Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 2012

Consensual review edit

File:Hamadríade_(Papio_hamadryas),_Tierpark_Hellabrunn,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2012-06-17,_DD_03.JPG edit

  • Nomination Hamadryas baboon (Papio hamadryas), Tierpark Hellabrunn, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 15:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JDP90 17:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition. The top part of the image (blurred concrete structures) is distracting. Picture could use a cropping, the animal is too small. --Till.niermann 16:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done, agree with the crop comment Poco a poco 20:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 21:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 12:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Station_of_the_cross_Sacun.jpg edit

  • Nomination Station of the cross, 18th century fresco on the St. Jacob church in Urtijëi, in Val Gardena. --Moroder 12:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition. Cropping necessary in my opinion, especially on the left edge. --Till.niermann 15:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    I thought of the left side as a tiny indication that there is a colored frame as on the right. I don't have any problems to remove it --Moroder 20:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Uploader's argument is relevant IMO. I agree with him. Sharpness could maybe be better, but I think it can pass for QI.--Jebulon 16:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --JDP90 17:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Moroder's reasoning is comprehensible. Good quality --High Contrast 19:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 12:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Odenwaldlimes.svg edit

  • Nomination A part of the Roman limes in Germany. --Mediatus 17:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Please remove the border. Borders can be added where needed by wikicode. See Commons:Media_for_cleanup#Unnecessary_borders--Gauravjuvekar 18:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
    The border is easily corrected, I don't think it's a sufficiently seriouos flaw to decline. --Óðinn 19:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. Firilacroco 12:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    new file (without border) uploaded Mediatus 19:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • symbols for "Reste einer Villa Rustica" and "fragliche Villa Rustica" are missing in the maps legend. --LC-de 17:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    That was only a problem of cropping. It is very complicated to change anything. Mediatus 13:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Yann 04:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Fronteiras sagradas.jpg edit

  • Nomination Sanctuary of Cabo Espichel (Portugal) (by Joaomartinho63) --Gzzz 18:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Firilacroco 19:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise and visible CA, sorry, needs improvement/discussion prior to QI --Poco a poco 20:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice, but the artistic touch makes it unreal. Noisy, oversaturated, CA. --Kadellar 18:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Great photo. The CA and noise are not visible at the minimum 2 MP resolution. --King of Hearts 05:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Kadellar. --Iifar 10:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support As I'm not the author but just the one who had a WOW when finding this picture and nominated it, I think I can vote too, no? --Gzzz 20:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but nominators can not vote. --Iifar 10:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lots of CA along windows and roof, the clouds are burnt on the left, noise in the sky but lack of sharpness (due to NR ?) on the building and the grass... It is a nice picture but not a QI to me. --EdouardHue 20:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 12:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Huntley_Photography_Tiger.jpg edit

  • Nomination A tiger behind bars in a zoo --Riley Huntley 06:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Better quality but needs to be identified + description of location and category Poco a poco 07:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Tiger has now been identified and the proper category has been added. --Riley Huntley 07:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Good quality, but still I´d ask you to lighten it a bit up. --Poco a poco 08:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a QI to me, due to the unfortunate crop of the head and the unfocused foreground. -- Alvesgaspar 10:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alvesgaspar--Jebulon 15:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Yann 04:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Sawtooth Range ID1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Sawtooth Mountains, Idaho --Fredlyfish4 14:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
     Request Geotag, thanks --Moroder 15:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Feels overprocessed, there's a spot, rather high contrast and some overexposure. --Mattbuck 22:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality image for me, needs discuss. --Firilacroco 12:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Mattbuck, especially the mountains and the sky. --Kadellar 18:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 04:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice composition but noisy in the forest --Moroder 18:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice. --King of Hearts 05:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose it not only feels overprocessed, it is overprocessed. --Carschten 13:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 12:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Geranium4.jpg edit

  • Nomination Geranium Zonal Emilia hanging basket plant(Pelargonium x hortorum). --Danesman1 13:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
 Oppose not categorized.--Jebulon 19:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Good name now, opposition removed--Jebulon 15:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I am new to this, please can you assist and tell me how to change this so that I can continue to do it correct in future, thankyou. --Danesman1 20:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello thankyou for your help with this, I think I have now done this. --Danesman1 18:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Species name should be properly identified. Only genus name is not the complete identification. Complete identification needed. -- JDP90 18:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Above completed I believe.--Danesman1 19:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 Oppose Now about the picture itself, composition issue: the piece of leaning window is disturbing in background--Jebulon 15:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The plant is in a pot on the ground,in the background is the wooden fence and fence panel, not a window, I will try and take another one and will move the pot to a better place to take photo.--Danesman1 19:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Yann 04:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Plans_de_cunfin_y_Saslonch.jpg edit

  • Nomination The Langkofel group in Val Gardena --Moroder 19:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --JLPC 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    what is the correct day this picture was shot? EXIF date and description date are departing --Taxiarchos228 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed date, sorry--Moroder 05:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
     Support -- JDP90 13:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 13:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Moers, Schwafheimer Meer, 2012-08 CN-01.jpg edit

  • Nomination Nature reserve Schwafheimer Meer in Moers --Carschten 18:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 19:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think sharpness is just below QI level --Poco a poco 10:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Please, view it at 2 MP, and it's crisp. --King of Hearts 01:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 13:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Bialetti_moka_mini_express_1_tazza_05.jpg edit

  • Nomination Bialetti 1 cup stovetop espresso maker. --Coyau 23:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Unacceptable crop. For an utilitarian object, all the object must be shown. --Letartean 14:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    Where does this "rule" come from? --Coyau 14:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    It's not a rule, it's a judgement on the quality of the crop. Would you crop out an eye and one hand from the statue of liberty? If you want to show an object, you have to choose carefully the crop you choose to show it's features. In these case, this choice is unfortunate, in my opinion. Crop is a criteria for QI. Letartean 15:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    I still don't see why detail photo is unacceptable for a utilitarian object, a lot of those are QI (even details of statues or utilitarian objects). --Coyau 17:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    I will let others give their opinions on the subject but personnaly, I don't see what the subject of the detail photo is. If it is the "shelf" of the coffee maker, than we should be able to see it all. I have to say that I would vote for the other images of the series that use other angles and represent better the subject. Letartean 13:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    If you want to nominate other photos, please do so. --Coyau 21:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, as Letartean--Lmbuga 01:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Coyau 23:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Bialetti_moka_mini_express_1_tazza_06.jpg edit

  • Nomination Bialetti 1 cup stovetop espresso maker. --Coyau 23:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeIdem than other. Crop not acceptable for a utilitarian object. --Letartean 14:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    Where does this "rule" come from? --Coyau 14:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    It's not a rule, it's a judgement on the quality of the crop. Would you crop out an eye and one hand from the statue of liberty? If you want to show an object, you have to choose carefully the crop you choose to show it's features. In these case, this choice is unfortunate, in my opinion. Crop is a criteria for QI Letartean 15:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    I still don't see why detail photo is unacceptable for a utilitarian object, a lot of those are QI (even details of statues or utilitarian objects). --Coyau 17:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    I will let others give their opinions on the subject but personnaly, I don't see what the subject of the detail photo is. If it is the "shelf" of the coffee maker, than we should be able to see it all. I have to say that I would vote for the other images of the series that use other angles and represent better the subject. Letartean 13:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, as Letartean--Lmbuga 22:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Coyau 23:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

File:12-07-17-landtagsprojekt-bayern-RalfR-013.jpg edit

  • Nomination bavarian parliament politician Julika Sandt --Ralf Roletschek 22:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --ArildV 22:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    Undersized. Moroder 09:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
    bigger version uploaded, sorry --Ralf Roletschek 09:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
     Support Now QI for me --Haneburger 13:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Monte Bondone - Ex poligono2.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Old shooting range on the Bondone mountain, Province of Trento (Italy). --llorenzi 06:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    Needs perspective correction Poco a poco 07:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    What you think with "perspective correction"--Llorenzi
    You need to make a correction of the lens effect to minimize objects at further distance which guides to non straight lines of buildings. The building should be straight. For this you can use e.g. PS or GIMP Poco a poco 11:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    Tried to correct a bit--llorenzi
    I have uploaded a new version so that you can see what I am talking about. I'd then move the pic to CR for a third opinion if you agree Poco a poco 14:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks a lot for yr help.--llorenzi
  • Review Looking for a third opinion Poco a poco 16:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
     Neutral The composition is very good but there is a white halo around the rail and some CA left --Moroder 17:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    Any suggestions to correct it? --llorenzi

File:Geranium2.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Ivy Geranium hanging basket plant (Pelargonium peltatum). --Danesman1 13:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
 OpposeNot categorized.--Jebulon 19:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Categorized now at the good level, opposition removed --Jebulon 15:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I am new to this, please can you assist and tell me how to change this so that I can continue to do it correct in future, thankyou. --Danesman1 20:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
You need to add a category with the species of the flower. Yann 16:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello thankyou for your help with this, I think I have now done this. --Danesman1 18:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Species name should be properly identified. Only genus name is not the complete identification. Complete identification needed. -- JDP90 18:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Is this correct? Sorry I am trying to correct this--Danesman1 19:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done--Jebulon 15:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Only about quality itself: there is a grey fringe (see note), I'm not convinced by the Depth of Field (sharp only in the center of the flower), it looks a bit underexposed, and the chain in background disturbs me.--Jebulon 15:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Hestholm Fugleskjul 1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Skjern Enge (nature area): information sign --Taxiarchos228 06:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Question What are that strange haloes at some of the letters? - A.Savin 18:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • this is how this sign looks like, it's not a fragment of a bad image processing --Taxiarchos228 12:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support After some contemplation, I think it's OK to promote. - A.Savin 16:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree --Moroder 20:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • can you please argue why you disagree? --Taxiarchos228 21:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Gerne ;-) There is a strong lateral CA on the first and last letters (symmetrical and increasing moving fom the center of the pic) and also on the cow. The grass is in focus only up front, most of the grass is out of focus even the grass close to the poles, there is a disturbing line, out of focus and maybe a perspective and barrel artifact --Moroder 05:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Dear Moroder, the letter on the sign look washed-out, that has nothing to do with CA or other inadequatenesses of the image processing but is just a result of making this sign. The whole grass is for sure not in focus because the main focus is laid on the sign. For the perspective I will proof if I made a mistake. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I don't eat the story of washed out at all, (I don't want to be mean but in German I'd say: "Du verkaufst mich für blöd"). But never mind: "sei mir nicht böse" --Moroder 14:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Think whatever you want, but it's not necessary to get abusive. --Taxiarchos228 14:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I apologize but it was not and never is my intention to be or sound rude --Moroder 15:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok. No hard feelings! --Taxiarchos228 20:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • how could here be sperical aberration with a correct horizon? --Taxiarchos228 19:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Now I looked it up and realized, I've been misusing the term "spherical aberration," I actually mean "lateral CA." -- King of Hearts 06:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I already said that this is no CA --Taxiarchos228 06:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadows around the letters are disturbing and probably and optical effect otherwise the direction would be uniform and the missing part of the "g" would have some remaining paint Poco a poco 13:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • sorry, but this is how it is real, we have here encyclopaedic photography and therefore we have to show how s.th. is in real and not euphemize. I guess you haven't get the project goal. --Taxiarchos228 19:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I try it again, this sign is not the way it looks here, those shadows are not for real, and that effect is disturbing to me, therefore decline. Please, don't judge my perception of the aim of the project, that's not the issue here and can hardly be questioned out of my opinion regarding this image. Poco a poco 12:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • First you criticize the way the letters look, now the shadows? I do not judge your perception (where did I?), I try to understand your argument to improve this image. But if you change your argument without explain it solid, this is sadly not possible. --Taxiarchos228 12:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't change my arguments, I am critizing the same from the very beginning: the shadows (Umrandungen). I came to the conclusion earlier that the shadows were note for real due to the fact that a missing piece of a letter should have also a shadow, but that's not the case. Sorry for the language barrier. I never critizied the fact that half a letter is missing and "learned my lection" out of the picture with the unnatural pose with the finger in the mouth Poco a poco 14:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • it's not really comprehensible why you criticize s.th. that has nothing to do with the camera technic, but is in maximum the disability of the sign. Your argument is similar to the opinion that a picture of a sign burred by graffiti can't be QI because of the graffiti. But I guess we will not find a common position. So EOD for me. --Taxiarchos228 18:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This time it was me that didn't get your point, but as you suggest, let's pass page, Poco a poco 16:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blur and CA around the letters. Zur genaueren Erläuterung: "this is how it is real" stimmt nicht. Ich kenne den Effekt dieser unscharfen Umrandungen einigen von meinen eigenen Fotos. Woran es liegt, weiß ich nicht, wahrscheinlich eine Kombination aus den vom Sonnenlicht strahlenden Buchstaben und Probleme des Obejktivs, dies zu erfassen. Dementsprechend denke ich, kann man dem Fotografen dafür nichts vorwerfen, allerdings ist es ein Fehler der Technik; und die sind hier auch zu bewerten, daher für mich kein QI. --Carschten 12:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Die verschwommenen Buchstaben haben nichts mit der Kameratechnik zu tun sondern waren so vor Ort. Bitte verbreite keine Märchen. Ich gehe nicht davon aus, dass Du das Schild vor Ort kennst. --Taxiarchos228 18:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately there is no geotag and we cannot check it out ;-)--Moroder 14:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
        • You're free to proof it. Object is geotaged now. --Taxiarchos228 14:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me it is good so it is, QI --Ralf Roletschek 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Poco a poco. Biopics 09:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Pinzón_cebra_(Taeniopygia_guttata),_Tierpark_Hellabrunn,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2012-06-17,_DD_04.JPG edit

