Last modified on 23 July 2014, at 03:42

Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list


NominationsEdit

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 03:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

July 22, 2014Edit

July 21, 2014Edit

July 20, 2014Edit

July 19, 2014Edit

July 18, 2014Edit

July 17, 2014Edit

July 16, 2014Edit

July 15, 2014Edit

July 14, 2014Edit

July 13, 2014Edit

July 12, 2014Edit

July 11, 2014Edit

July 9, 2014Edit

July 8, 2014Edit

July 7, 2014Edit

Consensual reviewEdit

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".


Consensual ReviewEdit

File:Nationalpark_Jasmund_-_Insel_Rügen.jpgEdit

Nationalpark Jasmund - Insel Rügen.jpg

  • Nomination Chalk cliffs of Rügen, Jasmund National Park, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany. By User:Hrauk --Frank Schulenburg 14:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Composition and lighting (sky, contrast, colours)) --Steinsplitter 14:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything with the composition or colours, but the low levels need brightening. Mattbuck 07:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Somewhat oversharpened and small compression artifacts. @Mattbuck: Yes, the dark side of the tree ;-) is a bit too dark and shows no detail, but thats at the margin and imho not really an issue. Lacking geo coordinates. -- Smial 11:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI to me --DKrieger 15:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Rosa_×_centifolia_21072014_(1).jpgEdit

Rosa × centifolia 21072014 (1).jpg

  • Nomination Rosa × centifolia. --Joydeep 08:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too distracting background, could have been better with a lowed dof. --Averater 09:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't really see any problem with DoF here. --Joydeep 12:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good DOF IMO. Cropping, improve the photo because the door is less visible (see note and then delete it, please)--Lmbuga 11:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Cropped. Thank you! --Joydeep 12:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In any case, QI for me--Lmbuga 12:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Portsmouth MMB 25 Harbour.jpgEdit

Portsmouth MMB 25 Harbour.jpg

  • Nomination Portsmouth harbour. Mattbuck 06:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion poor quality (very noisy), you seem to run out of ideas? "water of a harbour" isn't a valuable image for QI IMO --Taxiarchos228 06:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Doesn't seem too noisy to me. As for ideas, I thought it was pretty, and QIs do not need to be "valuable" in any manner. --Mattbuck 22:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise, colour banding. -- Smial 11:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Cannon Street station MMB 08 The Shard.jpgEdit

Cannon Street station MMB 08 The Shard.jpg

  • Nomination The Shard. Mattbuck 06:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion noisy, strong and disturbing shadow in the upper area of the image --Taxiarchos228 07:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    There's some noise, but it's not very noticable. --Mattbuck 22:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Merfeld,_Wildpferdefang_--_2014_--_0798.jpgEdit

Merfeld, Wildpferdefang -- 2014 -- 0798.jpg

  • Nomination Capturing the yearlings: Wildpferdefang 2014, Merfelder Bruch, Dülmen, Germany --XRay 05:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Red channel overexposure. --Mattbuck 09:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Red channel is improved.--XRay 06:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Merfeld,_Wildpferdefang,_Vorprogramm_--_2014_--_0499.jpgEdit

Merfeld, Wildpferdefang, Vorprogramm -- 2014 -- 0499.jpg

  • Nomination Preliminary Program (unknown actor); Wildpferdefang 2014, Merfelder Bruch, Dülmen, Germany --XRay 05:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    Red channel blown on jacket. --Kreuzschnabel 14:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Red channel is now improved. It's better. Thanks for your advice.--XRay 06:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, much better. Generic1139 16:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:St Pancras railway station MMB 76 406-585.jpgEdit

St Pancras railway station MMB 76 406-585.jpg

  • Nomination 406-585 at St Pancras. Mattbuck 06:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Composition badly chosen. Could be shot at any train station. In fact "just" (no offence) a number on a train. Sorry. --Klaproth 18:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    You seem to mistake what QI is for - we do not care about value, we care about quality, nothing more. As an aside, this is valuable because it's the only time a German ICE train has come to the UK. Mattbuck 23:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 10:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Anthemis 'E.C. Buxton'.JPGEdit

Anthemis 'E.C. Buxton'.JPG

  • Nomination Anthemis 'E.C. Buxton'. Chamomile.
    Famberhorst 15:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion At first sight it is good, but looking carefully, I think that the DOF should cover the center of the flower and not only the foreground. Sorry, I imagine how difficult it can be shooting this kind of photo. --Stegop 23:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Have to disagree with Stegop. Think focus is well chosen. Object well represented and sharp. --Klaproth 23:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DoF a bit small indeed, but acceptable here IMO --Christian Ferrer 10:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Essential parts are sharp enough. -- Smial 21:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Neo-Riemannian Tonnetz.svgEdit

Neo-Riemannian Tonnetz.svg

  • Nomination The Neo-Riemannian Tonnetz, showing relations between triads --Mate2code 02:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • A useful image, however, the small annotations denoting secondary operations are too small to read except at higher res. Can you make them a larger font, or a darker grey?--Generic1139 12:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done The gray letters are now readable on the description page. In my opinion only the letters N, S and H need to be readable from articles, the gray letters are just auxiliary information. Mate2code 12:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Generic1139 16:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Río_Saigón,_Ciudad_Ho_Chi_Minh,_Vietnam,_2013-08-14,_DD_06.JPGEdit

Río Saigón, Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 06.JPG

  • Nomination Saigon river, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam --Poco a poco 08:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion I find it rather messy and dark. --Mattbuck 22:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded, better now IMO, Poco a poco 20:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    Please, let's discuss, good enough to me now --Poco a poco 14:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, but I can't see the river. Image description needs some enhancement so we can learn what is depicted. -- Smial 21:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Poco a poco 19:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Balung_Tawau_Sabah_Sawit-Kinabalu-Seeds-Sdn-Bhd-01.jpgEdit

