benny

• Nomination O.101 Benny. Shrimp fishing vessel, fishing close to the shore at Raversijde, Belgium. Lycaon 08:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose Visible noise and/or artifacts probably resulting from underexposure. Anyway it shouldn't be allowed to fish so close to land (is it?)... - Alvesgaspar 17:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Boat itself (including dark parts) is quite noise free and sharp. The picture was taken in the late afternoon and the ship was moving at about 4 knots and we were doing about 6 knots. The sand behind was also quite a bit hotter than the seawater, maybe contributing to the shimmer, together with the movement unsharpness of the background. At least sharper than the nomination below. Lycaon 16:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unsharp, underexposed. Dori - Talk 16:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support The main subject is fairly sharp and well balanced, the unsharp background is due to air turbulences caused by the heat of the beach and the engine of the ship. This picture is not perfect, but good enough for QI. -- MJJR 19:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with MJJR. Calibas 01:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose noise --Beyond silence 15:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with MJJR. The boot is sharp enough. IMHO, this shot is more than yet another boat picture. You can see the fishermen busy cooking the North Sea shrimps (Crangon crangon) with sea water following the old Flemish recipe. I would suggest to add it to the [category:Crangon crangon] and to say few words about the preparation of the shrimps directly on the boat. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 10:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Ack MJJR --Thermos 16:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 23:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Tinside pool

• Nomination Tinside pool--Nilfanion 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Excellent composition. Calibas 06:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose not sharp, ccw tilt. Lycaon 16:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Acceptable. --Beyond silence 19:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support good for QI -- Pudelek 19:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

NRE 3GS21B locomotive & train

• Nomination Brand new genset switchers of the Union Pacific Railroad running in the street. --Morven 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose I think this is borderline so you may want to go to CR, but for me there are too many chromatic aberrations, and also the somewhat shallow DOF results in unsharp wagons (stopping down might have gotten rid of CAs as well). Dori - Talk 03:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is a small degree of unsharpness to the wagons and a bit of CA on the poles, although I think it's pretty slight compared to most examples I see. This was at f/9; I will experiment to see whether smaller apertures help with this lens. I do think, though, that the trailing cars are not really the point of attention in this shot anyway. Morven 06:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • There are CA at the top and right of the locomotive as well, but they're more pronounced on the poles. Dori - Talk 14:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Y'know, I never even saw that until you pointed it out. Scarcely visible. I'm not sure how much slower a shutter speed I want to drop to, though, in order to stop down - this is at 1/400; I'd imagine I can do 1/200 or so without risking motion blur, but I'm not sure how much advantage just one stop's worth of stopping down will give me, since I'm already at f/9. It's more likely simply that this lens sucks, since it came effectively for free with the camera. Morven 22:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
        • It's not a bad picture, and you get CA even with good lenses. I'd say one stop down would have been sufficient, and you could have gone to ISO 200 (or 400) to get more light without getting too much noise. Dori - Talk 22:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Main parts looks enough good! --Beyond silence 06:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Orlovic (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose  Neutral CA-noisefringing. Lycaon 21:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (changed my mind. Lycaon 09:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Tiny amount of CA, yes; but noise? I see none. Morven 07:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Not perfect, but good enough for QI. Nice subject! -- MJJR 20:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 22:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Torre de Belém Lisboa Richard Bartz

• Nomination Belém Tower is a fortified tower located in the Belém district of Lisbon, Portugal.--Richard Bartz 18:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Nice, and wow for the sharpness (but at this size, it's not so much a surprise). Benh 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The composition doesn't do it for me, too much land in the foreground. A correction to the perspective might help too. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ben Aveling version

• • I'm a complete pleb when it comes to post processing, but I've had a shot at showing that the picture could be better. Cheers, Ben Aveling 23:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Info - The Tower of Belém is located in the city of Lisbon, by the Tagus river - Alvesgaspar 11:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I don't see your problems are important.--Beyond silence 16:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose -as Ben Aveling, --Szilas 04:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I like the composition, OK light, it's sharp enough for me. - (Relic38 13:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC))
•  Support Original --Richard Bartz 15:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose as Ben Aveling -- Lycaon 12:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> Promoted to QI-- Lycaon 22:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• •  Info I assume we're only voting on the original, the second version hasn't been nominated by anyone, but uploaded to show it "could be better" --Tony Wills 09:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Kettős-Körös river

• Nomination Kettős-Körös river--Beyond silence 21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Less than optimal composition (should be landscape in my opinion), and I don't see what the vehicles are adding to it. Dori - Talk 22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Erroneously moved to cr without a reason given. Lycaon 08:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, do you need any more * reason? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Beyond silence (talk • contribs)

There was no reason nor a signature. This is not the proper way. Lycaon 19:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose Not sharp + artefacts. Lycaon 19:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 16:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Pelecanidae Loro Parque 02.JPG

• Nomination Pelecanidae in Loro Parque, nice reflection in the water.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Good composition, but uneven lighting. Dori - Talk 03:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)}
•  Oppose Too noise and overexposed. Sorry --Beyond silence 18:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Info When asking for a 'consensual review' it is usual to state why you disagree with the original review --Tony Wills 10:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 16:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Schneeberg-rocks2

• Nomination Rocks on Schneeberg (Austria)--Beyond silence 08:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  SupportThe contrast is a bit harsh, but it's good enough. -- Ram-Man 03:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose In such a static environment I would expect to not see any overexposed areas. Dori - Talk 05:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Contrast and composition. Lycaon 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 07:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ste_Chapelle_Basse_s.jpg

• Nomination Ceiling of the Holy Chapel, Paris, France --Benh 20:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Neutral I love the subject matter and the colors. However, verticals converge strongly (although the curve of the arches hides this to a degree) and parts of this aren't in the sharpest focus. I'm torn.Morven 06:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Comment
•  Comment Yes, it's not sharp... I took the picture handheld, at f/2.8 and got a decent enough shot thanks to IS. A first version I uploaded was even softer than this one, and I managed to sharpened it a little which is why I nominated it here. But I think you're right, it may be not enough for QI... Benh 19:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Great light and colours! Enough sharp. --Beyond silence 21:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Good composition. Dori - Talk 04:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Please categorize. - Till 07:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Done Benh 10:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Good enough for QI, but why so small with a 3,888 x 2,592 pixel camera? Lycaon 20:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Because this was taken handheld at 1/5 sec, and was a bit soft for QI IMO. I sharpened it a bit more than needed and scaled it down so it has a better "per pixel" look. Benh 20:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for explaining. Lycaon 20:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tree Dragon

• Nomination Tree Dragon or Jacky lizard--Benjamint 12:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Very sharp and well-composed. I love the texture of the scales. --Florian Prischl 12:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unnatural oversharpening. Lycaon 15:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Did you sharpen after downsampling? Calibas 01:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• I used the Bicubic function in PS, it sharpens at the same time as resampling. BTW, I have compared this image to a version that hasn't been sharpened and the difference is very slight as it was already quite a sharp image. Benjamint 08:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support It's a border case but ok in my opinion. --LC-de 10:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Ok --Richard Bartz 15:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I don't think the sharpening is so far as to be too much. Morven 00:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Lestat 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Planetarium WPKiW.jpg

• Nomination Silesian Planetarium in Chorzow (Königshütte) - New version (help from Leafnode) -- Pudelek 15:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Minor noise in the sky, slight oversharpening but no more stitching problems, nice view, IHMO good enough for QI -- Klaus with K 17:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I still see the stitching error on the steps. Now that Morven mentions it, I see that it's a shadow on the steps, nonetheless there is a lot of noise and some chromatic aberrations in the image, so I'm staying with the oppose. Dori - Talk 22:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

 Info my picture is ok --Pudelek 20:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• •  Question could you show more or less where are those errors? I'll try to do something with that, but I can't see any now. --Leafnode 08:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Indeed still some stitching errors (also on the dome) but they are very minor. Good enough for QI. Lycaon 12:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support good enough --Leafnode 08:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Any remaining stitching errors very minor, hard to notice. Seeming stitching error on steps appears to be a shadow on closer examination. Good illustration of subject. Morven 21:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Domestic Goose