  • Nomination Zebra Finch (Taeniopygia guttata), Tierpark Hellabrunn, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 07:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Distracting background, unfavorable position of the bird. --Till.niermann 12:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    * SupportView unusual and interesting. The background is a bit overproceded --Archaeodontosaurus 18:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose same as Till.niermann, the picture has in addition strong pixalisation --Taxiarchos228 19:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • {{o}}, but I like the background, I like the position of the bird and I don't see pixalisation. To me the problem is the dof (little problem) and, especially, the crop (see the branch). Nevertheless, it is a nice image--Lmbuga 22:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC) (es) En mi opinión la paja debería estar entera aunque el pájaro no pudiese estar centrado--Lmbuga 22:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Increasing the crop is not a problem if that is the "killer problem" :) Poco a poco 14:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. Thanks--Lmbuga 10:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think that softening the image looks more natural, there are no pesky points across the frame (file the update). --Aleks G 23:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I like this bird. --Florstein 17:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Eths Theix Motocultor 17 07 2012 06 B.jpg edit

  • Nomination Candice, the singer of Eths, at the Motocultor Festival. --Vassil 14:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Let's discuss because I'm not sure: Nice, but the vertical lines are too tilted, and disturbing IMO--Lmbuga 23:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC) I uploaded a new version, trying to fix the tilt. I used the rod in the background because the drum kit seems not exactly vertical. Is it better now ? --Vassil 22:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
There are a problem in the lower right corner (edges of the seam)--Lmbuga 10:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
See the note--Lmbuga 09:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 Oppose Candice is taken well, but the background disturbs (reflections, dark/dark) --Haneburger 14:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Venezuelan_woman_of_94_years_old_from_Margarita_island.jpg edit

  • Nomination Venezuelan woman of 94 years old from Margarita island --Wilfredor 13:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Looks underexposed for me --Kreuzschnabel 17:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)✓ Done--Wilfredor 21:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose Less underexposed (I think that the better is "discuss"), but noise (ISO 320) and poor DOF (f/3.2). Otherwise, beautiful elderly woman--Lmbuga 23:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Less the face of old woman but the whole photo is too livid. -- Spurzem 20:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Kunstkamera_SPB.jpg edit

  • Nomination Kunstkamera in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 16:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Iifar 16:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like it but it's too oversharpened. That should be fixed. --Kadellar 19:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you kidding? I will never make this photo blurry. Thanx for review, senor Kadellar. --Florstein 19:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
    • There are lots of stages between blurry and extremely oversharpened. --Kadellar 21:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, exactly! ;) --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Hahahahaha you've spent hours searching for that picture, taken with a bad camera through the window of a plane, which are always so dirty and scratched... --Kadellar 21:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
          • No reason for 'ha-ha', I've found this picture accidentally. Sorry. But your excuses does not matter anyway. And your words about mysterious 'oversharpening' looks suspiciously. --Florstein 21:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The "oversharpening" is visible at preview size, so I think it is too much midtone contrast rather than pixel-level oversharpening. --King of Hearts 03:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice photo, I cannot see any sharpening artifacts. - A.Savin 18:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality, i dont see oversharpening. --Ralf Roletschek 19:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good und impressive photo. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Of course it's impressive, and I like it and I like sharpening, but it should be used with caution, here there's just too much. --Kadellar 21:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Blurring should be used with caution too. --Florstein 21:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support If I look at the bird - I can see nothing unusual, I reckon the image IS just really good --DKrieger 21:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 18:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Jaguar E-Type V12, Bj. 1972 (2008-07-12).JPG edit

  • Nomination Jaguar E-Type with V12 engine, built in 1972 -- Lothar Spurzem 14:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, to me it's underexposed, especially the background--Lmbuga 18:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    Under-exposed? I can only wonder! It is not a white car but blue. Perhaps you should check your screen. -- Lothar Spurzem 20:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    • No need to change, "monitor" was good...--Jebulon 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support light is right good. More and it would be overexposed at the front of the car. --Abehn (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support not to dark for me. Ralf Roletschek 19:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Firilacroco 19:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Great! M 93 21:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 10:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

File:St Pancras railway station MMB F4 395019.jpg edit

  • Nomination 395019 at St Pancras. Mattbuck 19:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose-Faint CA's to the right, indicated with image notes--Gauravjuvekar 17:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    You have sharper eyes than I do, I could barely see anything to correct at 200% zoom. Mattbuck 19:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark IMO. --King of Hearts 01:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support yes, it really must be dark there. --Ralf Roletschek 19:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, it is dark there, it's the unfortunate problem with station photography - even under a glass shed, it's still a lot darker than outside. Mattbuck 17:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    My issue is the relatively light column at the left that I feel detracts from the center of the image. -- King of Hearts 03:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • comment - agree about the column on left, and the text on the front of the engine is not easy to discern at low magnification


* SupportI would crop out the distracting light area on the left side, but apart from that, it’s QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 11:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Taubenschwaenzchen 120825.jpg edit

  • Nomination Taubenschwänzchen (Macroglossum stellatarum) --Anghy 15:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Good shot but there are some quality issues that would guide to a "Decline" in my eyes, I would like to have a second opinion Poco a poco 09:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. May be that it is not impossible but very difficult to make a better photo of Taubenschwänzchen. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Difficult to make, but too noised head and eyes IMO--Lmbuga 22:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. I think it is a good image, its difficult to get a pefectly clear image of an insect in motion --Ltshears 17:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy and over-sharpened. Biopics 13:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per other opposers. Even if I'm personaly not able to do this kind of shot... Sorry.--Jebulon 15:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

File:VW_Crafter_2.0_TDI_(Facelift)_–_Frontansicht,_9._Juli_2012,_Velbert.jpg edit

  • Nomination VW Crafter 2.0 TDI (Facelift) --M 93 10:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Bad light, over- and underexposed areas. - A.Savin 10:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Have you ever taken pictures of cars? The best light comes from a cloudy sky which is the case in this pic! What's overexposed? There are no overexposed parts in the histogram?! M 93 21:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment that is no bad light, sorry, but is there something wrong with your screen??? 320td 21:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Take it easy and don't scream, it's just my humble opinion. However, looking at 320td's contributions, Honi soit qui mal y pense comes to my mind. - A.Savin 21:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with A.Savin : the lower front part of the car is clearly underexposed : you can't distinguish between the tire and the road... And a light grey car on a light grey sky isn't good neither, imho... --Gzzz 09:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Only underexposed IMO. Can be easily improved for me--Lmbuga 14:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Langkofelhütte_in_Gröden_mit_Langkofelgruppe.JPG edit

  • Nomination The Langkofel hut in Val Gardena --Moroder 20:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The composition is fine, but the image is blurred all over, and the outcropped peak on the left looks unfortunate. --Kreuzschnabel 08:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review, I don't see anything blurred (look at the letters!) If the composition is fine, where is the problem? --Moroder 11:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I was a bit too harsh in my review. In 100 % view the rock structures in the mountains do not appear really crisp, they look somewhat softened to me, as if the sensor’s resolution was greater than the lens’. This can be fixed by downscaling, of course :-) --Kreuzschnabel 06:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 Comment I don't downscale as a principle (supported by Wikimedia policy), but you and everybody can download the picture automatically from Commons with a smaller resolution, for example 1280x 850 px --Moroder 13:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support No reason to downscale. -- King of Hearts 03:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Too soft for me (lack of sharpness and fine detail). --Iifar 07:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As others... and the sky seems too dark and with a white (or clear) halo--Lmbuga 14:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Unnutural sky and colors IMO--Lmbuga 14:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    • How can you say that the halo is unnatural? Do you seriously believe that it is an artifact? How would you explain that? Is it the lens? the Nikon camera? Are you familiar with mountain photography? I just would like you to be more specific :-). Thanks for the review --Moroder 17:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
      • The halo is not natural. The explanation though is not obvious. Most likely it is a software processing issue (at least I can easily reproduce these kind of haloes with an image editing program. Some contrast enhancing tools can produce this effect.). However as it is not my image I cannot be sure. Biopics 12:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Maison noble urbaine XVème siècle Ségovie.jpg edit

  • Nomination Sample of urban nobility residence, 15th century, Segovia, Spain.--Jebulon 14:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment the shadows is very disturbing to me --Carschten 17:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No way to do other, sorry.--Jebulon 17:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC))
  •  Comment The shadow is impossible for good quality and the cables of tired out electric installation are disturbing. -- Lothar Spurzem 18:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
    • As this picture did not receive any vote, nor support, neither oppose, but only comments, I don't understand why it is now in Consensual review...--Jebulon 22:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support this photo is impossible without shadow, see EXIF: summer, 10:30. The cable are there, you can't take photo without. --Ralf Roletschek 22:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The wires are ok with me, but the shadow isn't. --Iifar 07:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Green chromatic aberrations in the arches of the upper windows. Low clarity or contrast?. The vertical lines of the right aren't stright.--Lmbuga 14:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC) The wires or the shadow aren't a big problem for me.--Lmbuga 14:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC) There are CAs in all the image--Lmbuga 14:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Please do not vote for others. The two first statements (by Carschten and by Lothar Spurzem) were not "oppose votes" at first, only comments. If it where oppose votes, the picture would have been simply declined with the red frame. It was not the case, and the image was put in CR (not by me, I never put in CR any of my declined pictures) I don't know how and why (please read above). So I disagree with the count below, which is in fact 1 "pro", and 2 "contra" at this time (and not 1/4), unless Carschten and Lothar Spurzem decide to "oppose", thanks.--Jebulon 17:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
      • It is a ussual practice as per the rule 'Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Oppose and Support if necessary'. Further note that 'Using support or oppose will make it easier to count your vote'; but not necessary (again as per the rules). BTW, I'm not a fan of rules; prefer commonsense over it. Clin -- Jkadavoor 06:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes I know this, but at the beginning, nor Carschten neither Lothar Spurzem oppose, remaining the blue frame. I repeat: If they have oppose, this picture would have been declined with a red frame, and not put in CR... Nothing against common sense, but I am a fan of rules, because rule and law are expression of democracy, and the protection of the weaks against tyranny, in general (not the matter here, of course !)--Jebulon 09:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments adjusted, still a decline though ... Biopics 12:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Of course, I'll admit and accept the decision about this not-so-good picture !!--Jebulon 16:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Correction of perspective could help. Also, I'm not a big fan of the crop. Firilacroco 19:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Mülheim-Kärlich Nuclear Power Plant 2012.jpg edit

  • Nomination Mülheim-Kärlich Nuclear Power Plant on the left bank of Rhine near Mülheim-Kärlich, Rhineland-Palatinate. -- Felix Koenig 10:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Could you correct the vertical perspective distortion? Poco a poco 10:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    Distortion is already corrected (ShiftN 95 %), more than that would look unnatural. -- Felix Koenig 12:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Well, I'd expect that the chimney is straight, let's discuss Poco a poco 15:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its a QI. --Ralf Roletschek 19:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment But the photo does not show the real form of the tower. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Leaning towers do not look good at all. --Iifar 07:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

File:RO_BV_Brașov_Biserica_Ortodoxă_Sfânta_Treime_6.JPG edit

  • Nomination Holy Trinity church in Brașov --Firilacroco 18:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --AdrianBV 12:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - distorted perspective, overexposed sky. - A.Savin 10:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    I've corrected perspective and through this the sky is no more. Firilacroco 10:53, 9 September 2012
  •  Support QI for me now. --Kreuzschnabel 16:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK now. - A.Savin 12:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 10:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:VW Standard, Bj. 1950 (2009-05-01 Sp).jpg edit

  • Nomination VW Standard, built in 1950. Car in motion! -- Lothar Spurzem 22:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion QI for me. --JLPC 20:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    CW tilt. Biopics 12:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    Why? Is the car not sharp enough or too noisy? -- Lothar Spurzem 15:00, 7. September 2012 (UTC)
    My English ist not so good. But now I understand: The street is slant-wise because of gutter in the middle. Of course: This is a drawback which I would have to abolish. But it was too expensive. -- Lothar Spurzem 20:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)+

 Support QI by far! M 93 21:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 Support QI for me --Ralf Roletschek 22:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 Support Definitely QI. --Kreuzschnabel 11:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ralf Roletschek 14:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

File:A_escultura_ó_salmón._A_Estrada._Galiza.jpg edit

  • Nomination Sculpture dedicated to the salmon. A Estrada, Galicia (Spain). --Lmbuga 13:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The sculpture is partly over-exposed and the background is to dark. In my opinion no good photo. -- Lothar Spurzem 17:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    Ok, thanks, I will make a new version, but, seeing Adobe Lightrroom 4.0, the image is not overexposed or underexposed--Lmbuga 15:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New version. Thanks--Lmbuga 16:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC) The new version 4.0 of lightroom is less reliable than the 3.1: see the size of the two files uploaded--Lmbuga 17:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me.--Jebulon 16:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If I remember right I did not vote with “Kontra”; it was a comment. -- Lothar Spurzem 21:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It is a usual and fair practice to add the voting template according to the tone of the comment while moving the nomination from the top sections to the CR (if no template including ‘comment’ is used). You can strike off the template if you wish. -- Jkadavoor 04:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support now. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Now the quality is good. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture. --Aleks G 22:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support nice picture.--Pollycat 16:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 19:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:BMW 327, Bj. 1940 (2009-10-13) Heck.JPG edit