• Nomination Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens) Thegreenj 03:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Domestic goose Thegreenj 19:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
  Sure that this is a snow goose? Looks more like a white domesticated goose Anser anser f. domestica. Did it have black handwings? --LC-de 12:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  You are probably right. Unfortunately, I don't have any photos that could more clearly show the wings, but it was with a couple of geese looking like Greylag geese. Thegreenj 14:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  Then I would say, these are Anser anser. Maybe at least the white one is a runaway domestic or a hybrid, but at last these are grealags. --LC-de 17:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too dark. --Lestat 16:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The exposure preserves detail in areas that would otherwise be overexposed on the swan. In fact, according to the histogram, the picture is actually a little overexposed. Sure, I could stretch (not sure what you call it) the histogram so the white of the swan is actually white, but I'd prefer the detail. Thegreenj 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Exposure looks fine to me, good illustration of a goose. Morven 20:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Dark, low detail. Sorry --Beyond silence 20:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Rose Garden Arena

• Nomination The rose garden arena in Portland, OR USA --Fcb981 22:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose There seem to be stitching errors, and it's also a bit overexposed (which can be fixed by going down .05 or so on the exposure. Dori - Talk 05:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Nice sharpness, and light. --Beyond silence 09:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Stitching errors. Thegreenj 21:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I take it I'm allowed to vote? anyway, a 2px stitching error isn't a big enough deal to preclude from QI in my opinion. This isn't FP, anyway, thats my take. -Fcb981 02:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment QI is not something worse than FP. QI should have flawless quality. FP is something different. And yes, any stitching error is a big deal. --Leafnode 07:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no such thing a technically flawless photo. It does not exist. Also, there are fewer than 900 FPs and there are greater than 1700 QIs. Which one is then better? there are plenty of QIs that wont pass FPC but I would bet that almost always a FP will pass as a QI. that is just the nature of the beast. That brings me to my previous argument that a small stitching error isn't a big technical flaw, there are FP and QI panoramas with stitching worse than this. Anyway, vote as you like, I just wanted to say to you that technical perfection is not possible and that QI is indeed "worse" (although I would say "more inclusive") than FP. -Fcb981 01:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It really is not "better" or "worse" than FP, just different. It cannot be compared accurately. FP is for pictures that are exceptional in terms of being a photograph, all around, while QI is for pictures that meet a certain technical standard, and though a technical standard is required for FP, there is less emphasis than at QI. That said, you are probably right in there being few FPs that would not be QIs. You might want to see this discussion on the same topic. Thegreenj 02:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • BTW, your vote is implied by the nomination. It is not counted - see Rules, point three just above this. Thegreenj 02:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I think of it as FP is QI + wow or historical value or really superior technically (sharpness, composition, etc). It's possible that the second part of the equation is so much higher that it could be FP and not QI, but you're right that you almost never see that. The numbers themselves aren't the whole story as more pictures get put through QI and QI is easier to get as it's not so many people voting, and it's not a 2/3 majority. Dori - Talk 02:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
        • For me, that less drawn out and official nominating makes QI feel less than FP. I also feel that art is always a part of a photograph or visual (and in writing an encyclopedia article for that matter). Don't vote on that account though, If you don't think this is a technically sound picture, its your right to oppose it. Cheers. -Fcb981 02:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes QI accepts there may be small technical defects, but usually if an deficiency is fixable eg colour balance, geometric distortion, stitching errors, then people ask for them to be fixed before giving a promotion --Tony Wills 10:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Planetarium WPKiW

original version

• Nomination Silesian Planetarium in Chorzow (Königshütte) -- Pudelek 19:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Nice composition & detail. --Beyond silence 12:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Image is shattered, as it was a stitched panorama - probably camera or software destroyed image file --Leafnode 10:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Agree, looks like stitching errors to me - Alvesgaspar 13:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Stitching errors ruining an otherwise nice view --Klaus with K 13:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very obvious stitching errors that even I can notice. Unfortunate, because otherwise the view is nice, as Klaus with K correctly states! --Florian Prischl 12:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination New version is in 5 October Pudelek 15:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Artur Rojek

• Nomination Artur Rojek, director of the Off Festival Przykuta 20:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support  Oppose See edit. Thegreenj 22:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Could do with a small crop above his head, but nice as is. Thegreenj 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose and moved to CR. The photo is very soft/unsharp (focus on the shirt instead of the face, it seems) and definitely needs to be cropped. As a crop is a very easy fix, it should not be left to be. --Florian Prischl 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I don't agree with Florian Prischl. --Lestat 12:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I do agree. Lycaon 13:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional  Neutral if it were were cropped some more above. Dori - Talk 13:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like the crop, but I still think it's good. Dori - Talk 18:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Voting for below version instead. Dori - Talk 14:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Support I just supported this picture as FPC, so I support it here also... -- MJJR 20:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Due to the crop as mentioned by Thegreenj. If this is fixed, I'll support. -- Slaunger 23:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Artur Rojek Edit

• Nomination How's this (crop, slight sharpen and NR)? Thegreenj 00:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support The crop is now good (let's harvest). Dori - Talk 14:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The crop and sharpnes are slightly better now, but the composition is still bad - the cluttered background is distracting. It really should not have been hard to get the subject of the photo in front of a white wall or so. --Florian Prischl 11:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I can accept the unfortunate background, because there is a point with it: The BG shows a poster for an event the subject is related to. -- Slaunger 20:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Insufficient quality. Background poster is quite irrelevant as it is not readable. Lycaon 11:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The essential Off festival is easily readable, the rest is not. -- Slaunger 20:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I think the red in the poster is what makes it stand out so much. Calibas 03:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Just not a good portrait: the subject looks uncomfortable, the lighting is mediocre and the background is distracting. -Fcb981 01:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Acceptable detail. --Beyond silence 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Although detail is there, the is nothing that in my opinion makes this much more than just a snapshot. The composition is not very interesting, the background is cluttered, and the poster, while maybe relevant, isn't in focus enough to say to a viewer "I'm relevant to this", but draws the eye from the man. It's a fine photo to maybe illustrate the subject in his WP article, but I don't think it is QI. Inductiveload 14:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fly September 2007-6.jpg

• Nomination A blow-fly of the Calliphoridae family (Chrysomya albiceps) - Alvesgaspar 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support and QI again Benh 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice composition but this picture is very noisy/distorted and harsh lighted. --Richard Bartz 15:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The lighting is very harsh, just a little too harsh. The noise is amplified by that, which is why I oppose this image (albeit just barely). --Florian Prischl 12:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I think it is a great shoot -- Jarekt 23:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Great shot, somewhat harsh lighting, but decent detail. -- (Relic38 13:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Madison Wisconsin

• Nomination A shot of Madison, Wisconsin from the Monona lakeshore. --Dori Talk 03:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  OpposeVery flat, almost bland perspective. No distinctive features are cought, it looks like a straight wall. --Florian Prischl 00:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

•  CommentIt's OK if you don't like the image, but exactly which of the QI guidelines does it not fulfill? Are you saying that it doesn't represent the actual view? The buildings are far away from the camera, so the focussing plane will be on all of them, hence the flat view. The white building in the shore was from a design of w:en:Frank Lloyd Wright and you can also see the capitol of Madison, both of which are distinctive. Thanks for the comments. Dori - Talk 02:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• The problem this photo exhibits is very common among panoramas - lacking composure or structure. That is also the QI criterion I would quote - composition. That is not really your fault, as you cannot change the way the city looks. The things I already mentioned become that way because the photo was taken from such a low level, at water level. This results in the "wall" I wrote about. The unsharpnes of the photo adds to that effect because it blurs the distinctions between the buildings. Compare this to, for example, this panorama, where, due to the perspective and the lines in the photo dictated by the river, the composition and structure is more lively. --Florian Prischl 10:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Again, you're talking about something you like or don't like but not technical. The guidelines state:

• common problems: Unclear or non-existent subject.
• guideline: The arrangement of the elements within the image should support depiction of the subject, not distract from it. The subject should not be cropped, unless it is only a specific part of the subject that is of interest. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head).The “Rule of Thirds” is a common guideline for composition that has been inherited from painting. The idea is to divide the image with two imaginary horizontal and two vertical lines, thus dividing the image into thirds horizontally and vertically. Centering the subject is often considered a negative practice. Subjects of interest are placed in one of the “interest points”, where horizontal and vertical lines intersect (4 interest points are created). Horizons are almost never placed in the middle, for they “cut” the image in half. They are placed either in the upper or lower horizontal line. The main idea here is NOT to center the subject without a very good reason.

• There is nothing in there about liveliness. Obviously the guidelines can't list every single problem there could be, but as far as I can tell the image exhibits none of the problems mentioned in the guidelines, and all the guidelines are more or less objective (except maybe the rule of thirds, but this image doesn't violate that and even that test is fairly objective to perform) unlike the liveliness or dullness of a subject. As far as sharpness, I think it's pretty good for the distance. Oh, and this is not a panorama. It has the wide format of a panorama because of how i cropped it, but it is a single shot taken at 75 mm. I guess I'll wait for some other opinions. Thanks, Dori - Talk 12:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• For one, I think the large portion of sky is making the panorama uninteresting. To quote your quoted text: "Horizons are almost never placed in the middle, for they “cut” the image in half." And yes, I stand by my point of view that this is a panorma, because of what it depicts (a large portion of something, in this landscape/city. That it is a panorama has nothing do do with focal length or the use of stitching software. However, this might be a simple misunderstanding on either end is just a question of semantics, anyway. For another, please keep in mind that the Guidelines are just that - guidelines and not laws. Maybe I chose to interpret them more towards my view of a "quality image", but so be it. This is why we have CR, after all. Regarding composition, the two buildings you mention are, in my opinion, not distinctive at all. The capitol might be the highest building, but the only visible thing is the cupola. Also, the Wright building you point out is not distintive, either. The white/beige building behind it blends the two together, and neither is as sharp as they should be. I also just noticed the picture has a very, very small clockwise tilt. I hope you can understand my vote better now. I would welcome other opinions on the photo. --Florian Prischl 12:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Tree Sparrow

• Nomination Tree Sparrow in a park. --Laitche 18:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Discussion

* Support Acceptable detail for me. --Beyond silence 20:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)--Beyond silence 07:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose Too noisy for such a small picture. Resampling is not an option here. Lycaon 17:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Noise doesn't bother me here, it seems not to take any detail out of the picture. And aside that issue, I think this picture is very nice Benh 20:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too bad it is so noisy, especially in the brown parts. It would otherwise be a good photograph. --Florian Prischl 00:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support A good photo of the species, good size, good exposure, good focus, no obtrusive noise - obviously QI --Tony Wills 09:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Lestat 12:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Dori - Talk 21:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Really noisy per Lycaon. Doodledoo 22:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• conditional Oppose for ISO 800 the noise is realistic, but there are very easy to use noise reduction tools which should be applied here --Richard Bartz 02:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it could be done very easily. The noise is pretty coarse grained to the point where most automatic filters wouldn't touch it. Dori - Talk 03:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I really have a hard time seeing why people have problems with the noise only really noticeable on some dark brown wing feathers, it is not the sort of speckled multicoloured noise effect that is annoying, it could best be described as a coarseness in small areas - if you try to smooth it out you will just loose detail for no great gain. We are not looking for perfect images, we are looking for good resolution, high quality images, small defects have always been acceptable --Tony Wills 07:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I appreciate it :) --Laitche 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Info I did noise reduction as much as possible without losing detail and uploaded the edited version. Please vote to the edited version :) --Laitche 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose -> (vote on revised version?) --Tony Wills 23:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

edited version

• Nomination Tree Sparrow in a park. --Laitche 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Comment I think the noise is getting better. Probably some noise still remain but I agree with Tony Wills. It was not easy for me as Dori said. --Laitche 05:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support But then what do I know, I thought the original was ok ;-) --Tony Wills 09:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support This version. Noise is better now, the resulting unsharpnes is acceptable. --Florian Prischl 11:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Sharp, clean now, and good DOF. -- (Relic38 01:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
•  Oppose I have a different opinion on clean and sharp. Still too noisy for its size. Lycaon 11:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 06:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pannonian Knapweed

• Nomination Centaurea sadleriana (Pannonian Knapweed) cropped--Beyond silence 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  OpposeThe flowers still look out of focus, I think the problem is with over-exposure. Examine the histogram and individual channels, 3.5% of pixels over exposed (most in just red and blue channels). Sorry :-) --Tony Wills 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think where is the focus? I can not agree that.--Beyond silence 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose this is oversharpened now, and it is still obvious that the photo is actually unsharp. To answer Beyond silence's question: As far as I can tell, the focus rests with the upper part of the stem (as seen better in the original photo), which is the wrong place. I also concur with Tony Wills that it is overexposed. --Florian Prischl 12:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 0 Support, 2 Oppose not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Delicious calamares

• Nomination Calamares a la romana Fried coated squid slices --Javier ME 21:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Oh my god, that looks so TASTY. Background a tad noisy but acceptable. Doodledoo 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I love calamares but that is not enough to let the promotion pass... The crop is too tight and there is something in the background spoiling the composition - Alvesgaspar 19:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Agree with Alvesgaspar -- Slaunger 22:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Hey "crop-background barbarians", it's a good technical quality photo!--Beyond silence 19:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose ack Alvesgaspar --Leafnode 10:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose another close call, but I do not like the reflection in the background. I also miss the EXIF information! --Florian Prischl 12:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oedipoda caerulescens korseby

• Nomination very sharp close-up of Oedipoda caerulescens. Fabelfroh 16:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support At minimum size but good quality. --LC-de 16:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sharpness. --Beyond silence 12:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Promotion template restored (not the place to discuss - Alvesgaspar 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral - I'll be neutral on this one. The detail and focus are good enough but the branch in foreground kills it - Alvesgaspar 22:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose plant in the foreground --Leafnode 10:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose the plant in the foreground and the rather shallow DOF make me oppose this, but besides, this is a very nice shot, so this is unfortunate. --Florian Prischl 12:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral - I really want to promote this for sharpness, good DOF, and value, but the twig in front, and the tight crop (100 more pixels on left and right) have me neutral. -- (Relic38 01:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
•  Oppose not really sharp enough for its size. Lycaon 15:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yusupovsky Garden in Saint Petersburg

• Nomination Yusupovsky Garden in Saint Petersburg -- Sergey kudryavtsev 06:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Discussion
•  Info The photograph intended for article about old park of Saint Petersburg. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 06:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Info It seems this image was put in CR without going through the regular gallery at first (see Sergey kudryavtsev's diff at 2007-10-04T08:43:08 - link provided below as to not break the template). Should we just move it up to the gallery (not regarding my vote or regarding it?) or leave it here? I will leave it here for now. --Florian Prischl 12:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  •  Info I ask for consensual review only, not nominate to quality images. There is in Commons:Quality images candidates ("How to ask for consensual review") nothing about setting anything into gallery. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 13:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • As far as I understand, you were only looking for a review or critique of your photo, is that right? By posting it on the Quality Images page, an image will get reviewed and either promoted as a Quality Image or not. The CR section is for disputed nominations, not general critique on the image (although it often turns into such, which is good). What I think you might have been looking for is Commons:Photography critiques. Under that light, you might want to withdraw your nomination if you do not want it to be reviewed on a simple support/oppose basis. --Florian Prischl 13:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I think it's necessary to make section "How to ask for consensual review" of Commons:Quality images candidates more clear. For non English-speaking people it is difficult to understand. Can you rewrite this section? -- Sergey kudryavtsev 06:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Slight counterclockwise tilt; strong fringing that is especially evident on the leafs in the top left; unsharpnes (which look like shake, which it is not, regarding that the exposure time was 1/500th of a second). --Florian Prischl 12:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  •  Question What is "string fringing"? I don't understand this term. This is color abberations on the leafs? -- Sergey kudryavtsev 13:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Please excuse me, that was a typo. It should have read: "strong fringing". I corrected the typo in the original text also. --Florian Prischl 13:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
      • This seems as second colored edge. Through what this is happened? And how i can fix this fringing? -- Sergey kudryavtsev 06:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The diff in question --Florian Prischl 12:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Moved to Commons:Photography critiques Tony Wills 10:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

hawk

• Nomination Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii). --Calibas 03:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Comment Wow, nice picture. You should probably correct the white balance though as the bird looks blue. Dori - Talk 03:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. Calibas 03:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Well done, my first promotion but it's easy with this image :) Dori - Talk 03:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sharpness, light. --Beyond silence 12:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Promotion template restored (not the place to discuss) - Alvesgaspar 14:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - I don't like the composition but the detail on the bird is quite good - Alvesgaspar 22:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Looks good. The Bokeh in the background looks great --Richard Bartz 01:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbz1 03:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Jarekt 23:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Urbana Illinois park