  • Nomination Rear of a BMW 327 built in 1940 -- Lothar Spurzem 21:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overexposed sky, strong noise on the car. Not QI imo. - A.Savin 22:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
     Comment What you call “overexposed” is an “over-cast” sky. Furthermore it was not my intention to take a picture of sky but of a BMW 327. And where do you see strong noise? -- Lothar Spurzem 11:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC) White sky or however you call it, is mostly a no-go for a QI, regardless if it's the main subject of the composition or not. The noise I see in full resolution. - A.Savin 14:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Das Bild ist tatsächlich überraschend rauschig. QI beinhaltet außerdem /auch/ den Gestaltungsaspekt - nicht nur der kalkweiße Himmel, sondern der gesamte Hintergrund ist, sorry, für die Tonne. Das Bild wird dem schönen Auto in keiner Weise gerecht. -- Smial 21:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Was den Hintergrund betrifft, darf ich vielleicht noch einmal auf das Qualitätsbild Riley RMA 2012-07-15 14-45-26.JPG verweisen. Dort gibt es zwar keinen kalkweißen Himmel, aber ansonsten – na ja. Offenbar wird hier mit sehr unterschiedlichem Maß gemessen. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Vielleicht haben da einfach andere Commoner gemessen – natürlich mit anderem Maß? Es gibt nicht viele objektive Kriterien für ein gestalterisch gutes Bild, das Urteil wird immer subjektiv sein. Wer seinen Eindruck über einen passenden Hintergrund äußert, dürfte das gegebene Bild vorher kaum mit Dutzenden anderen vergleichen und mit deren Bewertungen abstimmen. --Kreuzschnabel 09:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Lothar, du weißt, daß ich deine Bilder sehr schätze, dieses fällt gegenüber vielen anderen von dir weit unten raus. Man muß nicht zwanghaft jedes durchdrücken wollen. -- Smial 10:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 19:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:12-07-15-arlington-friedfhof-RalfR-071.jpg edit

  • Nomination National Cementery Arlington, VA: View to Pentagon --Ralf Roletschek 22:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Kreuzschnabel 06:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Background, overexposed, foreground unsharp, CA on the graves. Biopics 09:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
    ::the unsharp foreground i wanted to have. Ralf Roletschek 10:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 19:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Burg_Merkenstein_06.jpg edit

  • Nomination The ruins and the palace of Merkenstein at Gainfarn, municipality of Bad Vöslau, Lower Austria, are protected as a cultural heritage monument. --Herzi Pinki 20:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion nice colors, the shadow right dont disturb me, it is so there. --Ralf Roletschek 21:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose Clearly oversaturated; cast shadow at the right; unsharp. - A.Savin 22:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
     Support Colours saturated, but IMHO not oversaturated (Pol-filter?), the shadow at the right doesn't disturb me --Haneburger 12:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support In Austria and also in South Tyrol colours are easyly and naturally like this --Moroder 16:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 Request Do you mind adding a geotag? --Moroder 17:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment photo was taken with a pol filter; but I think I added too much saturation. Tried to upload a slighly different version with less saturation, and reduced shadow, and a bit more rotation. And will add the geo tag (there was no GPS inside the castle or I was too impatient).

    --Herzi Pinki 20:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Some better with the shadow (though it could be cut away completely, since it does not overlap with the bridge), but still too much saturation (esp. on the leaves) and not enough crispness imo. - A.Savin 11:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. Firilacroco 18:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Firilacroco 18:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz_W191_2012-07-15_13-52-16.JPG edit

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz 170 Sb, W191 --Berthold Werner 14:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support saubere Arbeit, kein Weitwinkel, beim nächsten Mal bitte Kennzeichen beloassen wie es ist --Ralf Roletschek 19:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Im Bereich des Kühlergrills viel zu geringer Kontrast; siehe Mercedes-Emblem und auch das Schleifchen am rechten Kotflügel. Daran könnte noch gearbeitet werden. Außerdem stört mich das Schild in der Windschutzscheibe. -- Lothar Spurzem 22:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose etwas zu hell, Schild stört. M 93 21:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 19:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Pink-headed Fruit Dove 001.jpg edit

  • Nomination Pink-headed Fruit Dove --Ltshears 17:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice quality photo, really like it.--Danesman1 19:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy and focus not on the eye. Biopics 09:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred and noisy --Archaeodontosaurus 10:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above.--Jebulon 09:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Mariana Fruit Dove by Trisha.jpg edit

  • Nomination Mariana Fruit Dove --Ltshears 17:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Really nice quality photo, shame about the blurred leaf but still nice.--Danesman1 19:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very noisy and focus not on the eye. Biopics 09:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --King of Hearts 22:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
What happened to the quality part in QI? This is a I, not a QI or are noise and blurriness no longer quality criteria? Biopics 16:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very noisy. -- Jkadavoor 09:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blured and noisy --Archaeodontosaurus 10:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice bird, but per above.--Jebulon 09:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 09:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Nailsea and Backwell railway station MMB 21 150243.jpg edit

  • Nomination 150243 at Nailsea & Backwell. Mattbuck 19:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Bad lighting. --King of Hearts 17:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    What is wrong with the lighting? It was late evening... Mattbuck 17:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support its original light, also its QI. we dont have sun every time. --Ralf Roletschek 14:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me, the image is pretty good, and sometimes bad light just shows a typical atmosphere. --DKrieger 22:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Danesman1 17:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 10:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Campus MMB W6 Melton Hall and Business School North.jpg edit

  • Nomination Jubilee Campus. Mattbuck 19:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose for a night image, the buildings should be illuminated, which is just sparsely represented here. As a result, there there are more black areas than visible structures; no QI for me. --Carschten 16:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    I don't have the power over how the building is lit I'm afraid, but I thought the black was quite nice. Mattbuck 17:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me a night image must have black areas. Also its Qi for me. --Ralf Roletschek 14:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. The composition is nice, indeed. Firilacroco 21:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support photo showes very good the atmosphere of the area by night. --Abehn 20:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Firilacroco 21:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

File:2007-09-08 2655 Borgward Hansa 1800, Bauzeit 1952-1954 (ret).jpg edit

  • Nomination Burgward Hansa 1800, built form 1952 to 1954, at river Rhine -- Lothar Spurzem 11:17, 03 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Noisy, sorry --Moroder 11:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
     Comment Where is it noisy or too noisy? In what size do you view the photo? -- Lothar Spurzem 13:11, 3 September 2012
    It is on the carrossery, I review it with QIVoter helper (I guess it is 100%). You are wellcome to put it under discuss! --Moroder 11:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
    I would like to know what others mean. -- Lothar Spurzem 13:56 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Moroder about the noise, and I saw the picture at the 100% level. Looks a bit oversharpened to me too, and the centered composition is a bit boring in my opinion (too much useless foreground, maybe a cut off until the grass could be better).--Jebulon 15:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me QI. --Ralf Roletschek 20:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI by far, M 93 18:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support nice car and nice background. --Abehn 10:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Jebulon--Lmbuga 14:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment To me it's a bit underexposed, but perhaps it's a problem of my monitor--Lmbuga 14:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Jebulon. Noise is sometimes unavoidable and while not yielding a QI, the images can still be useful for lots of purposes. Biopics 15:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Firilacroco 19:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It is a bit noisy, but not much, and the detail contrasts suggest it has been re-sharpened, but it’s still QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 06:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support There are no noiseless cameras. Better some minor grain than denoising to plastic look-and-feel. Very nice view. -- Smial 10:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Peugeot_201_2012-07-15_14-29-49.JPG edit

  • Nomination Peugeot 201 --Berthold Werner 17:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Iifar 18:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose In my opinion the photo is not quite sharp enough. Furthermore I see an disturbing reflection of a person in windshield. -- Spurzem 21:15, 02 September 2012 (UTC)

 Comment It can be QI to me (sharp enough IMO and good dof), but CAs, purple CAs (rear wheel, left headlight... perhaps reflections in rear window)--Lmbuga 14:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done ca reduced, reflection of a person in the windshield retouched --Berthold Werner 14:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  •  Support Ok now. -- Smial 10:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Berthold Werner 11:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

File:London MMB 52 Ruislip Lido.jpg edit

  • Nomination Ruislip lido. Mattbuck 19:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose unsharp --Carschten 16:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --King of Hearts 17:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough. -- Lothar Spurzem 14:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment The name of the file and of the nomination are not good. I don't see any Ruislip Lido (?) here. --Jebulon 08:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    People read the text of nominations? As for the filename, it was taken at Ruislip Lido, which is the name of the lake and its surroundings. See Ruislip Lido. Mattbuck 17:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  weak oppose With this resolution it's unsharp IMO. Also, to me, the water and the edges are a bit too sharpened (oversharpened)--Lmbuga 14:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC) The right zone of the image can be cropped out--Lmbuga 14:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Firilacroco 19:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 19:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-09-02 17-36-40-eglise-giromagny.jpg edit

  • Nomination Organ of the church of Giromagny. --ComputerHotline 07:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --JDP90 08:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Extremely yellow. Organ-pipes have not this colour. -- Lothar Spurzem 12:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the lights inside may have caused the color. Author can change the color balance though but quality is good IMO. -- JDP90 13:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't consider this very unnatural lighting. -- King of Hearts 22:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A wrong WB is a quality issue and should be fixed previously, the colors are not right Poco a poco 19:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco a Poco and Lothar Spurzem--Jebulon 09:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   ----Jebulon 09:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Eglise_de_Barfleur_dans_le_val_de_Saire.jpg edit

  • Nomination Cet édifice est répertorié dans la base Mérimée, base de données sur le patrimoine architectural français du ministère de la Culture, sous la référence PA00110330. --YoLeArno 18:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. now  Oppose because it is distortet. A photo taken to the top can't have parallel verticales. --Ralf Roletschek 20:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is the Saint-Nicolas church of Barfleur, Normandy, but it needs a perspective correction.--Jebulon 20:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC) The perspective IS now absolutely natural (human eye makes the perspective correction by itself, not lenses..., and perspective correction is a mandatory, see guidelines) and good, but it lacks of sharpness.--Jebulon 09:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    Given the tightness of the framing, I doubt it is possible. -- King of Hearts 16:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    Necessity of a correct perspective. Difficult but not impossible --Archaeodontosaurus 10:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
    This is no possible and if it is distortet, it looks unnaturally Ralf Roletschek 22:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of sharpness Strong perspective distortion and it will be too tight after correction. --Iifar 07:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The strong perspective distortion is disturbing. As others--Lmbuga 14:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs perspective correction. Wonder why author not tried to correct it till now. -- JDP90 06:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    • New corrected version (at best) to encourage newcomers.--Archaeodontosaurus 08:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      •  Support Looks good now. Your intention should be highly appreciated. -- Jkadavoor 12:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Firilacroco 18:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Better now. The flag is a little tight but still OK. --King of Hearts 22:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose good perspective correction, Archaeodontosaurus, but you oversharpened it. --Carschten 19:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Restes_du_château_de_la_Dobiais_(Saint-Jean-sur-Couesnon,_Ille-et-Vilaine,_France).jpg edit

  • Nomination Remains of the château de la Dobiais, Saint-Jean-sur-Couesnon, France --EdouardHue 22:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI for me. --JLPC 08:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO too much noise --Berthold Werner 14:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Just uploaded a new version with stronger NR and little more sharpness. IMHO, there's no more noticeable noise in the sky or on the roof. --EdouardHue 22:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  •  Support QI for me Ralf Roletschek 22:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support King of Hearts 03:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Berthold Werner (noise), and poor detail in the grass, path, and roof--Lmbuga 14:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
That's on purpose : the subject of this picture is the gate and the window behind, not the path nor the roof. --EdouardHue 17:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Abehn 20:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI, yes. -- Smial 10:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Graptopsaltria nigrofuscata emergence 23aug12.jpg edit

  • Nomination A large brown cicada after having emerged.--池田正樹 00:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Needs categorization. -- JDP90 16:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • categorization is Graptopsaltria nigrofuscata.-- 池田正樹 13:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Category OK now; need location info. --Jkadavoor 09:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    • It seems some communication problem with the author. Does anybody know Japanese here? :) -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't know nothing about Japanese, but I think this picture can pass as QI. Sayonara.--Jebulon 10:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    •  Support Sayonara? So you know Japanese? I too have no problem except the location info for the researchers/scientists here. I assume it was taken at Japan anyway. -- Jkadavoor 06:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Ischnura_senegalensis,_Burdwan,_West_Bengal,_India_09_03_2012.jpg edit

  • Nomination Prodasineura verticalis --JDP90 10:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Fine with me. --Iifar 11:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • But this is not Ischnura senegalensis; probably Black bambootail (Prodasineura verticalis) female. Please download and refer files at [2]. You can also refer [3] --Jkadavoor 08:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Changed name. -- JDP90 09:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Now OK up-to my knowledge. -- Jkadavoor 07:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --JDP90 08:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Palais Generalife vu depuis Albayzin.jpg edit

  • Nomination Generalife palace, seen from over a roof of Albayzin neighborhood, Granada, Spain.--Jebulon 10:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  CommentNo good quality because the building looks over-exposed. -- Lothar Spurzem 12:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry no, it is not. It is white. Where do you feel details were lost? Please show. One can see every facade, angle, and windows edges. I was very careful especially about that in post processing.--Jebulon 11:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support No problem for me. --Archaeodontosaurus 13:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose From the middle of the higher part of building to right there are nearly no contours to be seen and the whole colour looks washed out. -- Lothar Spurzem 16:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • needs a discussion --Moroder 15:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC))
  •  SupportThis is a nice quality picture, lots of details. photos of white buildings are always hard to take especaially in light conditions, full support from me.--Danesman1 15:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  CommentIt is a nice shot but I think exposuring it 1/2 stop lower would have done good. There is detail in the building but it is very faint, it really looks a bit blown out. I added two annotations in the pic. Maybe it is rather a too low contrast setting than a too bright exposure. --Kreuzschnabel 17:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment that's what I call careful reviews! A bit nitpicking, maybe ?--Jebulon 19:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, a bit bright but clearly not overblown. --King of Hearts 19:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment Well, I open the pic, look at it, and I think to myself, "the building is a bit too bright", and then, instead of just declining it, I try to find out the reason of my feelings, hoping for some issues that may be improved. If that is nitpicking, I surely ought to stop looking at images at all *g* --Kreuzschnabel 21:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry Kreuzschnabel, you are right, I removed my stupid comment.--Jebulon 23:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 18:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:VW Werk Alte Giesserei.jpg edit

  • Nomination Old Foundry @ Volkswagen Plant, Wolfsburg, GErmany Richard Bartz 11:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Das ist aber mein Motiv! Weg da! *drängel* --Ralf Roletschek 12:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Ja, sorry :-) Mir ist hier in WOB stinklangweilig ! Richard Bartz 12:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
     Comment Was ist mit den Kaminen los? Sie wirken irgendwie bucklig, und der vordere hat einen weißen Streifen an der Seite. -- Lothar Spurzem 00:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Infodie Schornsteine sind schief. Ich merke das auch immer erst am PC, mit bloßem Auge ist das nicht erkennbar. Von wegen stürzende Linien oder so... es ist nicht korrigierbar! Sie sind nicht psrallel. Ralf Roletschek 23:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jkadavoor 08:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice composition, working great with the sky. --Kreuzschnabel 03:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. --King of Hearts 03:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --King of ♠ 03:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Parque_Natural_da_Arrábida,_Setúbal,_Portugal,_2012-05-11,_DD_07.JPG edit

  • Nomination Natural Park of Arrabida, Setubal, Portugal --Poco a poco 06:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Notable green CA on both sides. --Iifar 10:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    Fixed Poco a poco 11:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very unsharp, no details visible anywhere esp. on the dark trees in the middle. --King of Hearts 22:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    New version uploaded Poco a poco 21:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The dull appearance of both sky and sea keeps the image successfully from showing anything of interest to my eye. Try again in clear weather, the idea itself might work fine, but after all, it’s the light given that makes the picture. --Kreuzschnabel 03:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Wieża_Bramy_Zamkowej_przy_ul._Grodzkiej_w_Jeleniej_Górze.jpg edit

  • Nomination Tower of castle's gate, Jelenia Góra, Poland (by Enamo) --Winiar 10:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support nice blue and red contrasts, QI to me. --Ralf Roletschek 11:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeAbuse of polarizing filter, IMO. + tight crop above, and distortion on the red building, the facade is not straight (windows). It is not a bad picture, but I'm interested by a discussion with this one, please.--Jebulon 19:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC).
    ✓ Done New version uploaded. The sky and perspective was corrected --Enamo 15:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but it still looks overprocessed to me (and tight crop).--Jebulon 14:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The picture is okay overall but the upper part ruins it, sorry, not a QI. Have you overlapped 2 pictures? I see also a kind of shadow of the weather vane Poco a poco 20:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 19:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:12-06-28-s01-sonja-pfeilschifter-02.jpg edit

  • Nomination Sonja Pfeilschifter, a German rifle shooter, repeatedly World Champion --Ralf Roletschek 09:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality.--ArildV 15:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
     Comment For good quality it should not so light. Look at the Olympic ring. -- Lothar Spurzem 00:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    I agree with Lothar Spurzem, the image looks overexposured, the white areas of the jacket nearly blown out. --Kreuzschnabel 05:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 19:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Dampfer_werner_funkanlage_(MHG).dt.jpg edit

  • Nomination Deutsch: Dampfer "Werner", Funkanlage. Aus der Ausstellung des Museums für Hamburgische Geschichte. English: Marine radio equipment of the 1930s. From the Museum for Hamburg History --Dirtsc 07:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Lack of sharpness, too much chromatic noise --Poco a poco 17:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportThe pic shows some noise, but I don’t see much lack of sharpness. I can read all numbers on the central frequency scale. QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 19:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorsion, chromatic aberration.--Jebulon 14:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 19:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-09-02 17-31-57-eglise-giromagny.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Pulpit of the Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Giromagny. --ComputerHotline 07:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    Is the WB ok here? That yellow is for real? Poco a poco 19:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Yes.--ComputerHotline 12:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Review Ok --Poco a poco 16:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    I disagree the white balance seems better here --PierreSelim 07:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Taxiarchos228 19:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-09-02 17-22-33-eglise-giromagny.jpg edit

  • Nomination Pulpit of the Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Giromagny. --ComputerHotline 07:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    Is the WB ok here? That yellow is for real? Poco a poco 19:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Yes.--ComputerHotline 12:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Ok --Poco a poco 16:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree the white balance seems better here --PierreSelim 07:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per PierreSelim, and perspective distorsion.--Jebulon 10:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 10:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Village_Boy_Rowing_a_Boat_NK.JPG edit

  • Nomination A village boy rowing a boat near Srinagar, Dhaka, Bangladesh. --Nasir8891 17:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Kreuzschnabel 14:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted horizon, a bit oversaturated IMO (see green color). Please discuss. --JDP90 18:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    It looks like that the horizon is tilted, but if you see the boy, then you will understand that it is not. The reason is the green bush are not uniformed everywhere. And about the green i think it is ok. --Nasir8891 15:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some prominent CA, over cast in sky, and composition issue: the photographer's bag left below is really disturbing. Sorry.--Jebulon 10:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 13:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Brythnoth statue Maldon.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Brythnoth statue, Maldon. Brythnoth, Earl of Essex, hero and loser of the Battle of Maldon in 991, photo taken by User:Oxyman. --Danesman1 19:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Review Please, crop out that object on the left Poco a poco 20:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    Hello Poco a poco, im not sure how I can crop out the steps to the left as i have only nominated the picture, I did not take or upload the picture, please can you advise me further, many thanks.--Danesman1 16:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
    The purpose of QIC is not only to grant the QI stamp but also to improve the pictures during the nomination, I think that such a change is an improvement and cannot be critized by anybody, Poco a poco 16:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
+1.--Jebulon 16:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Please can you explain what you mean by +1? and I also appreciate that pictures can be made better but this is someone elses work that I have nominated, are you suggesting that the owner of the picture be contacted and asked to crop the picture? --Danesman1 12:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually we suggest, that you, as nominator, crop the picture. The "+1" usually means something like "I have the same opinion" Poco a poco 19:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • +1 . Poco a poco is right.--Jebulon 10:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It should also be brighten a little bit IMO. Looks slightly underexposed to me. -- JDP90 16:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • +1 --Jebulon 10:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version uploaded Poco a poco 21:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Phoebetria_palpebrata_-_Flying_2.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Light-mantled Albatross Flying --Fguerraz 17:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Review * Support Quality picture.--Danesman1 19:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharpening yielded halos. Biopics 19:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC) (my edit, who changed the sig? Biopics 19:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC))
  •  Support Good quality -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Who put my signature in here? I have never reviewed this file. --Kreuzschnabel 14:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's a strange thing that happened, really: Biopic wrote the comment but his signature was not applied, the ~ remained diff, then the next time you edited, you unwillingly replaced the ~ with your signature diff. Feel free to correct it. D4m1en (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose halo --Carschten 19:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The pic obviously has been strongly re-sharpened (hence the halo) but for me the subject is very well pictured -> QI. --Kreuzschnabel 11:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Taxiarchos228 19:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Geranium5.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Geranium Zonal Emilia hanging basket plant (Pelargonium x hortorum). --Danesman1 13:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
 Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 OpposePictures candidates in QIC must be categorized at a relevant level before nomination. It is not the case here, sorry.--Jebulon 19:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Good now, opposition removed.--Jebulon 15:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I am new to this, please can you assist and tell me how to change this so that I can continue to do it correct in future, thankyou. --Danesman1 20:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Danesman1, you may find answers on your talk page !--Jebulon 15:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Species name should be properly identified. Only genus name is not the complete identification. Complete identification needed. -- JDP90 18:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Above complete I believe.--Danesman1 19:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou does that mean picture is now promoted?.--Danesman1 19:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Not sure: somebody else can still oppose, but wait a little, you will receive an automatic message on your talk page when promoted...--Jebulon 16:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a big fan of the composition. The bright petals in the background on the left side distracts from the image. --King of Hearts 01:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the only thing perfect to me are the stamens. Poor DOF: f/2.6. Bad composition: unbalanced or too tight at right, the background does not help.--Lmbuga 15:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Firilacroco 19:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it, nice quality close up.--Pollycat 16:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not the right DoF for flower picture, crop could be better. -- JDP90 18:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes? Firilacroco 19:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Ferrari 312P, Bj. 1969 (2011-08-13 Sp).JPG edit

  • Nomination: A 42 years old Ferrari 312P in AvD-Oldtimer-GP at Nürburgring -- Lothar Spurzem 18:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  OpposePicture looks grainy when viewed at 100%. Otherwise good shot! --Till.niermann 13:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment If you see the photo in full display resolution (3044 × 2029) in my opinion it is not grainy. Therefore I don't understand the negative vote. --Lothar Spurzem 19:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeQuite noisy and fuzzy. Not consistent with what I would expect from a 350D at ISO 200 (I own the same camera). Has the picture been upsampled or manipulated in some way ? D4m1en 16:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
May be that the EF-lens is not compatible enough with the 350D. But I wonder where you see extreme noise and fuzz. The car is running with a speed of about 150 km/h and details are sharp. Look it in full display resolution. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Please compare with this Ql-photo. The car is in front to bright, sharpness is middling and the background is dreadful. But this photo is classified als very good. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Assessments are not made by bots, but by men, and yes, some promotions are dubious-looking... Anyway, this Ferrari looks a bit grainy indeed, even if maybe acceptable.  Neutral.--Jebulon 16:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable quality. --King of Hearts 01:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 10:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK M 93 09:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very noisy and pixelated (look at the jagged edges on the wipers for instance). Biopics 13:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support its a quality image. Ralf Roletschek 19:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Biopics. --Iifar 07:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support very good foto. --Abehn 10:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It’s a fine composition, but for technical issues not a QI for me. Looks as if it had been upscaled from a smaller image. Considerable compression artefacts surrounding all edges. --Kreuzschnabel 14:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but poor quality to me: strong noise, purple CAs (number 32, rear of the car), bad detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmbuga (talk • contribs)
May I ask the critics: Did you ever take a better photo of a running car? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Lieber Lothar, ich nehme keinen Bilder von fahrenden Autos. Bitte respektieren Sie die Meinungen von anderer. Wenn Sie keinen Kritik an Sie Fotos akzeptieren können dann sollten Sie vielleicht nicht legt sie QI. D4m1en 17:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Motion blur – certainly. Too low DoF – maybe. But I don’t think the object being a moving car causes JPG artefacts and pixelisation in the image, so why should that keep us from discussing those drawbacks? --Kreuzschnabel 18:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Gut, Ihr habt Euch jetzt festgelegt, dass dieses Bild absolut untauglich ist, im Gegensatz zu Fotos wie Riley RMA 2012-07-15 14-45-26.JPG, Peugeot_201_2012-07-15_14-29-49.JPG oder Mercedes-Benz_W191_2012-07-15_13-52-16.JPG. Was soll’s! Ich werde Euch trotzdem weiterhin mit dem einen oder anderen meiner Fotos belästigen und bin auf Euer Urteil gespannt. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Wer hat was von „absolut untauglich“ gesagt? Genau, niemand, deshalb geht das Argument ins Leere. Erstens hat dein Bild derzeit 6 Pros. Zweitens habe z.B. ich gesagt, daß das Bild an sich schön getroffen ist, nur technisch seine Mängel hat und deshalb kein QI. Und der Meinung bin ich immer noch, es macht mir aber nichts aus, wenn andere anderer Meinung sind. Ich habe grundsätzlich das Gefühl, daß du dir eine etwas dickere Haut zulegen solltest, wenn du Bilder öffentlich zur Diskussion stellst. Nimm’s nicht persönlich, alle meinen nur das Bild, keiner meint dich. --Kreuzschnabel 04:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Taking into consideration the conditions, it's QI for me. Firilacroco 21:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Taking conditions into consideration is something for FP, not for QI. This is a pure technical assessment project. You might reconsider your vote as the image technically clearly fails the criteria. Biopics 12:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is not a QI, the picture is grainy and this has nothing to do with the fact that it was in movement Poco a poco 19:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Once more: Please compare with this QI-photo and try to tell me why it should be the better one. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Please, concentrate on this picture, others don't play a role. If a terrible picture from the quality point of view is approved "by mistake" and since the QI cannot be removed, we would have to accept most of the nominations here. Off-topic: IMHO the quality of that picture is better that this one. --Poco a poco 15:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
May I shake my head? ;-) It is useless to discuss further on. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I actually like this picture QI for me.--Danesman1 17:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 09:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-09-02 17-39-23-eglise-giromagny.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Inside the church of Giromagny. --ComputerHotline 07:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --JDP90 08:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very yellow -- Lothar Spurzem 13:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    I think the lights inside may have caused the color. Author can change the color balance though but quality is good IMO. -- JDP90 13:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Taxiarchos228 19:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Central_Park_New_York_August_2012_005.jpg edit

  • Nomination The Majestic from Central Park. --King of Hearts 18:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Lacks sharpness, partially grainy, overexposed areas --Poco a poco 20:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    Now I know why people like to downsample their images for QIC: take a look at 2000px, which is well over the 2 MP limit. Some of the "grainy" areas are actually just dirty parts of the buildings. --King of Hearts 20:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 Comment Maybe the building has dirty spots but the clouds truly appear somewhat grainy, which is to be expected at an exposure time of only 1/400 sec. I myself do not care too much about that but I have had pictures declined for similar things. You could try applying a "selective Gaussian blur" on the cloud area, though better not on the building walls. -- Aisano 18:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 18:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Central_Park_New_York_August_2012_006.jpg edit

  • Nomination The San Remo from Central Park. --King of Hearts 18:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose very noisy --Taxiarchos228 19:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    I cannot see any significant noise. --King of Hearts 19:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    Maybe it’s not just noise but lack of contrast. Here is my suggestion. --Kreuzschnabel 03:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    I found your version a bit too strong for me, so I uploaded one with a milder contrast boost over the original. Also did some NR. --King of Hearts 04:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 18:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:London olympic stadium.jpg edit