• Nomination A firewheel flower. Dori - Talk 17:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Awesome colors, good detail. I think a little bit tighter crop would be an improvement but still a QI. Calibas 03:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sharpness, (background?) If you know the species write it to the desciption.. --Beyond silence 12:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the description. Dori - Talk 13:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Info Promotion template restored (not the place to discuss - Alvesgaspar 14:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Good detail and colours. But I would crop a bit on the right to de-center the main subject - Alvesgaspar 22:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Young California Kingsnake

• Nomination Young California Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula californiae) . --Calibas 04:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Problems with noise and glow on the head of the snake. They are outweighed by the composition (posture of the snake) and the, in my view, good use of DOF (although that might be criticized). --Florian Prischl 00:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sharpness, noise. --Beyond silence 12:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 20:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

City pigeon

• Nomination Common city pigeon (Columba livia). Taken in Lisboa, Portugal - Alvesgaspar 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Lovely photo (as usual). No faults, great composition. Doodledoo 23:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sharpness, noise. --Beyond silence 12:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• When you don't agree with the review PLEASE move the picture to CR - Alvesgaspar 13:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support sharpness and noise levels are acceptable for QI. Lycaon 13:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I think the sharpness is pretty good (maybe not FP level, but way better than most shots). Dori - Talk 13:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL. --Beyond silence 14:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Constructive comments would be more useful :-) --Tony Wills 23:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Undoubtedly QI ! -- MJJR 20:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Artillery in St. Petersburg

• Nomination Enterace in museum of artellery in St. Petersburg #!George Shuklin 20:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Comment Blurred faces make it unfit for QI. What happened to the EXIF, BTW? Lycaon 20:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I reupload non-blured version, but will it been accepted with faces of random people? About EXIF - it has no meaning after editing. #!George Shuklin 22:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Do you mean your image editing program deletes the EXIF data? The EXIF data still has plenty of meaning after editing, you cant change things like focal length or f-stop. Calibas 02:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Great photo! --Orlovic (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support composition and quality ok. nice picture Pudelek 15:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cathedrale Béziers

• Nomination Béziers cathedral (France).--Sanchezn 20:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support The colors are a little bit pale, but sharpness and composition are OK. -- MJJR 20:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Quite good but I see a slight CCW tilt in all the verticals. QI when corrected. Lycaon 17:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• CCW tilt corrected with Hugin. But I disagree this kind of comments, a quality picture doesn't need to have perfect verticals everywhere, it's a persepctive problem. Sanchezn 21:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oh yes it has to, that why we award it a QI stamp. Technically as perfect as possible, and correcting a tilt is (almost) always possible. BTW, I didn't oppose, just brought it to CR, because I knew the tilt correction was an easy but necessary thing. Lycaon 08:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support --Lestat 22:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Tilt is so easily correctable that it should always be taken into account; Lycaon is right. Also, might I suggest a level-corrected version? The original seems washed out. (On an external server so as not to clutter up the Commons). --Florian Prischl 00:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I corrected my picture using hugin... And the correction is not only a rotation, there is also a perspective correction. As an example, on your picture File:War memorial to fallen resistance fighters 1943-1945, Pesaro, Italy.jpg, if you look on the left, the picture seem to be tilted clockwise, but on th right, it seems to be tilted anti-clockwise. Sanchezn 09:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am sorry if my comment was unclear. I did assume that the picture was already corrected by you when I made that comment, is that not right? It does look fine as it is now (and did look fine when I first looked at it and wrote my comment), tilt-wise. I did not mean it should be rotated even further. What I meant to say was that tilt should always be corrected, and slightly-off image that is otherwise good should not become a QI because tilt is so easily correctable. --Florian Prischl 10:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Your comment was clear, but perhaps my answer was not... I just explained why tilt-correction is not easy : because there is also perspective problems that make verticals on border of the pics not vertical. As another example, if you put your Altlerchenfelder Kirche on QIC, there will be people to say "tilted"... it's not tilted, it's a perspective problem not easy to correct. In my picture the problem was the same even if it seems to be a tilt problem. Sanchezn 10:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• OK, now I understand what you meant. And yes, what you say makes perfect sense. Interestingly, in File:Altlerchenfelder Kirche Wien.jpg the perspective IS already adjusted (using The GIMP). I remember it was not easy and it still looks somewhat crummy. --Florian Prischl 12:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Some spot checking of verticals I did found them at 90°. Dori - Talk 13:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• The tilt has been corrected... Sanchezn 18:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Crested Tern

• Nomination Crested Tern--Benjamint 03:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Unconventional format, but sharp and good use of DOF. Please complete information template. Lycaon 13:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment no author, no source, no date taken, these need to be fixed Gnangarra 13:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support to me a future FPC (but I'll wait for the information template to be completed). Benh 20:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Issues seem to have been resolved. Lycaon 08:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Great shot, a serious candidate to FP - Alvesgaspar 09:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks, I've Just Nominated it at FPC now.--Benjamint 10:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Technically good and hilarious subject. Doodledoo 12:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral The technical side is well done, but the composition - with another bird directly behind the subject - is troubling me. It looks very confusing to me. I'll think about it. --Florian Prischl 00:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• weak  Oppose A very good image of the bird, and I can ignore the second bird behind the tail, but the third bird that has a beak immediately behind the main subject is a real problem - it creates a halo around the birds beak - very distracting --Tony Wills 09:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR 21:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0.5 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Goat

• Nomination A young she-goat grazing (Capra aegagrus hircus) - Alvesgaspar 19:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Comment Seems oversharpened, if you did sharpen it I'd say tone that down. Dori - Talk 19:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it was a bit overcontrasted, please check it now - Alvesgaspar 20:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Looks fine now. Another excellent photo by Mr. Gaspar.... Doodledoo 15:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition, sharpness. --Beyond silence 20:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Contrast has come down, but the composition just doesn't do it for me (not enough of a goat lover :) A side image would have been better. Dori - Talk 03:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Celastrina Argiolus

• Nomination A Celastrina argiolus (Holly Blue). --S Sepp 13:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Amazingly detailed and beautiful, despite the blurred parts. Benh 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sharpness, DOF, noise. --Beyond silence 12:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Promotion template restored (not the place to discuss - Alvesgaspar 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Low depth of field but the head is in focus and the good detail make it sufficient for QI --Tony Wills 20:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose ack Beyond silence. Lycaon 21:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Agree with opposers, the high noise in the background is too much - Alvesgaspar 22:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

scleranthus

• Nomination big and detailed photo. Fabelfroh 16:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Yes, you're right. Sharp and well illuminated too. --LC-de 16:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Distracting fore and background.--Beyond silence 12:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Promotion template restored (not the place to discuss - Alvesgaspar 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Composition not good enough, specially the unfocused foreground - Alvesgaspar 22:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hoverfly on Agastache Blue Fortune.jpg