  • Nomination London 2012 Olympic Stadium, London UK.--Danesman1 19:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me.--Pollycat 16:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Stitching error. I have added notes. --JDP90 17:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I can see this now,such a shame I didnt even realise I shall withdraw this. --Danesman1 19:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose stitching errors, too dark in the foreground --Taxiarchos228 18:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as above. --Iifar 19:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 19:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:O2 arena2.jpg edit

  • Nomination O2 Arena, Greenwich, London, UK. --Danesman1 15:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me.--Pollycat 16:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Randomed crop, noise, strong perspective correction, lack of sharpness --Poco a poco 20:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall low quality, low sharpness, low contrast, lensflare... Impressive for a smartphone picture, but still a smartphone snapshop. D4m1en 13:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 18:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Thames barrier1.jpg edit

  • Nomination View across River Thames of Thames Barrier taken from Canary Wharf, London. --Danesman1 15:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice picture QI.--Pollycat 16:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Uncategorized. Tilted. --JDP90 17:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall low quality, low sharpness, low contrast, random composition... Impressive for a smartphone picture, but still a smartphone snapshop.D4m1en 13:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 18:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:HSBC Building London.jpg edit

  • Nomination HSBC Bank building, Canary Wharf complex, London, Uk.--Danesman1 16:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Wow nice picture, this is quality.--Pollycat 16:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is quality? The building has been deformed on purpose, it looks like this, apart from noise and lack of sharpness --Poco a poco 21:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment The perspective distortion is clearly part of the composition here, I would not hold that against the pic. Otherwise you’d have to say that in this pic the building is deformed on purpose, too. Vertical PD being much less usual than horizontal PD does not mean it is a failure in every case. --Kreuzschnabel 15:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is good quality for a smartphone picture but still far from QI standards. Point of view is of course exceptionnal but that doesn't balance the obvious noise, lack of sharpness and contrast. D4m1en 14:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with D4m1en. For a smartphone pic it is not bad but still far from a QI. Look at the „ghosted“ line structures between the tiles. Lack of contrast is obvious. I have seen much btographs out of a 200 € point-and-shoot camera. --Kreuzschnabel 03:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose because quality. the motif and concept are good. --Ralf Roletschek 07:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment User:Kreuzschnabel as much as i appreciate all comments and guidance left by people your comment left is quite an insult. If you have seen better with a €200 camera then good on you, the challenge then is to be able to make QI pictures using my smartphone which i have already achieved with other pictures. I think you have misjudged this photo it may not be QI but i feel this is a good photo one that credit should be given as not many people or general public are allowed up Canary Wharf and get given the opportunity to be able to take such photos. If you want to leave comments like that on photos then please do not bother as its not constructive or helptful!--Danesman1 20:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment Sorry for that. I did not mean to say (nor did I) it is impossible to take QI photos using a smartphone. I know it is possible :-) Neither do I say the idea of the image, or the unusual perspective, were bad as such. They aren’t. Further, I do not doubt you took other QI-rated pics with your phone – that’s good on you. I just do not think this particular photo meets QI standards – purely technically. And I explained why I think so. Read my comment again, leaving out the last sentence. (By the way, I do not like typos to be put into my unqualified utterings either.) --Kreuzschnabel 15:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I added some notes to the pic to clarify the points of my (maybe not entirely useless) review. --Kreuzschnabel 15:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 18:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:View of london6.jpg edit

  • Nomination Panoramic view of London, taken from Canary Wharf, London, UK. --Danesman1 16:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice panaramic view, clear when lookedat close up QI.--Pollycat 16:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Stitcing error. --JDP90 17:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Multiple big, big sticthing errors (I have added more notes), probably caused by paralax errors (i.e. moving the camera not around its optial center while taking the panorama). D4m1en 13:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as above. --Iifar 19:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as above --Kreuzschnabel 03:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 19:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:View of london5.jpg edit

  • Nomination Panoramic view of London with the new Shard building in distance, taken from Canary Wharf, London, UK. --Danesman1 16:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice picture.--Pollycat 16:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
     Comment Oh Come on ! Half of the picture is totally out of focus ! D4m1en 13:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose lacks sharpness. Low quality IMO. --JDP90 17:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blurry --Iifar 12:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Obviously out of focus. D4m1en 13:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 18:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:View of london4.jpg edit

  • Nomination View of O2 Arena inbetween Barclays, Citi, HSBC and Canary Wharf Towers, London, UK. --Danesman1 16:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nic pic QI.--Pollycat 16:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong perspective distortion, noise, lack of sharpness, noise, ...definitely no QI --Poco a poco 21:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall low quality, low sharpness, low contrast, random composition... Impressive for a smartphone picture, but still a smartphone snapshop. D4m1en 14:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 18:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:View of london3.jpg edit

  • Nomination View of East London with the Olympic venues visbale at top left of picture. Picture taken from Canary Wharf. --Danesman1 16:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice view QI.--Pollycat 16:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Uncategorized. tilted horizon. --JDP90 17:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall low quality, low sharpness, low contrast, random composition... Impressive for a smartphone picture, but still a smartphone snapshop. D4m1en 14:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 18:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:View of london 2.jpg edit

  • Nomination View of the O2 arena, Greenwich, London photo taken from Canary Wharf. --Danesman1 16:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me.--Pollycat 16:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted horizon. unsharp. --JDP90 17:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall low quality, low sharpness, low contrast, tilted... Impressive for a smartphone picture, but still a smartphone snapshop. D4m1en 14:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 18:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:View of london1 .jpg edit

  • Nomination View of London photo taken from Canary Wharf, London, UK. --Danesman1 16:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me.--Pollycat 16:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective correction to be fixed first, furthermore lacks detail --Poco a poco 21:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall low quality, low sharpness, low contrast... Impressive for a smartphone picture, but still a smartphone snapshop.D4m1en 14:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 18:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Londons O2.jpg edit

  • Nomination Londons O2, Greenwich, London, UK.--Danesman1 16:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me.--Pollycat 16:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight crop, strong perspective distortion, lack of sharpness, noise --Poco a poco 20:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall low quality, low sharpness, low contrast... Impressive for a smartphone picture, but still a smartphone snapshop. D4m1en 14:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 18:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:12-08 Trips-Fahrt 04.JPG edit

  • Nomination Citroën Traction Avant -- Achim Raschka 17:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Kreuzschnabel 18:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Harsh shadow to the right; unfortunate crop; the car is not very sharp. - A.Savin 19:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with A.Savin.--Jebulon 15:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 15:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Chedul_y_Cir_.jpg edit

  • Nomination The Val de Chedul with Cirspitzen (right) and Mont de Sëura (left) in South Tyrol. --Moroder 21:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Nice, but a bit tight at bottom. Perhaps the mountains have low clarity and the dark colors of the trees are too dark--Lmbuga 22:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review but I'm not sure I understand precisely what you mean --Moroder 12:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    Agree with Lmbuga about the awkward composition. However, I really like the colors, and the comp isn't that bad so I  Support. --King of Hearts 22:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support nice detail of the cloud and the top of the mountain, I agree with the above comments to still QI for me.--Pollycat 16:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 19:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:TDrZYRWolnosci1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Poland - Żyrardów - City Hall.--Tdurden 22:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Kreuzschnabel 21:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A pity for this nice shot, but there is extreme noise, just look at the sky in full res... - A.Savin 21:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment NR version uploaded. -- King of Hearts 22:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Certainly QI now. --Kreuzschnabel 07:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Not really "certainly": the image only has got unsharper, the noise is less salient but still visible. Photoshop cannot do magic, some things are only up to the photographer. - A.Savin 10:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
It is a bit noisy, but not too much in my eyes. The fine shot and light compensate for the noise --Kreuzschnabel 16:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeTo me, it is unsharp, with a thin white line at right along the edge of the building (due to attempt of sharpening ?). There is noise, a bit too much. Sorry, I have to oppose.--Jebulon 14:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, as Jebulon--Lmbuga 20:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 14:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Diveyevo Serafimo-Diveevsky Monastery The Transfiguration Cathedral IMG 9601.jpg edit

  • Nomination Serafimo-Diveevsky Convent (Nizhny Novgorod Oblast, Russia) by Alexxx1979. - A.Savin 20:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sky very noisy, and photographer at left very disturbing, "killing" the composition IMO. (please try to give different names to nominations, in order to avoid confusion when reviewing, thank you.)--Jebulon 23:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The sky shows some noise, but not too much in my eyes, and the building itself shows even less. For me it’s not excellent but still QI since the main subject is perfectly depicted. Discuss it. --Kreuzschnabel 04:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it is just fine. --King of Hearts 16:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me it's QI. --Ralf Roletschek 07:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment As to the photographer on the left, it's easy to darken his shirt a bit, so as to make it less distracting. --Aisano 18:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 18:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Placenta_system.svg edit

  • Nomination Placenta --Wilfredor 15:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very useful illustration. --King of Hearts 16:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    •  Oppose as incorrect. --King of Hearts 19:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The drawing is nice and clear, but is anatomically wrong, or at least unclear --Moroder 06:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
With this ultrasound image you can see how a human placenta is structured --Moroder 10:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The Science has spoken.--Jebulon 14:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support This picture helps me more to understand than the ultrasound image. Not all wikipedias are medics and can imagine the picture in the "noise" on ultrasound image. --Abehn 14:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    • But the picture makes you understand something wrongly depicted... We are not to compare two pictures, but only to judge this one, which is, as stated by a specialist, anatomically false.--Jebulon 18:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    • That’s why a drawn image should depict reality as close as possible. What’s that profit of clear and understandable – but false information? --Kreuzschnabel 11:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm glad to see how my little provocation works and promote this discussion. I think this picture would help better to show how it's right: placenta. This information I would expect for feedback and help to correct the incorrect picture. I hope my chain of thought is understandable. --Abehn 19:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes not all wikimedians are medical specialist, and for that reason we have to believe the expert of that filed Dr. Wolfgang Moroder. --JDP90 18:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No need of a quarrel. Wilfredor, you can consult Dr. Moroder to correct it. -- Jkadavoor 03:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --King of Hearts 19:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Henriksdalshamnen_september_2012.jpg edit

  • Nomination Building in Henriksdalshamnen, Stockholm. Built 2011. White arkitekter. --ArildV 13:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Request Please correct vertical distortion. --King of Hearts 16:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    Thank you for your review. It is an active choice not to do perspective correction here. I usually do it (99 out of 100 cases), but sometimes you can break the rules. The combination of perspective, angle and composition works for me. --ArildV 16:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    OK, let's discuss then. -- King of Hearts 17:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don’t see any aesthetic sense in keeping the PD. I would if there were any corresponding objects, like cloud structures in the sky, for instance. --Kreuzschnabel 03:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks like the building is falling over. --Iifar 14:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

File:P-ustinov-na-2439.jpg edit

  • Nomination Russian painter Nikolai Ustinov. --PereslavlFoto 12:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very good quality -- Lothar Spurzem 15:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tight crop --Moroder 13:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO the crop is tight but ok for QI. --Martin Kraft 17:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support per Martin. -- Jkadavoor 07:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice subject but as Moroder: Poor composition--Lmbuga 21:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It's OK --King of Hearts 23:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Moroder and Lmbuga. --Kadellar 14:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Kadellar 14:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

File:P-chizhikov-va-2396.jpg edit

  • Nomination Famous painter Victor Alexandrovich Chizhikov. --PereslavlFoto 11:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Insufficient quality. --Moroder 13:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tight crop --Moroder 13:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO the crop is tight but ok for QI. --Martin Kraft 17:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support per Martin. Good perspective; wise use of focal length. -- Jkadavoor 07:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Kadellar 14:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Kadellar 14:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Panathenaic Stadium.jpg edit

  • Nomination Panathenaic Stadium in Athens, Greece --Danbu14 18:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
    It needs a perspective and/or tilt correction Poco a poco 07:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 13:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the perspective distortion cannot be ignored in my opinion prior to become QI Poco a poco 16:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not see any major perspective distortion. --King of Hearts 22:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd expect that the lamps in both sides are straight, Poco a poco 19:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco a poco. Opposition removable of course when correction done.--Jebulon 14:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Improvable, Perspective distortion as others--Lmbuga 20:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Park przypałacowy w Żaganiu.jpg edit

  • Nomination Park at the Lobkowitz palace. City Żagan. --Enamo 19:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Request Please add english description to your images. --Iifar 17:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Firilacroco 18:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, look unnatural and oversaturate to me --Taxiarchos228 20:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New version uploaded. The sky was corrected --Enamo 15:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Better, but still per Taxiarchos228.--Jebulon 14:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support As an option (the file is updated)... --Aleks G 22:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Taxiarchos and, to me, the dark areas are very dark--Lmbuga 20:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Brassolis sophorae MHNT Male ventre.jpg edit

  • Nomination Brassolis sophorae Male ventral side --Archaeodontosaurus 08:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC).
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Good size, sufficient sharpness. The flat and direct light removes all depth information though. What happened to the EXIF, would be nice to have it restored too. Not a QI for a studio imege IMO. Biopics 09:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC).
  •  Comment I understand your point of view. We use a Kaiser R1. The goal is not to have a shadow, which minimizes reliefs. The reliefs on a flat butterfly is not very important. It should give the most complete information possible for the identification of the specimen. This is very different from a photograph of a specimen in vivo. The image is presented as it is intended. --Archaeodontosaurus 05:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    • OK for the DOF issue, although with such an equipment I think it is a lost opportunity to sidelight and to make a stack. But what about the restoring of the EXIF? Biopics 12:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Here there is a stack of two images F / 9, ISO100, Processed in Photoshop, which removes the EXIF ​​information. --Archaeodontosaurus 13:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportI disagree with the decline, it's clearly a QI for me, let's discuss. --Cayambe 16:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportQI for me.--JLPC 14:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice picture. -- George Chernilevsky 06:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support With Cayambe.--Jebulon 14:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 14:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Temple of Olympian Zeus Athens.jpg edit