• Nomination My first macro shot submission, I love the colours a lot and wonder if you agree. -- Benh 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Needs id on the hoverfly. Lycaon 13:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC) issues resolved Lycaon 21:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose great colors, good composition, great resolution, but low sharpness and low depth-of-field, and the hoverfly is out of focus (which is the subject here). Fabelfroh 09:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I disagree. I may not be "Richard Bartz" sharp, but it is in focus to me. Please have a look at it again at real size. I agree with Lycaon and will do some research on the hoverfly id. Benh 17:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Sorry Benh but I also agree the quality is not good enough. Six months ago the picture would habe been easily promoted but now the "insect bar" is much higher due to many excellent contributions. Personally I don't like the centred composition. As for the species, it might be Syritta sp., please check this one - Alvesgaspar 18:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• uch ! I really thought this was a good picture (but after all, I come here to have feedbacks) ! But size of the insect aside, what serious flaw does this picture has ?? I thought details on the plant and the insect (given the size) were good. About the composition... it's a more subjective point, but I actually consider the plants are a good part of it, which is why I don't see it as "simply centered" (I could still add back the part I cropped out on the right). Benh 18:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

 Comment I do not agree with the suggestion the QI criteria should have become more stringent because of the good quality images submitted over the last six months, this is not FP, there is not a limit on how many images can join the QI category. Just because we have more excellent images is no reason to decline good images --Tony Wills 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support The main problem I have is that the hoverfly seems to be the main subject but there's no ID. Otherwise the composition and colors make up for the low DOF. I wouldn't support this as an FP but it's good enough for QI. Calibas 19:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A QI should be better than a FP if we take the quality for example --Richard Bartz 02:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Info Hoverfly ID added. Great thanks to Lycaon (I promise I'll try to find by myself next time :) ) Benh 19:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support The head of the fly is in reasonable focus and shows good detail. I have reservations about the composition. --Tony Wills 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose 2 less detail for my taste. Hard subject. --Richard Bartz 02:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Blowfly 1

• Nomination A blow-fly of the Sarcophagidae family (Sarcophaga sp.) - Alvesgaspar 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support I'm always amazed by your macro shots, amazing catchs although slightly soft (which is really the only reason why I don't nominate them for FPC. Maybe someone else will ?... Benh 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

 Comment - First, second and third reason for the softness: lack of skill, clumsyness; fourth reason: maybe with a better lens and lighting ... Alvesgaspar 20:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I wish I were as clumsy as you then :) Benh 21:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose Flash, glowing, sharpness. --Beyond silence 12:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• When you don't agree with the review PLEASE move the picture to CR - Alvesgaspar 13:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose This picture offers both, overexposure and underexposure. The lighting is very harsh and suppresses the fine details, which would great to see. One question: How is it possible to have that amount of noise at 100 ISO ? --Richard Bartz 15:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Blowfly 2

• Nomination A blow-fly of the Sarcophagidae family (Sarcophaga sp.) - Alvesgaspar 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support QI Benh 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose sharpness, noise --Beyond silence 12:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• When you don't agree with the review PLEASE move the picture to CR - Alvesgaspar 13:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The contrast/lighting is very harsh and the crop is unfortunate. I would like to see more fine/gracile details on the insect for a QI. --Richard Bartz 15:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Cathedral in Lviv

• Nomination Armenian Cathedral in Lviv. --Lestat 15:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Unclear composition - what is the subject? The composition is further disturbed by the metal bar. It also lacks detail, probably due to the softnes. --Florian Prischl 00:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• I don't agree. Please for another opinion. --Lestat 12:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The subject is clearly the door (some people myself included find some doors fascinating), but it's not a good composition in my opinion due to obstruction by the metal bar. I'd also like to see some more of the walls as they seem to make good lines. Dori - Talk 13:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Polyporus fomentarius

• Nomination Huba. --Lestat 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Comment Could you add the latin name and add the picture to a galery, please. --LC-de 19:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• If someone has it, please add it (I wouldn't know). --Lestat 18:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Probably it's Polyporus fomentarius --Leafnode 23:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• I add it to description. --Lestat 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The lighting is unfortunate, creating overexpose and glow on the right side and underexposure on the left. The raindrops just add to the lighting problems. --Florian Prischl 00:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• I don't agree. Please for another opinion. --Lestat 12:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Florian on the lighting. Dori - Talk 13:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Pannonian Knapweed

• Nomination Centaurea sadleriana (Pannonian Knapweed)--Beyond silence 18:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  OpposeAs a vegetal macro shot, I expect the main subject to be isolated from the background by having this last one more blurred than what we have here. As a consequence, composition is a bit messy to my taste. Benh 20:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

?! --Beyond silence 08:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What is your question? All Benh has said is that he does not care for the composition and would like for a shallower DOF/flatter perspective. Thegreenj 22:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Benh. Thegreenj 22:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose and agree with Benh and Thegreenj. Additionally, the bloom itself does not seem to be in focus and there seems to be some shake in the photo (visible on the stem). --Florian Prischl 00:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, then see some other QI. I'm sick of this, I will not nominate any picture at the future.

(removed QICBOT hampering gallery) I'm interesting in how you think change a flower's background, with use as DOF as sharp the whole flower.--Beyond silence 07:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Yes, some of the photos you showed as examples should not have been promoted as QIs. But how does this change the fact that your photo is not as good as it should be for QI? Agreed, the background in your photo is not the biggest problem at all. As I wrote (and also just amended), I think the biggest problems are focus (which is not on the bloom, but on the upper part of the stem how I see it) and shake (although the stem could as well just be out of focus, it look more like shake to me and would explain the unsharpnes of the bloom, too). Regarding these problems, I do not think the picture should be promoted as a Quality Image. Also, if you hold a personal grudge against any reviewer or everybody at QI, of which you are a part, please don't take it out on the whole community by arbitrarily declaring a QI boycott. This is of no use to anybody. --Florian Prischl 10:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose The only problem I have with this image is that the flowers are not sharp. At that shutter speed I would be surprised if it was movement, but whatever the cause they look out of focus at full resolution. Sorry :-) --Tony Wills 11:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Examining the image more carefully, I see the problem is indeed not a simple focus problem, but that the red and blue channels are over-exposed in many places on the petals - that is what gives the unsharp look to the petals. --Tony Wills 11:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reluctant  Support. I think this is borderline. The FG/BG seperation could have been better and the composition less cluttered, but I think it is sufficiently sharp and I like the colours. Having said that I disapprove of your emotional burst. The QI process is not an exact science but a fast track review proces, where the result can differ slightly depending on each reviewers personal preferences. -- Slaunger 23:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Thegreenj 02:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment If it is processed and voting has finished, why has the template not been changed? I do not want to mess with it without knowing exactly what I do, so I ask someone who knows better to fix this. Thank you, Florian Prischl 11:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • My mistake. Thegreenj 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Basilica of Estrela

• Nomination Detail of the Estrela Basilica, Lisbon, framed by the branches of a lime tree - Alvesgaspar 20:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose The quality criteria are not met: ordinary and quite accettable composition, but the church is so distant and poor in colors while the leaves are so bright. Are the leaves the principle subject of this pic? Nao gosto dessa foto, sinto muito.-- 87.23.252.165 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent sharpness and composition. In full res the dome is a little bit tilted, but this is absolutely not disturbing. Very nice light, especially on the leaves. It's true: the church is not the main subject here, but the whole composition is a QI. -- MJJR 20:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Weak detail on Basilica, sorry --Beyond silence 19:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose-the composition is rahter distracting. but the light trou the leaves is quite cool efect :P-LadyofHats 19:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Really don't like the composition. Doodledoo 20:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Cluttered, unclear composition, clockwise tilt. --Florian Prischl 19:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Lestat 12:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Loch Fada Storr Skye

• Nomination Storr and Loch Fada on Skye. -- Klaus with K 14:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Comment Please geocode. --Siipikarja 19:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Done -- Klaus with K 08:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Composition, detail acceptable. --Beyond silence 20:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Posterization artifacts, blurry. Doodledoo 20:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