  • Nomination Temple of the Olympian Zeus in Athens, Greece --Danbu14 14:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --King of Hearts 22:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm missing some sharpness, I think it's artifacts. --Kadellar 17:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It is a bit soft but nice composition. Still QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 05:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Abeja (Bombus) en una Dahlia x hortensis, jardín botánico de Tallin, Estonia, 2012-08-12, DD 02.jpg edit

  • Nomination Bee (Bombus terrestris) on a Dahlia x hortensis, Tallinn Botanic Garden, Estonia --Poco a poco 16:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline * Oppose We expect a more closeup for small flies and bugs. --Jkadavoor 09:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with your argument. As you can see in the title + description the subject of the picture is not only the bee but also the flower, that is the targeted composition here. I could easily crop it to focus on the bee, but that is not the intention --Poco a poco 20:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes; but then I expect the entire flower in focus for a flower profile. Let us see other opinions. -- Jkadavoor 07:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I see your point, but having the whole flower in focus and expecting a sharp bee is utopic (at least with 1 picture) Poco a poco 18:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes; that is why I demand either give emphasise to bee or flower. :) -- Jkadavoor 04:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too small bombus. I don't like the dof (f/6.3). The detail of the head is not good IMO--Lmbuga 21:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Ara macao -Venezuela -head.jpg edit

  • Nomination Ara chloropterus heads, Margarita island, Venezuela --Wilfredor 15:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Kreuzschnabel 15:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very noisy and bokeh with a lot of jpg-artefacts --Llez 06:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me, little blurry around bottom left but acceptable.--Pollycat 16:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Llez, and strange blurry area below the peak Poco a poco 21:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Llez and Poco a poco--Lmbuga 21:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Poco a poco 21:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:12-07-13-washington-by-RalfR-54.jpg edit

  • Nomination United States Capitol, Washington D.C. --Ralf Roletschek 11:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Lothar Spurzem 17:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Clearly tilted --Poco a poco 20:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC) No! look at vertical lines of Capitol.
    The Waterline isn't straight. Ralf Roletschek 11:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    Agree that the water line is not straight, but the building is still a bit tilted Poco a poco 20:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment A line between the statue at top and its reflection in water should be vertical. It is not. So the pic is tilted. Easily correctible--Jebulon 10:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    ok, i correct ist. --Ralf Roletschek 07:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted. Biopics 17:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- King of Hearts 03:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good Quality --Abehn 21:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Better now Poco a poco 11:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --King of Hearts 03:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

File:12-08 Kronsgaard Strand 01.JPG edit

  • Nomination Boat at the beach of Kronsgaard, Germany. -- Achim Raschka 06:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion dichter, stärkerer Weitwinkel, dann wirds noch besser. --Ralf Roletschek 07:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)I guess ( and hope... ) that it is on purpose, but I strongly disagree with the tilt of the horizon. Please discuss.--Jebulon 11:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, i correct the tilt, a little bit tone balance --Ralf Roletschek 12:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It is good, indeed. No discussion is more needed for me.--Jebulon 19:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Bad_Säckingen_-_Rheinkraftwerk_Säckingen2.jpg edit

  • Nomination Bad Säckingen: power plant --Taxiarchos228 05:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Firilacroco 14:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Large dust spot in the middle of the sky. Biopics 23:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support its corrected, very nice picture. --Ralf Roletschek 15:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice! --Kallerna 15:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 16:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Luxemb_Beidweiler_chapel_1925.jpg edit

  • Nomination Chapel with pietà in Luxembourg. --Cayambe 18:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JLPC 20:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Chapel, trees and grass are very over-exposed. In my opinion no good quality. -- Lothar Spurzem 01:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support how could chapel, trees and grass be overexoosed? they aren't white. image is QI --Taxiarchos228 06:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine with me. --Iifar 10:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others.--Jebulon 14:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 18:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Lörrach-Haagen_-_Brücken_am_Bahnhof_Haagen2.jpg edit

  • Nomination Lörrach: Bridges over the river Wiese near railway station Lörrach-Haagen --Taxiarchos228 07:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality.--ArildV 08:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    Random comoposition. Also not always sharp enough for static (basically point-n-shoot) image. Biopics 09:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    • this is not a random composition but rather a random argument --Taxiarchos228 18:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good composition, typical picture of a bridge, good colors --> QI --Ralf Roletschek 16:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment The composition is fine for me but the bright areas are overexposured. --Kreuzschnabel 12:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 18:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Dom przy ul. Waryńskiego 2 w Kowarach.jpg edit

  • Nomination House on the Waryńskiego Street 2. Kowary. Poland. --Enamo 14:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Firilacroco 14:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    Artifacts, very pixelated sky. --Kadellar 14:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for your review. The artifacts was corrected. --Enamo 14:22, 16 September 2012(UTC)
    The sky is much better now (I didn't think it could be fixed), but the building has a lot of artifacts too. --Kadellar 15:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New version uploaded with correction artifacts. --Enamo 17:03, 16 September 2012(UTC)
     OpposeI'm very sorry but I can't promote this one. Thank you very much for reworking. Let's see other opinions in CR. --Kadellar 17:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose I am sorry (because I like the picture), but something went fundamentally wrong. The red colour of the tiles is smeared into the blue sky, the edges are strange. The Details in the disc of the antenna on the right are more or less gone. Maybe if You have the RAW-File and develop again? --DKrieger 22:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 Oppose I fully agree with DKrieger, I'm afraid. Including comments (I like the picture too).--Jebulon 09:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Kadellar 14:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Pierre Bergé - septembre 2012.jpg edit

  • Nomination Pierre Bergé Kyro 20:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Out of focus --Moroder 23:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. His face is not perfectly sharp but it's fine IMO. --King of Hearts 02:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Lo syento, Wolfgang, but I agree with King of Hearts. --Aisano 20:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Moroder. But sorry.--Jebulon 09:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 09:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Washington Monument 2012.jpg edit

  • Nomination Washington Monument -- Albertus teolog 08:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support good quality for me -- Lothar Spurzem 10:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tight crop + disturbing trees and crane at the bottom. (a little lack of details too) --PierreSelim 15:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
     Support Maybe not FP quality but good enough for QI IMO. --King of Hearts 17:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose May be acceptable for FP but not good for QI (e.g. crop). Biopics 13:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its a QI. --Ralf Roletschek 18:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of fine detail. --Iifar 05:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Iifar. --Kadellar 15:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Planty miejskie w Bolesławcu.jpg edit

  • Nomination Planty city created after 1867. City Boleslawiec. Poland --Enamo 14:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality--Elzewir 12:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose there is nothing really sharp. --Berthold Werner 09:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC))
  • ✓ Done The sharpness was corrected. --Enamo 14:25, 15 September 2012(UTC)
  • wondeful motif! Good idea but really not sharp. May be in the half resolution? --Ralf Roletschek 10:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Berthold. --Iifar 05:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Berest_-cerkiew_par._p.w._ss._Kosmy_i_Damiana_ob._kosciól_rzym.-kat.jpg edit

  • Nomination Orthodox church in Berest, małopolskie voivodeship, Poland (by Daniel.zolopa) --Winiar 20:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good coloured. High quality for me. --Adrianek2501 14:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry. --Kadellar 17:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp. --Iifar 05:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Ardea_cinerea_from_Margarita_Island.jpg edit

  • Nomination Ardea cinerea from El Guamache, Paraiso beach, Margarita Island --Wilfredor 14:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --D4m1en 17:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong green/purple CA (see beak and feathers), waterline in background seems tilted, unfortunate crop showing only half of the body – sorry, not a QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 06:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I fixed the CA, thanks --Wilfredor 12:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong id (A. herodias) and unfortunately not sharp enough. Also crop and BG are not ideal. Biopics 17:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Szpital Wysoka Łąka w Kowarach.jpg edit

  • Nomination "Wysoka Łąka" hospital. Kowary. Poland. --Enamo 21:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --King of Hearts 02:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Lack of fine detail, insufficient quality between trees and retouched sky. --Iifar 07:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for review. The sky was corrected --Enamo 17:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose insufficient quality (loss of detail, oversharpened) --Vamps 09:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 05:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

File:P-vekshin-2390.jpg edit

  • Nomination Painter Valeriy Pavlovich Vekshin --PereslavlFoto 20:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Great shot. --Frank Schulenburg 04:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tight crop --Moroder 13:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO the crop is tight but ok for QI. --Martin Kraft 17:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Huge perspective distortion due to small focal length for such a closeup. -- Jkadavoor 07:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment 70 mm times 1.6 crop makes 112 mm, is it really small focal length?--PereslavlFoto 12:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
      • For such a close-up; we have to maintain minimum subject distance to avoid distortions. Please compare with your other works above. -- Jkadavoor 04:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me despite the tight bottom crop. I don’t see any perspective distortion. --Kreuzschnabel 14:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tight crop, as Moroder--Lmbuga 21:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the framing and light. --Kadellar 14:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Kadellar 14:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Arcades_du_collatéral_est,_Basilique_Notre_Dame_de_Bonne_Nouvelle,_Rennes,_France.jpg edit

  • Nomination Arcades of the eastern collateral of the Notre Dame de Bonne Nouvelle basilica in Rennes, France. --EdouardHue 20:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Nice pic, but needs perspective correction. --Kreuzschnabel 11:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • There is too much distortion to correct it without excessively altering composition. I'll be fine if the picture is rejected as is. --EdouardHue 17:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's fine. --King of Hearts 17:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective distortion is disturbing--Lmbuga 21:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine for me. --Kadellar 14:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose disturbing perspective distortion --Vamps 09:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Kadellar 14:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

File:12-08 Trips-Fahrt 82-3.jpg edit

a bit darker

  • Nomination Lamborghini Murciélago Coupé -- Achim Raschka 16:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion The photo is very light, and drinks tins look not well. -- Lothar Spurzem 19:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    Regi51 deleted the tins and the car from behind - hope this is better? -- Achim Raschka 18:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    … and the Ferrari has gone away. Very good! Now you should correct the colour. It is still too fade. -- Lothar Spurzem 23:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support ich würde sagen, es fehlt etwas purpur im Bild. Aber als Illustration dieses Fahrzeuges sehr gut geeignet. Scharf ist es, keine ausreißenden Schatten oder Lichter, solide. Etwas rechts und unten beschneiden - wir sind hier aber bei QI und nicht bei den exzellenten. Und vor allem: kein offensichtlich manipuliertes Nummernschild --> 5 Bonuspunkte. --Ralf Roleček 07:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Bei der Farbe muss ich passen: Das Bild entspricht farblich meiner Erinnerung - ein gelbes Fahrzeug in heller Sonne, wo da violett herkommen soll - donnow. Beschneidungen dürfen gern gemacht werden, allerdings bin ich kein Fan von engen Bildern mit Mittenfokus ... -- Achim Raschka 13:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Ich wundere mich, dass Du das Auto nicht ein bisschen dunkler machst. So wie der Wagen da steht, ist es ein ausgezeichnetes Foto. Ob man unten und vielleicht auch rechts ein wenig wegschneiden könnte, ist eine andere, aber keineswegs wichtige Frage. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Ich habe eine neue Version hinzugestellt, die etwas dunkler ist / just added a darker version. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo --Abehn 21:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 19:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:2012--DSC_0286-Abbaye-de-Mortemer.jpg edit

  • Nomination Abbaye de Mortemer, Normandy, France --Pline 10:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Good in thumbnail preview, but not sharp enough at full size. A pity, it is a nice place.--Jebulon 15:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment In my opinion it is sharp enough and good quality. Only the shadow on the left rearward part of house is disturbing. -- Lothar Spurzem 19:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I remove the cropping to mitigate the shadow--Pline 20:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose insufficient sharpness --Vamps 09:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Better ? --Pline (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 19:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Moers,_Friedhofskapelle_Rheinberger_Straße,_2012-08_CN-01.jpg edit

  • Nomination An old Cemetery chapel in Moers, built on the foundations of a 11th century church --Carschten 13:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough (look at the cock), disturbing vehicle in the background, smearings on wall -- Lothar Spurzem 15:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done new version uploaded with better sharpness. Trailer and graffitis aren't my fault. --Carschten 14:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK (now) for me. --Jkadavoor 08:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support quite alright --Vamps 08:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Moers, Agnetenhof, 2012-08 CN-01.jpg edit

  • Nomination Heritage farm Agnetenhof in Moers --Carschten 13:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Bad Exposure, not sharp enough -- Lothar Spurzem 15:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Jkadavoor 08:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose result is unsatisfactory --Vamps 08:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Kościół NMP Królowej Polski w Starym Żagania.jpg edit

  • Nomination Romański kościół NMP Królowej Polski. Stary Żagań. Poland. --Enamo 14:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Hard to decide. It’s a nice composition but the sky looks too unnatural for me to promote it. More votes? --Kreuzschnabel 10:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done New version uploaded. The sky and perspective was corrected --Enamo 15:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me it is QI Ralf Roletschek 02:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question The church is straight, but the entrance gate is leaning. is it normal ?--Jebulon 14:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done The gate was corrected. --Enamo 23:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality Elzewir 12:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose JPEG artifacts (esp. in the sky), looks oversharpened, as well Poco a poco 10:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed (compared to the middle version): per Poco a poco + plus halo. --Carschten 21:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good Quality --Abehn 21:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharpened. --Iifar 05:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose poor quality --Vamps 08:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Trier, Dreikönigenhaus 1 (2009-09-21 Sp).JPG edit

  • Nomination Dreikönigenhaus in Trier -- Lothar Spurzem 22:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Left corner in the upper left part is disturbing -User:Null
    I don'a agree with you. The corner is a fore-roof of a house and interesting foreground. I ask for discussion. -- Lothar Spurzem 12:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 10:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Girl_of_Margarita.JPG edit

  • Nomination Girl of Margarita --Wilfredor 13:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 12:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose - unsharp, quite dark and not a good background. Mattbuck 10:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose Not sharp enough. And what importance should this photo have for enzyklopedia? It's a nice little girl like many others. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ralf Roletschek 22:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Seal_Slough_May_2011_005.jpg edit

  • Nomination Houses in San Mateo, California, along the Seal Slough. --King of Hearts 18:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose - several dust spots. Mattbuck 10:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    Fixed King of Hearts 17:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
     Support --JLPC 21:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ralf Roletschek 22:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Bassenheimer Reiter (2009-10-19 Sp).JPG edit

  • Nomination Skulpture of holy Martin, named „Bassenheimer Reiter“, reddish glazed sandstone -- Lothar Spurzem 12:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough I'm afraid.--Jebulon 15:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
     Comment Now it is sharper. OK? -- Lothar Spurzem 19:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    I ask for discussion. -- Lothar Spurzem 13:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Really interesting sculpture, and a nice picture. But there are strong artifatcts, see the lower left corner or the mane of the horse. --DKrieger 22:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ralf Roletschek 22:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

File:12-07-15-wikimania-wdc-by-RalfR-009.jpg edit

  • Nomination Audi A5 Coupé in Washington D.C. --Ralf Roletschek 12:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 12:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but this is not what I’d call a QI of a car. Though the car itself is shown the whole pic is tilted (see background), the other car behind nearly covers part of subject (pretty close), the outcropped cars are distracting. Looks more like a random shot to me than a composed photograph (sorry Ralf, thats my impression). Let’s discuss it. --Kreuzschnabel 18:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ich bin auch – Ralf, nimm es mir bitte nicht übel – von diesem Bild nicht überzeugt. Es sieht aus, als hätte irgendjemand mal ein Auto fotografiert. Dabei sind auch noch die Heckscheibe und der Kofferraumdeckel viel zu hell geraten. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

ok. Ralf Roletschek 11:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ralf Roletschek 22:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

File:2012--DSC_0248-Chateau-de-Vascoeuil.jpg edit

  • Nomination Castle of Vascoeuil, Normandy, France --Pline 20:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Please remove dust spot. I added a note. --NorbertNagel 20:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC).
  •  Support It looks more like a bird to me, good quality. --Iifar 17:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is a second dust spot (or blurred bird) at the same hight near the first one. I think, the two blurred black spots should be removed. Let's discuss. --NorbertNagel 20:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Comment These are birds. Did you notice the little things on the roof top of the castle and of the dovecote (picture+2). But I can remove birds from the sky. I am use to. You are not the first to prefer a cleaned sky--Pline 21:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Please clean. --NorbertNagel 10:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportCome on... If the uploader says that these very small "spots" are not due to dust, but "are birds", we have to trust him (assume good faith...) if there is no evidence against. So do I. Therefore there is no reason to remove them. And it is a QI to me. --Jebulon 15:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not a question of trust for me. I just think, if there are two blurred black spots in the nice blue sky, it's better to remove them, independently of their origin/nature. --NorbertNagel 19:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 15:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:3D_sonogram_of_fetal_spine.tif edit

  • Nomination 3D Ultrasound image of the fetal spine at 21 weeks of pregnancy. Image generated by Voluson E8 system with 3D Static Volume Mode, with mechanical RAB4-8-D Wide Band Convex Volume Probe. Focal Zone position at 6,7 cm. Aquisition: Skeleton mode. Threshold 91/Quality high2, Volume box angle: 63° by 50°. Mix 20/80. Speckle Reduction Imaging step 5 --Moroder 11:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Undersized. Please check guidelines. Biopics 12:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)  Comment The guidlines indicate that 2 MP are requested only for fotographs. Ultrasound images are NOT photos and can and must be considered with the same criteria as SVG Images. If you read the guidlines, they state that the 2MP rule in "Not applicable for SVG images" --Moroder 13:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
    Your images are bitmap and not vector so not lossless scalable. All bitmaps need to adhere to the 2 Mpix rule. It does not mean that the image has less value, it just doesn't fit in the QI-scheme. Biopics 14:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 10:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Butterfly 10.jpg edit

  • Nomination Unknown Butterfly taken at Longleat UK, please help to identify.--Danesman1 21:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • No id. Biopics 23:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  CommentThanks for that! I know theres no identification, as per my request in the title for help in identification of the butterfly.--Danesman120:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You should solve that problem before nomination. Biopics 07:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Parthenos sylvia, probably Race lilacinus -- Jkadavoor 10:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Anyway there's strange ghosting around the left wing and right antenna. --D4m1en 14:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as D4m1en mentioned. --NorbertNagel 20:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ralf Roletschek 22:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

File:12-09-11-moorbad-freienwalde-51.jpg edit

  • Nomination Statue of Louis Tuaillon in Fachklinik und Moorbad Bad Freienwalde, Germany --Ralf Roletschek 10:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI for me. --JLPC 17:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp and halos. Biopics 08:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The grass is blurry, but the main subject is clearly shown. QI for me too. Just a crop on the left would move the subject out of center and make the pic look more dynamic. --Kreuzschnabel 12:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I wasn't referring to the grass but to the statue. Have a close look... B.p. 12:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Biopics: unsharp (see the pedestal...), and halos all around the statue.--Jebulon 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I can't see any halos. And the statue is sharp enough. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ralf Roletschek 22:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Ultrasound_of_fetal_spine_at_20_weeks_3D_Dr._Moroder.jpg edit

  • Nomination 3D Ultrasound image of the fetal spine at 21 weeks of pregnancy.Image generated by a Voluson E8 system with 3D Static Volume Mode, with mechanical RAB4-8-D Wide Band Convex Volume Probe. Focal Zone position at 6,7 cm. Aquisition: Skeleton mode. Threshold 91/Quality high2, Volume box angle: 63° by 50°. Mix 20/80. Speckle Reduction Imaging step 5 --Moroder 17:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Tiny. Biopics 19:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd like to remind that this is not a photograph and therefore an image of 2 MP would not make sense: see guidelines, Technical requirements --Moroder 06:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe you should try VI then. This is ridiculously small. Biopics 08:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think ridiculous is a criterion to judge pictures --Moroder 11:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
    • 'Ridiculous' is an epithet for the size of a QI, not for the value of the picture (which is fine BTW). Biopics 12:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose this might be a great Ultrasound image but it is too small and blurry to qualify as "Quality Image". I am not sure if any Ultrasound image would qualify. You should try VI. --Jarekt 13:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ralf Roletschek 22:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Human_placenta_umbilical_cord_Ultrasound_by_Dr._W._Moroder.jpg edit

  • Nomination Ultrasound image of human placenta and umbilical cord with central cord insertion at 20 weeks of pregnancy. --Moroder 09:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Undoubtedly useful but not QI material, below size requirements. --D4m1en 15:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
     Comment I'd like to remind that this is not a photograph and therefore an image of 2 MP would not make sense: see guidelines, Technical requirements --Moroder 07:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose this might be a great Ultrasound image but it is too small to qualify as "Quality Image". I am not sure if any Ultrasound image would qualify. You should try VI. --Jarekt 13:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ralf Roletschek 22:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Biblioteca_Nacional_de_España_-_01.jpg edit

  • Nomination National Library of Spain, in Madrid. --Kadellar 13:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Streak at the top left--Enamo 14:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Fixed, I hadn't seen that. That's not a reason to immediately decline, that's something you must tell the author to fix. --Kadellar 15:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Agree. Discuss. But needs a perspective corection, and the main subject is obscured by trees, I'm not very optimistic about this one...--Jebulon 19:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 10:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Szpital Bukowiec w Kowarach..jpg edit

  • Nomination "Bukowiec" hospital. Kowary. Poland. --Enamo 21:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Looks oversaturated. --King of Hearts 18:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    Putting into discussion as I will be away. --King of Hearts 18:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 10:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:U4_Vieno-rivero.JPG edit

  • Nomination Metro train in Vienna --Darkweasel94 17:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Request Strong CA, please fix. --King of Hearts 00:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    Putting into discussion as I will be away. --King of Hearts 18:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry, what does "CA" mean? Darkweasel94 21:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC) en:Chromatic_aberration--ArildV 21:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
     Comment I checked some contours (pardonu, Darkweasel94, certe ni povus diskuti pli bone en alia lingvo) and it's true that, on the extreme left side of the picture, the vertical parts of the green banisters tend to be red/orange on the right. That smells of chromatic aberration. On the train itself I see similar things on the right part, starting at about x: 3000. It might be a bit too much for a QI. I am not an expert on correcting CA. I suppose the picture was taken with a zoom objective, and well, which zoom objective is perfect. (BTW the system would not accept an "equals" sign between "x" and "3000", so I had to put a colon.) --Aisano 20:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 10:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:U4_Zollamtsbruecke.JPG edit

  • Nomination Metro train in Vienna crossing a bridge across the Wien river --Darkweasel94 17:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Request Please fix CA. --King of Hearts 00:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    Putting into discussion as I will be away. --King of Hearts 18:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, + perspective distorsion, and uncontrolled motion blur IMO.--Jebulon 09:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 10:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Mignon Mod.4,Bj.1924.jpg edit

  • Nomination ”Mignon“ Model 4, Typewriter from 1924 -- Lothar Spurzem 21:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Nice composition and perspective, but considerable noise (look at the character pad) and some motion blur (the engraving „Deutsche Werke AG Berlin“ is hardly readable), slight CA. The image lacks technical quality for me. What ISO speed has been used? --Kreuzschnabel 09:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I did not await any other judgement from you. But more sharpness nearly is impossible. I don't remember ISO speed and can not look for it because I made the mistake to safe the file under new name and to delete the original file. -- Lothar Spurzem 00:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeDecline per previous. Mattbuck 09:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment Do you know a better photo of this object? More sharpness is neyrly impossible. I ask for discussion. -- Lothar Spurzem 21:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
      • „Do you know a better photo“ does not matter in QI discussion since there is no need to have at least one QI image of any subject, and the image being of course as useful without being promoted. This particular image shows too much noise in all dark (gray or black) areas for me, apart from the blur on the character pad. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Dark areas always are problematical. But if you look for absolute highest quality I can't understand that many over- oder under-exposed photos with dark shadows and brightest parts on the other side get the honor. But OK! Every simple holiday photo is excellent but a careful composed picture of a historical typewriter is nothing. -- Lothar Spurzem 00:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
          • First: I wrote in my first comment, "Nice composition and perspective", so why do u assume I would not appreciate your picture? Second: No, a noise level like that in dark areas is not normal. Und es wäre hilfreich, wenn die das Polarisieren lassen könntest. Wenn ich sage, das Bild hat zu viel Rauschen, meine ich damit, daß es zu viel Rauschen hat, und nicht, daß es „nothing“ ist (deine Formulierung). Mach dir bitte klar, daß eine Ablehnung dieses speziellen Bildes nicht bedeutet, daß es für wertlos gehalten würde, sondern lediglich, daß es bei aller inhaltlichen und gestalterischen Qualität nicht die Standards für QI erreicht. Schau mal, welche Bilder von mir gerade abgelehnt werden. Auch schöne Bilder, bewußt gestaltet und aussagekräftig, aber ich sehe ein, daß die technische Qualität nicht stimmt, ohne deshalb gleich die beleidigte Leberwurst zu geben. Das bringt niemandem etwas, nicht mal dir selbst. --Kreuzschnabel 16:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Ich spiele nicht die „beleidigte Leberwurst“, sondern wundere mich, was hier einerseits alles als Qualitätsbild „durchgewinkt“ und was andererseits abgelehnt wird. Mag sein, dass die gekürten Fotos allesamt nicht oder nur wenig „rauschen“, keine Halos aufweisen (die Biopics neuerdings bei meinen Fotos zunehmend sieht), aber hinsichtlich Belichtung und vor allem hinsichtlich Bildgestaltung in der vordigitalen Zeit zum großen Teil ganz unten im Schuhkarton oder in der Zigarrenkiste – wenn überhaupt – aufbewahrt worden wären. Beste Grüße und bitte nichts für ungut -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeTrès bel objet, rare. Intéressante composition. Mais beaucoup de bruit (mais pas pour "rien"!), des aberrations chromatiques, manque certain de netteté, tentative infructueuse de l'augmenter, ayant pour conséquence l'apparition de halos (voir molette). Image de valeur, mais pas de qualité selon les critères consensuellement retenus. Il faut accepter les critiques, ne pas jouer au pâté de foie offensé (beleidigte Leberwurst, auf fr.: "Prendre la mouche") sinon, ce n'est pas la peine de proposer des images ici... Et il est inutile de manifester du mépris pour les "simples photos de vacances" des autres: beaucoup sont bien meilleures que celle-ci.--Jebulon 08:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)  Comment Oui, peut-être l'image sérait un candidat pour l'image de valeur de la catégorie en question. Il y a un nom anglais pour ça dans Commons mais je ne m'en souviens pas... il paraît difficile à trouver par recherche, et pas question d'introduire une autre langue (l'Esperanto?) dans la discussion. Sicher kennen alle außer mir diesen Ausdruck für das beste Bild in seiner Kategorie. Anybody can help? Salutojn, --Aisano 21:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Merci... j'aurais pu verifier ça. Il paraît que ça s'apelle "valued image", n'est-ce pas? --Aisano 23:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 10:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Pałac Belwederski w Warszawie.jpg edit

  • Nomination The Belweder Palace in Warsaw. The official residence of the Polish President. --Enamo 20:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Interesting but in my opinion no picture for enzyclopedia -- Lothar Spurzem 00:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    Can you explain your opinion? --Enamo 22:29, 15 September 2012(UTC)
  •  Oppose due to strong artifacting. --King of Hearts 17:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 10:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:12-08 Trips-Fahrt 17.JPG edit