 Question Increasing contrast to an insane value, I can see some sensor noise in the sky and just spot a few jpeg artifacts, but cannot make out posterisation. Where should I look? -- Klaus with K 13:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I rechecked the image on my main display - it was a problem with my laptop. However, I maintain my oppose due to the blurriness (specifically in the foreground). Doodledoo 17:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose due to the bluriness in the foreground. It could really use more DOF, especially since it was most likely taken on a tripod anyway. --Florian Prischl 23:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Just for the record, there was no tripod involved at all, I was balancing on a fence pole. -- Klaus with K 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Manhattan4_amk

• Nomination Manhattan with Brooklyn Bridge. --AngMoKio 21:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Interesting composition, nice exposure. --Leafnode 11:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Significant colour fringing off-centre, look at the left skyscrapers. -- Klaus with K 12:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak  Support Good composition, not very good sharpness. --Beyond silence 09:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm not too fond of the perspective. All buildings are leaning towards the centre. And the colour fringes are indeed disturbing. Lycaon 08:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Some noise, strong fringing all over the photo. Bad perspective correction (mentioned by Lycaon and some tilt (observable at the base of the bridge pillar). --Florian Prischl 23:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment There's an nice picture here, just needs a little work. Perspective could use correcting and personally, I'd crop this so the skyscrapers on the left are the main subject framed by the water and bridge. Calibas

Result: 1.5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Snellegem_Kerk_01.jpg

• Nomination Snellegem (Belgium): St Eligius church, late 19th century -- MJJR 20:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose i think from quality it is acceptable, but the composition is sooo boring and straight foward-LadyofHats 19:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I don't think it's boring (maybe lighting too flat ??), and I also think quality is very good. Benh 20:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very flat angle, thus both uninteresting and not very revealing perspective. It also seems slightly overexposed. --Florian Prischl 23:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sunflower bud

• Nomination A Sunflower bud just getting started. -- carol 18:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support The yellow petals seem greenish, but I think that is how it is. Otherwise technically good. --Florian Prischl 18:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC).
•  Oppose Rather distracting crop, if reasonably cropped it would of course be on the small side. --Tony Wills 01:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What is a better crop? One of the things I liked about this image was that the subject wasn't in dead center. However, that being said, I might have some secret upscaling tools -- carol 19:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Acceptable composition and tech detail. --Beyond silence 08:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose weird crop indeed. Lycaon 10:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Define "weird" -- carol 20:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the image is not of the subject, and my eye sees the bud then follows the picture up to the right to, well, an expanse of leaves and I am left somewhat lost :-). Now you could overcome this problem by titling it "sunflower bud and leaves", but then people would have to look at whether it was showing off the leaves very well (I'm not even sure the leaves are those of a sunflower :-). It is usual for the photo to emphasise the subject :-) --Tony Wills 03:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support I am particularly fond of how it barely meets the size recommendations. -- carol 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you vote as nominator? Doodledoo 22:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the vote doesn't count ;-). Lycaon 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes your vote is implicit in your nomination, we are just trying to see if anyone agrees with you :-) --Tony Wills 03:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I just looked up "implicit" and it made me think that perhaps the nomination should count as a vote. Is there something to read in the QI Guidlines or elsewhere so that I can understand this better? -- carol 02:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

 Info What I meant is that the idea is that you nominate images that you consider Quality Images (as per the criteria), and someone reviews your submission to see if they agree (so you implicitly vote for QI). If your nomination is counted as a 'vote' then we would need two people to disagree before we could get a 'majority' and decline it. Which would defeat the whole idea of fast throughput. The idea is that obviously quality images will get promoted quickly, poor images will get declined quickly. --Tony Wills 04:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So, if I had gotten someone else to nominate it, then as the photographer I could vote for it? -- carol 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it probably wouldn't make a difference, because the nominator wouldn't be able to offer support. That said, QI is about getting a collect of quality photographs encouraging high-quality images, and, well, that suggestion just doesn't seem in the right spirit. Thegreenj 17:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose Way too much dead space. Yes, centered pictures can be boring, but just offsetting the subject does not necessarily improve the composition. Thegreenj 01:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that it is mentioned here over and over again, there does seem to be a predominance of subject centered images in the QI collection, particularly in the Plant life section. There was only this exception and this exception to this subject centric "rule". I wonder now if it is a reflection of the schooling or of the collective mindset because personally, I always disliked having the subject in the center of the image -- especially all of the time. It seems uninteresting, conservative and eventually not very brave. A little sunflower bud would not get very far in life without those big soft leaves that feed it, after all. -- carol 02:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think that the thirds rule would be conservative when it comes to photographs. I personally like centered images in the case of flowers when you're trying to illustrate (as opposed to producing an artistic shot). Dori - Talk 02:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose-dont like the composition -LadyofHats 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not fond of the lighting or the crop. Doodledoo 12:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 09:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Happy Belated Birthday Dad! I tried! -- carol 01:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Assebroek_De_Lelie.jpg

• Nomination Assebroek (Bruges, Belgium): former inn De Lelie, 17th century -- MJJR 20:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  OpposeI am not sure what the word is, but this image has a bulge in the middle where there should be straight lines.carol 10:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support- i think the building itself is the one deformed and for a picture of a white building in a sunny day it is acceptable -LadyofHats 19:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support as the Lady. Lycaon 17:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 23:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

View from Śnieżnik Mountains

• Nomination View from Glatzer Schneeberg / Śnieżnik (Sudetes) -- Pudelek 11:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  CommentIt is technically fine but the composition is poor, with an extense and uninteresting foreground. I'm not sure it should be declined - Alvesgaspar 23:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support i wouldnt decline it, i mean it is quite a straight foward composition but it is normally so by this *i can see my house from here*lanscapes -LadyofHats 19:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Move to CR to get more opinions. IMO geocoding is very important for such a panorama. I would suggest to use the Location Template [11] together with the attribute heading to indicate the direction the camera was pointing at [12]. Is it not Glatzer Schneegebirge instead of Glatzer Schneeberg? Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 08:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Geocode done. This is exactly Glatzer Schneeberg [13], Pudelek 09:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unsharp and noise, strong chromatic aberration due to the mist. --Florian Prischl 19:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose ac Florian Prischl --Lestat 22:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 23:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Lutheran Cathedral Helsinki

• Nomination Lutheran Cathedral in Helsinki (composite image). Lycaon 12:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Could use a slight clockwise rotation. Calibas 21:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Guess you're right, I'll reprocess. Lycaon 22:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Done
• Promotion
•  Oppose Hmm very good for sure, but surprisingly a bit noisy (especially if it's a sample down version of a much higher one, which I guess is the case from 22 stitched pictures). Also some noticeable sitching errors on the bottom left part, and on some columns. It's a QI without doubt if these are corrected. Benh 21:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Well done ! I wonder if I should make it an FP candidate... Benh 20:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed some minor stitch errors. The picture was not much resampled, the photographs had quite a bit (maybe too much?) of overlap. I also tried to address the noise, which IMO was already very slight. Lycaon 22:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment More stitching errors at the very top left, sorry. Calibas 03:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• The more pixels the more scrutinizing!! I hope every single pixels of this 38,243,688 pixel image has now been looked at? Lycaon 04:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Now that you mention it those are pretty minor errors for a picture this huge. Calibas 04:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Finally, a decent image of one of Helsinki's finest buildings. Lycaon has done good job stitching the 22 photos together. It would be sad if all the effort put into this picture wouldn't be awarded with a QI stamp. --Siipikarja 10:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Very Nice. Setting up standards for HiRes building pictures. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 08:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Another phenomenal photo by Lycaon. *sigh* I wish I were that good... Doodledoo 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I am not experienced at stitched panoramas, but it looks very well done. The "usual" technical aspects such as lighting, angle, etc. are also very well done. This should be a QI. --Florian Prischl 19:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Black ice growler

• Nomination Black ice growler from a recently calved iceberg near Upernavik, Greenland. -- Slaunger 23:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Discussion

The crop seems to distract from the subject, perhaps a little tighter? Calibas 00:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment I understand your point, but... The current crop is done so on purpose to give a feeling that black ice is much more rare than the normal white ice. -- Slaunger 00:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment An interesting picture, but the normal white ice is near over exposure. --Siipikarja 13:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment It is bright, as white ice should be, but the ice is not overexposed. This is objectively confirmed by the perfect histogram. -- Slaunger 05:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment For me the ice seems to be burned-out. Okay, okay, ice is bright when light is reflecting from it, but for me the bright regions rule this out from QIs. Sorry. Check for yourself, the burned-out regions: --Siipikarja 22:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment You are right. Objectively, the histogram is good, but not perfect. Thank you for pointing that out. Please decline the photo if you feel the amount of overexposure is unacceptable for QI. -- Slaunger 07:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Declined. --Siipikarja 13:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support The areas marked by User:Siipikarja are not over exposed, examine a histogram, yes they are bright white. The amount of over exposure is absolutely trivial (0.05% of pixels) and is well within an acceptable level, especially for a subject like ice!! --Tony Wills 02:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Ice is white... what do you expect? As per Tony Wills, the overexposure is absolutely negligable. I don't see a better exposure possible. Thegreenj 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition is quite boring. Doodledoo 22:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I think a crop like this: emphasizes the subject much better. The bright white iceberg on the bottom is rather distracting. Calibas 05:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Although I have stubbornly insisted on the original crop, I must admit that your crop is an improvement, and it juuust meets the size guideline. I would like to see the end of the CR for the original (as i am stubborn). It will probably be declined. If it gets declined, I will nominate your crop for QI afresh and see how the opinions are. -- Slaunger 06:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment The crop made by Calibas is a significant improvement to the original. --Siipikarja 19:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support-ice is always complicated to take. i think there is more than enough detail-LadyofHats 19:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I also like Calibas's crop better. --Florian Prischl 19:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> (more votes?) --Tony Wills 22:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)  I may be stubborn, but it seems clear that most reviewers prefer the crop by Calibas. So no reason to spend more precious reviewer resources on this ufortunate crop. I am nominating the improved, cropped version as a normal QI instead. Thanks to the reviewers for their time so far... -- Slaunger 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Kłodzko

• Nomination Coat of Arms of Kłodzko (Glatz) on the city hall --Pudelek 23:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good light acceptable technical condition. --Beyond silence 23:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, too small (1.85 Mpx) and tilted. Lycaon 00:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose ac Lycaon. --Lestat 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose-size-LadyofHats 19:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Size, overexposed, tilt. --Florian Prischl 19:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Leccinum scabrum

• Nomination Birch bolete (Leccinum scabrum) --LC-de 17:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose flat light, overexposed left. Lycaon 18:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Uploaded a new edit. --LC-de 17:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Acceptable sharpness. --Beyond silence 07:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice. I suggest adding Geodata to the image page as a supplement to the written location. -- Slaunger 20:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per Lycaon - overexposed, and the light seems strangely hued. --Florian Prischl 20:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  the light seems strangely hued. Could you explain this further, please? --LC-de 07:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment I would support if you brought down the exposure (hopefully you have a raw file), and cropped off the out of focus grass at the bottom. I think the color may be part of the mushroom not an effect of lighting (at least not completely). Dori - Talk 05:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support- even with light problems it looks nice and is a cute little mushroom. ejem.. not that this would count.. but -LadyofHats 19:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Colours look a little magenta. Doodledoo 20:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  ??? I've took a look on this pic on 3 different monitors and it doesn't look magenta on any of them. --LC-de 20:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  If you look at the small twigs under the mushroom, they look somewhat purple/magenta on my monitor. Not that it bothers me though. -- Slaunger 21:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Lestat 23:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Kowloon Clock Tower

• Nomination Former Kowloon-Canton Railway Clock Tower at night. --Siipikarja 00:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  CommentHmmm... why is the photo not visible --88.114.148.198 23:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
•  SupportWe have to look at the full picture. It's very good.--Szilas 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose issue resolved Lycaon 17:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC) tilt, noise, perspective, ... Lycaon 18:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

   Comment The tower is tilted to right, but the palms and the building behind them are tilted to left. So which way to rotate? --Siipikarja 13:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  Towers are usually straight, unlike palm trees ;-). If several buildings are 'leaning' towards each other, then you have a perspective problem, rather than a tilt problem. Lycaon 13:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

   Comment True. :) Looks like I have a perspective problem then. Thanks for the comments. --Siipikarja 14:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Uploaded a new version with -0,6° tilt correction and partial noise reduction. --Siipikarja 22:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's very tilt now too! --Beyond silence 14:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 Comment See, that's the problem with this picture. It is always tilted. I rotated it (to left) so that the tower is dead-vertical. But now the horizontal lines, especially the pool edge near the tower, look tilted. If I rotate it to right, the tower becomes tilted - or at least it will appear to be tilted. It is, after all 45m tall, so maybe the perspective is doing tricks here. No bonus :(. --Siipikarja 18:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 Comment I think you should try to do genuine perspective correction then. Tilting is not enough when lines are not parallel. -- Slaunger 20:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Uah, I give up. I tried parallelizing with different rotation angles, but the image just becomes an eyesore. Even a slight rotation to the left from the original image makes the clock tower look like The Leaning Tower of Pisa :/ Let this be The Leaning Tower of Hong Kong then... --Siipikarja 21:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC).

 Comment Reverted to the original version because the slight rightward tilt is "a natural tilt" due to perspective. The noise is back, but it can be removed again, if desired. --Siipikarja 22:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose The perspective is very unfortunate in this version. It looks not like the leaning tower of Hong Kong, but the giant banana of Hong Kong, sorry. :-( Please try to get another shot or correct this one, because I like it. --Florian Prischl 23:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Just tell me which way to rotate and how much. Or any other kind of correction. I think I'm not going to get another shot very soon - there's a 7836km distance between my current location and the clock tower. --Siipikarja 01:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

 CommentI have tried myself to correct it, to no avail. The tower looks bent in the middle, and I do not think that anything short of a split in half and re-assembly will do it. This, presumably, would ruin the rest of the photo. On the other hand, I very little experience with perspective correction, so maybe someone else is capable of doing it. --Florian Prischl 11:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

 Comment I rectified the image using Hugin. Unfortunately this distorted the original boundaries in such a way that I had to crop large portions of the right side in order to get a rectangular image. This is the outcome: [14]. Geometric distortions are gone, but I'm not really convinced that the crop is tolerable. - Till 12:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

 CommentMuch better, crop is fine. Is it my eye, or is the end of the pool still not quite flat. Would support the edited version otherwise. Ben Aveling 13:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose Perspective. I like the edit by Till. I suggest nominating that instead.Done. -- Slaunger 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done Ok, I'll change the nomination. Till's edit is now the official nomination. Till has pretty effectively managed to get rid of the perspective problems, but on the other hand I don't like the nonstandard dimensions (non 4:3 or 16:9) at all (also, the cropped version cuts out the wedding couple on the right hand side.) I don't know if it is allowable just to change the image link above during the voting process, but I just did so. Please change the link back to the original, if I have violated the QI voting regulations . --Siipikarja 09:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 Support as promised. -- Slaunger 21:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Wouldn't have done the work of rectifying if I didn't think the picture was worth it... - Till 17:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Too bad so much got chopped off, still good enough for QI. Calibas 00:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose- even for a night shot i dislike the light contrast-LadyofHats 19:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> (promote?) --promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Lighthouse pano