  • Nomination: Ferrari Mondial t coupé -- Achim Raschka 17:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Kreuzschnabel 18:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Messy composition, disturbing shadow. - A.Savin 19:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support quite alright --Vamps 09:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, shadow is disturbing --Taxiarchos228 05:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Taxiarchos228 19:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_Pedro_Los_Francos,_Calatayud,_España,_2012-09-01,_DD_19-21_HDR_1.JPG edit

  • Nomination: Church of San Pedro Los Francos, Plaza del Olivo, Calatayud, Spain --Poco a poco 20:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  OpposeVery sharp, but parts of main-altar are too light -- Lothar Spurzem 00:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Kadellar 09:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality IMO. Firilacroco 16:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version uploaded with decrease of exposure in the more sensitive areas, Poco a poco 19:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • {{o|strong oppose}} Oversaturated. Unnatural colors: see the chairs on the right (note). Too sharpened.--Lmbuga 20:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC). Also, manipulation of color--Lmbuga 21:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC) . It can be FP as an artistic image, but not QI for me--Lmbuga 21:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    I can understand your comment because you don't know the scene, but please, believe me that the blue color is real. Here you can see the scene from behind. The blue colors belong to a special event in the location celebrated every year where special ilumination is used (color lights, candles,...). Poco a poco 21:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but it looks overprocessed to me. --Iifar 05:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 Neutral Ok, but there are other issues: Movement of persons... I don't know, perhaps QI
  •  Weak support blurry people, but the rest is not so bad at all. --Vamps 08:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose worst light conditions for a photographer, but it looks overprocessed (and maybe oversaturated?, don't know) to me, too. CA in the bottom right and noise in the top right corner. --Carschten 20:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Carschten 20:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Brilon,_St._Petrus_und_Andreas,_2012-05_CN-01.jpg edit

  • Nomination Side altar in the Catholic Saints Peter and Andrew Church in Brilon --Carschten 20:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The top of it is cut off. --King of Hearts 20:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I can't really understand that because the motive is the altar itself and not the arch. The crop doesn't look disturbing to me, too. --Carschten 08:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
      • It still looks distracting, however. You can move to discuss if you like. -- King of Hearts 17:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
        • okay, thanks for your review, but I'd like to hear some other opinions. --Carschten 11:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I would also prefer this pic in upright orientation. Though the arch is not part of the altar, it serves as framing for a harmonic composition. --Kreuzschnabel 16:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support ...But we have the statue of the Virgin as a "bonus" (no offense). I think that the "landscape" choice does not disturb the composition at all. But please crop out the half candle...--Jebulon 15:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose You must focus on the altar with the crop, otherwise I agree with King of Hearts the arch must complete the composition: the virgin doesn't save it ;-) --Moroder 20:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Carschten, auf gut deutsch: Das Bild weiß nicht, was es zeigen soll. Der abgeschnittene Rundbogen - na ja, schlimm genug. Die Vertikalen - v.a. rechts - ganz knapp vorbei. Warum die Maria mit auf das Bild muss (und der hässlichen Liednummernkasten als Gimmick obendrauf!), weiß keiner; warum nicht Hochformat? Das kannst Du viel besser. Gruß --THWZ (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination thanks for the reviews, ich gebe mich geschlagen ;-) --Carschten 20:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_Juan_Bautista,_Ágreda,_España,_2012-08-27,_DD_02.JPG edit

  • Nomination Church of San Juan Bautista, Ágreda, Spain --Poco a poco 07:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --JDP90 10:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, but noticeable CA to be corrected before promotion (see the top of the bell tower)--Jebulon 10:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    Agree, CA was noticeable, now it is ✓ corrected Poco a poco 11:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for CA correction. Don't you think there is a lens distortion at left ? (sorry)--Jebulon 15:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded Is it better now? Poco a poco 20:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its too strong distorted but QI. --Ralf Roletschek 11:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support now. Good.--Jebulon 09:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 09:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Rana_su_una_mano.JPG edit

  • Nomination: A frog on my hand --Dega180 08:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Review  Comment Proper species identification of the frog is needed.-- JDP90 12:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)  Comment I don't know the species of this frog.--Dega180 10:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    This page and related categories can help you identify. -- JDP90 16:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done, is a common toad, not a frog.--Dega180 13:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
     Support OK. Mattbuck 12:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose OOF. Biopics 23:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Taxiarchos228 10:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Segment_definition.svg edit

  • Nomination: Geometric definition of a line segment. --Gauravjuvekar 04:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Review  Comment The letters and mathematical symbols look a little awkward. Could they be replaced with Computer Modern or another LaTeX font? --King of Hearts 00:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    Putting into discussion as I will be away. --King of Hearts 18:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC): CommentThe font is computer modern roman(cmr10 from ubuntu package ttf-lyx).--Gauravjuvekar 07:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question Do we now promote fonts and arrows? Where is the threshold of originality here? Biopics 12:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Epitafium na ścianie kościoła Podwyższenia Krzyża Świętego w Jeleniej Górze.jpg edit

  • Nomination The epitaph on the wall of the Church of the Exaltation of the Holy. Jelenia Gora. Poland. --Enamo 20:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support QI for me. --JLPC 20:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose the right vertical lines are not stright: perspective distortion and pehaps tilted. Perhaps poor detail and oversharpened--Lmbuga 21:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Too tight at top--Lmbuga 21:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    In fact, the wall is crooked. It.s not a straight line. Look on shadow. --Enamo 21:41, 15 September 2012(UTC)
  •  Support Pretty borderline but nice and useful --Moroder 20:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Seal_Slough_May_2011_002.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Houses in Foster City, California, along the Seal Slough. --King of Hearts 18:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Review Main topic of the image (flowers) are not id'ed. Biopics 09:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry to disagree. In my opinion, identification is not needed in this specific case. This picture is a whole, not a picture of flowers. Other opinions should be interesting, so let discuss this point.--Jebulon 15:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No need of ID for a landscape. But I'm not good to evaluate a landscape. -- Jkadavoor 09:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 11:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Echternach_Chapelle_Notre-Dame_des_Douleurs_main_altar.jpg edit

  • Nomination Echternach: main altar of the chapel of 1658. --Cayambe 09:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Nice composition but focus is up front unfortunately --Moroder 14:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. I don't understand Wolfgang's review. Let's discuss. --JLPC 16:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    I mean that the focus is on the benches in front and not on the altar- Too bad because it is a nice picture --Moroder 17:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The quality looks good to me, but the arch over the top is abruptly cut off in this compositon. --Gavin.collins 14:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Out of focus! The autofocus should have been set in "spot" position and been set eg. on the Crucifix in the middle, or - better - been left away, taking the pic with manual focus. No prob with this camera! There was enough time to take some pictures more, I don't think the altar would run away. --THWZ (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support f/13 zeigt schon deutliche Beugung, die man auf einem 6- oder gar 2-MPixel-Bild, wie für QI mindestens gefordert, überhaupt nicht sehen würde und hier nur wegen der hohen Auflösung auffällt. Sehr schönes Licht, der abgeschnittene Bogen ist kein wirklich entscheidender Gestaltungsmangel. -- Smial 09:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-09-09 17-50-01-nd-bas-ronchamp.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Tabernacle in church ND du bas of Ronchamp (France). --ComputerHotline 14:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Iifar 17:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB issues. Biopics 17:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yellowish lighting makes this picture unattractive. --Gavin.collins 14:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportGood quality, sharp, informativ. Surely no candidate for FP, but all in all a quality picture. Yellowish WB easily can be corrected. I'll start trying that!
Done. WB corrected, should be ok in this way! --THWZ 23:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 05:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Bad_Säckingen_-_Panorama1.jpg edit

  • Nomination: Bad Säckingen: panorama from swiss border (please note: because of the large file the thumb is not working well) --Taxiarchos228 05:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Beautiful panorama. Good quality. --JLPC 07:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Retouching problems on the left side - the sky, water (circular shape retouched areas), half blurry-sharp trees. I can't add the notes, because thumbnail is not working. --Iifar 10:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    • IMO in relation to the large picture these "problems" aren't relevant, but I have fixed this minor relicts --Taxiarchos228 13:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Imho these issues are not minor. You fixed the sky and tried to fix the water (not so succesful), but trees looking half very sharp and half blurry are not looking good at all. It's a pity, because this panorama view is beautiful. --Iifar 15:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
        • If you want, try to fix it yourself. --Taxiarchos228 18:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
          • I suggest to crop out problematic parts from the left. After that you will still have a great image (ca 10900x4560 pixels). --Iifar 18:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Bad suggestion, because you would crop out the well known wooden covered bridge, which is an important landmark of Bad Säckingen. --Taxiarchos228 18:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have one more remark and it's not about the quality of the image. We are uploading images to commons for usage in encyclopedia. How this image can be used in articles, if there is no thumbnail preview? --Iifar 17:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    • this is not a issue of me but of the Commons software, this has to be fixed by s.o. who has access to the source code, I don't know exactly why this image has this problem, there are also other images with big amount of memory and they don't have this problems. but here is not the space to discuss this technical problem anyway. --Taxiarchos228 18:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Commons not only is a ressort for Wikipedias, there are other Projects so as Wikiversity - and all projects, who use free material, can also use Commons. --Ralf Roletschek 11:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info now a new version, thanks to Wolf im Wald --Taxiarchos228 14:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Very good to see that thumbnail is working, but quality problems are still there. --Iifar 19:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but I can't see any. --Taxiarchos228 05:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Notes added. --Iifar 09:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
          • I'll try fix it. The note with "half man?" I don't understand. There is no person, I have checked the original single shots and I don't see s.th. disturbing, maybe you can precise. --Taxiarchos228 07:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Maybe it's just my imagination, but it looks like head with upper body is walking upstairs. --Iifar 07:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Taxiarchos228 18:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Burg_Rötteln_-_Oberburg1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Rötteln Castle: upper part --Taxiarchos228 06:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    It's a bit tilted (ich nehme als Referenz die Kante vom Turm Poco a poco 07:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    not every line has to be straight, it's a wideangle image --Taxiarchos228 11:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Let's discuss the topic, the pictures are very nice but I am not convinced Poco a poco 14:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    not convinced that in wide angle pictures vertical lines are not straight? you're making a joke, aren't you? --Taxiarchos228 20:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
No, that is not the point I doubt about. I am not convinced about your answer to my objection. The line I refered to (the edge of the tower) is not curved, so that's not a problem. The problem is that it is not straight and I expect that to be parallel to the vertical frame of the picture, Poco a poco 19:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Very atmospheric, interesting foreground & clouds. --Gavin.collins 14:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support ich hätte als Quadrat beschnitten, trotzdem klar QI Ralf Roletschek 17:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Paßt scho. -- Smial 09:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support tilted? Not really. Just because not every line is parallel or orthogonal does mean that this image is tilted. --High Contrast 14:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good composition, wih excellent balance of contrast. --Karora 02:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC))

File:Kamienice przy ul. Sudeckiej 24, 26 w Jeleniej Górze.jpg edit

  • Nomination Houses on the Sudecka Street 24,26. Jelenia Góra. Poland. --Enamo 17:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JLPC 17:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too strong CA for me, sorry (look at the lamp post on the right) --Kreuzschnabel 17:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Fixed. CA was corrected. --Enamo 19:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The new quality is definately acceptable for a QI badge. --High Contrast 13:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Per High Contrast. --Cayambe 19:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. --Florstein 16:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Parthenos Sylvia butterfly1.jpg edit

  • Nomination Parthenos sylvia butterfly taken at Longleat Safari Park, Butterfly house, photo has been retaken with ghosting now fixed around wings.--Danesman1 12:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Poor quality, lots of artefacts. Biopics 12:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  CommentPlease explain what you mean by lots of artefacts, do you mean the background that the butterfly is sitting on, surely the picture should be judged on the main subject being the butterfly which I believe is clear and of good quality and shows real detail especailly when zoomed in. --Danesman1 21:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Categories are missing --High Contrast 00:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Fixed -- Jkadavoor 17:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Owl Butterfly2.jpg edit

  • Nomination Owl Butterfly (Caligo atreus) taken at butterfly house, Longleat safari Park, UK, Original photo taken had ghosting which I have corrected in this new uploaded photo. --Danesman1 10:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Poor quality, lots of artefacts. Biopics 12:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
     CommentPlease explain what you mean by lots of artefacts,it cannot be helped that there is a pathway with pattern, surely the picture should be judged on the main subject being the butterfly which I believe is clear and of good quality and shows detail. --Danesman1 21:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not categorized and poor crop. Please read QI guidelines before nominating images. --NorbertNagel 18:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
     CommentI have categorized this picture now✓ Done , I forgot to do this when I uploaded a better version of the picture, I disagree regarding the poor crop, the photo shows the butterfly in full with good spacing around it and is taken at good distance to show enough detail when zoomed in. I am familiar with QI guidelines but sometimes mistakes are made which is not the end of the world, i am new to this and learning all the time.--Danesman1 20:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Burg_Rötteln_-_Oberburg5.jpg edit

Commons:Quality images candidates/Promotion

File:Macaw1.jpg edit

Commons:Quality images candidates/Decline

File:Południowa fasada zamku w Radzyniu Chełmińskim.jpg edit

Commons:Quality images candidates/Decline

File:Lörrach_-_Burg_Rötteln_-_Bergfried1.jpg edit

Commons:Quality images candidates/Promotion

File:Discula_polymorpha_01.JPG edit

Commons:Quality images candidates/Promotion

File:Bad Wörishofen, Kloster, Nordseite (2012-07-09).jpg edit

Commons:Quality images candidates/Promotion

File:Círculo_de_Bellas_Artes_-_01.jpg edit

Commons:Quality images candidates/Promotion