• Nomination St. Augustine Lighthouse Panorama. --Digon3
• Decline  Support Nice detail from resolution. --Beyond silence 18:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
   Comment Moved to CR for further comments. I'm not sure this is the right projection for this panoramic image, the building seems unnatural. Maybe it is not possible to make it very different as the shot was made too close to the building. The feeling is reinforced by a too tight framing on the lighthouse, in my opinion - Alvesgaspar 11:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• I believe that it the best projection possible. St. Augustine light is 165 feet and I tried to get as far away and up (I am on the second story deck) as I could. The tower looks as same proportions as it did in real life to me. As for the tight framing, are you refering to the hight or the width? Digon3 12:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Specially on top but also a bit on the width - Alvesgaspar 13:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I uploaded File:St. Augustine Lighthouse 1.jpg which has more height, but I only took one vertical set of pictures so I can't do anything about the width. There was ugly trees on the left and a shed on the right anyway. Or you are talking about the number of pixels? --Digon3 15:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• No, I'm talking about the crop. And the second version is a lot better - Alvesgaspar 19:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I have nominated the second version for QIC and will uploaded a new version of this with more space on top (I think I have a better source image) in a day or so. -Digon3 20:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Done --Digon3 01:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Not withdrawn, as they are (mostly) two seperate sets of source pictures. They only have one or two in common and if possible I would like QI for both. --Digon3 13:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't have a problem withe the projection as much as with the lighting on the top part and the sharpness of the same. Lycaon 08:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose- i dislike the forced prespective-LadyofHats 18:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not big on the lighting. Doodledoo 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Jugendstil owls

• Nomination Detail of the facade of the Secession Building. Original crop was not satisfactory. [15]. -- Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 09:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Question Very nice composition and quality. Is there some geometric distortion (the left vertical line is not parallel with the image border, whereas horizontal alignment is perfect)? -- Slaunger 20:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Acceptable technical condition. --Beyond silence 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Apparently, there is some geometrical distortion - vertical lines are not vertical. If this is fixed I will support the image. -- Slaunger 19:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment The left line is not parallel with the image border because it is not the case in reality. ;-) More seriously, the owls were put on a sort of trapezoidal support. I went back, retake the picture with tripod exactly in front of the owls. Old version available here: [16]. Please revote. Thanks. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 10:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Satisfactory explanation. I've changed my vote accordingly. -- Slaunger 10:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Wow, what a beautiful building. Technically fine. What's the story behind these carvings? --Doodledoo 23:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Well done, the detail is chosen well. --Florian Prischl 23:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Little is known about the external decoration of the Secession Building in Vienna. Its decoration is commonly attributed to Koloman Moser. More information on the Secessionstyle (Viennese Art Nouveau) can be found here [17]. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 10:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, Art Nouveau. Klimt. Fascinating. Doodledoo 00:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support- sure let it be-LadyofHats 18:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

NEMO and area

• Nomination Science museum NEMO in Amsterdam --S Sepp 21:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Good light acceptable quality. --Beyond silence 17:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Tilted. Lycaon 07:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I rotated it. S Sepp 10:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
•  CommentIs it just me or is the thumbnail blank? S Sepp 12:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC).

Something has stuffed a number of thumbnails --Tony Wills 12:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support I like it. Calibas 23:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose due to noise in the shadows. It also looks a little unsharp. --Florian Prischl 23:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I like the lighting except for the one window reflection (missing N in NEMO), sharpness is just OK. Good image overall. -- (Relic38 01:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC))
•  Oppose Being a photo of a museum called 'NEMO' it find it very unfortunate that the sun is reflecting in the glass such that we can only see the letters 'EMO'. It ruins an otherwise nice photo and composition IMO. -- Slaunger 20:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support This image grabs my attention from the other candidates everytime I look through the current stack. I was thinking about nominating it for FP because of that. -- carol 09:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

btw, didn't I read somewhere that nominations count as votes? -- carol 10:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 Info No, for QI the nominators vote isn't counted --Tony Wills 01:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support- ahoy ahoy a pirate ship-LadyofHats 18:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I think it is a very interesting subject - looks good. Doodledoo 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Krakow univesity of economics main building.JPG

• Nomination The oldest and recently newly renovated building of Cracow University of Economics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support The subject is a little obscured, and there are some other minor flaws (angle of shooting paired with the obstruction of the trees creates a weird sight to me), but I think it is still OK. --Florian Prischl 21:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose There is no description, no author, date or anything. Körnerbrötchen - @ 21:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Thank you for catching my mistake, Körnerbrötchen. I forgot to check for those things. They lack, so the picture should not be a QI. --Florian Prischl 22:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment As the original nominator, I abstain from vote - but I am appending the original caption: The oldest and recently newly renovated building of Cracow University of Economics.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose >> Not promoted - Alvesgaspar 10:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Although technically closed, I have reverted this to /discuss, see explanation:  Info I have untangled the move of this to CR, and the votes so that it makes sense. As the nominator appears to have addressed the points mentioned in the oppose vote, but added the extra info here rather than on the image page (a misunderstanding I expect), I will update the image page and ask the reviewers to re-assess their votes. --Tony Wills 11:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I see he has not actually specified the author, I have left him a message about it --Tony Wills 12:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose the building is tilted CW and the sky is overexposed. Lycaon 04:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Lestat 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Now that the description has been updated, I realise it is not made by a wikimedian and so is not eligible for QI anyway. --Tony Wills 01:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose-LadyofHats 18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Taraxacum officinale

• Nomination de:Gewöhnlicher Löwenzahn Very rare?, I never found a picture like this. After two days they were dry... --Nightflyer 20:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Decline

Please write English description and use categories! Thanks --Beyond silence 21:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose not a rarity, unfortunate background and light. Lycaon 21:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

it is caused by a virus and not rare at all. Lycaon 04:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• @Beyond silence: done, I hope so. @Lycaon: Show me an other picture :-) --Nightflyer 21:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Nice sharpness, composition. --Beyond silence 08:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Sharp, well framed, good composition; the top stem is a bit bright and background is unappealing, but still gets my support. --(Relic38 03:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC))
•  Comment The background is not so bad, the dark blue contrasts well with the green, I think. What I do not like is the lack of categorization. I do not know about the rarity of such deformities, probably because I never examined enough of the Taraxacum that's growing around my area. I can say, however, that I do not remember ever seeing something like this. I will think about my vote. --Florian Prischl 23:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment There has been a lot of talk about rarity in this CR. Just to remind everyone that rarity in itself only has little to do with whether it is a QI or not. Of course, the image page shall be correct and not state that it is a rarity if it isn't, but an image can be valuable for a Wikimedia project without representing a rarity. So in this case, if Lycaons virus explanation is correct, the image page ought to be corrected such that it is stated that the deformities are caused by a virus. -- Slaunger 14:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do so. My english is too bad, but I try translate it back to german. Greetings --Nightflyer 21:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now changed the image description reflecting the cause stated by Lycaon. --Florian Prischl 19:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose I oppose this photo, mainly due to the shallow DOF as evident on the middle (largest) specimen. Also, the large stem that spans the whole photo from left to right is very distracting and does not belong there. --Florian Prischl 19:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support – It's not an artwork, but it's okay for me. -- Aleph 19:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Issues resolved. -- Slaunger 20:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Main issues seem to have been compositional and illuminatory. I didn't see fixes there... Lycaon 04:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • When I wrote issues resolved, I referred to the image page description concerning rarity and the virus. Besides that I do not have any objections to the image, although I am aware that other reviewers have other opinions. -- Slaunger 21:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What should I fix? I am angry, that I show not the whole plant, the stem in the middle turned around to the right blossum. This stem is more than four times thicker als an original. At fix I can only crop the picture, but then could nobody see the deformed stems. Any ideas? Greetings --Nightflyer 21:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose I can't stand that background. Doodledoo 21:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Dull background and light. Not a rarity in any way. --Siipikarja 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 Info Rare or not has nothing to do with whether it is a quality image --Tony Wills 01:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

 Comment It says "valuable for Wikimedia projects" in the guidelines. I understand that this covers also the rarity of the subject. The more rare the subject, the more technical shortcomings can be overlooked. --Siipikarja 09:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose- i dislike the composition -LadyofHats 18:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 22:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Nuke this (my) picture. Maybe there are better one's. Thanks for your patience. Greetings --Nightflyer 22:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)