Balung Tawau Sabah Sawit-Kinabalu-Seeds-Sdn-Bhd-01.jpg

  • Nomination Sawit Kinabalu Seeds Sdn Bhd, locate at Balung Estate, tawau, Sabah --Cccefalon 04:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    Not sure I like the DOF - the background is rather distracting. Mattbuck 22:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    The trees are a little bit too dark to me, but I think it's ok. I would promote it. @Mattbuck: Ok for you? Or third opinion? -- DerFussi 07:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    Third opinion please. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mattbuck 20:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok for me --Christian Ferrer 11:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as stated above -- DerFussi 14:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Macaca_sylvanus_at_the_Ouzoud_Waterfalls_(5).jpgEdit

Macaca sylvanus at the Ouzoud Waterfalls (5).jpg

  • Nomination Barbary macaque (Macaca sylvanus) at the Ouzoud Waterfalls, Morocco. --M0tty 11:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, perhaps FP but too noisy, not QI IMO: "discuss". Yellowish.--Lmbuga 12:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lmbuga and burned out background --Christian Ferrer 17:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Burgruine Hohenegg 8666.jpgEdit

Burgruine Hohenegg 8666.jpg

  • Nomination Burgruine Hohenegg, Austria --Hamster28 13:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too much softening (fine details in the wall structure are extinguished). Magenta CA bottom right. --Cccefalon 13:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness and colours look just right to me. --Stegop 23:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe softened details look nice, like a kind of drawing. Was it intentionally? As an artwork? Then describe it on the description page, and I give a "pro". If not and it should be a "normal" photo, I agree Cccefalon. -- DerFussi 14:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Playa_de_Levante,_Benidorm,_España,_2014-07-02,_DD_06.JPGEdit

Playa de Levante, Benidorm, España, 2014-07-02, DD 06.JPG

  • Nomination Levante beach, Benidorm, Spain --Poco a poco 10:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry. I guess you did very good with such a light and subject, but it lacks sharpness (not of that on PP, but the "natural" one) and it looks OE and tilt. --Stegop 23:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)I still find that the POV and the natural light conditions were far from ideal, but I don't oppose the promotion. --Stegop 22:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I disagree, I uploaded a new version with a tilt of 0,2 degrees and retouched the highs but sharpness is ok IMHO. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 18:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok IMO --Christian Ferrer 21:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Angkor_Wat,_Camboya,_2013-08-15,_DD_021.JPGEdit

Angkor Wat, Camboya, 2013-08-15, DD 021.JPG

  • Nomination Bas relief in Angkor Wat, Cambodia --Poco a poco 08:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Mattbuck 22:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Sure? Too less contrast and maybe a bit overexposed (check curves and levels). IMHO In this case you can exxagarate a bit with the curves to carve out the relief. -- DerFussi 13:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Poco a poco 18:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Cnossos-stegop-53-1.jpgEdit

Cnossos-stegop-53-1.jpg

  • Nomination Minoan Palace at Knossos. South House. --Stegop 04:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Declined for reason of flooding QIC. Please read the nomination rules and come again. Taking part in active review would be highly appreciated. --Cccefalon 04:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think this might be QI. --Mattbuck 22:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment a bit tilted on left --Christian Ferrer 21:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Tilt or slight perspective distortion? I never correct the perspective completely because it gives a rather unnatural look, as our eyes expect to see a point of fugue when looking up (or down). And note that some elements of the structure on the background are not straight. --Stegop 23:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Tilt and perspective distortion, it don't need a big correction, so you can correct completely without gives an unnatural look IMO --Christian Ferrer 04:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you are wrong, mistakenly lead by the various "false verticals", like the wall on the right, which is naturally inclined, or the columns, that are thinner below than they are on the top. But I am not the best analyzer after having done the PP. Anyway, can you explain "where" is the tilt and the perspective distortion? --Stegop 21:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I added notes --Christian Ferrer 11:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank's. I corrected the perspective on the right side, per your suggestion. Is it ok now? --Stegop 22:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Mallorca_-_Leuchtturm_am_Kap_Formentor15.jpgEdit

Mallorca - Leuchtturm am Kap Formentor15.jpg

  • Nomination Lighthouse at Cap Formentor --Taxiarchos228 12:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it's tilted Ezarate 14:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    it isn't --Taxiarchos228 20:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clearly tilted. The sky is dirty: Noise. Perspective distortion. A bit blueish IMO. --Lmbuga 17:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Slight CCW Tilt and some dust spots in the sky could easily be repaired. -- Smial 23:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Campus MMB X2 Newark Hall and International House.jpgEdit

Jubilee Campus MMB X2 Newark Hall and International House.jpg

  • Nomination Jubilee Campus. Mattbuck 05:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    Needs more brightness IMO. -- Slaunger 20:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Mattbuck 22:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support The light is rather dull, but the shooter could do nothing about it, could he? --Stegop 04:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC) I must agree with the others on the blurr. --Stegop 23:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeYes, he could wait or chose another day... Anyway, I think that most of the picture is blurry, only the central part is sharp...--~~~~
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 1/4 right is blurred --Christian Ferrer 22:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as for Christian. -- Smial 23:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Caen - Rennes 20140709 - Mexer.JPGEdit

Caen - Rennes 20140709 - Mexer.JPG

  • Nomination Association football player Mexer (Edson André Sitoe), in Vire, France. --Buffoleo 13:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion With another crop, you could avoid the disturbing other persons. I made a proposal, see my annotation. --Cccefalon 14:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for your advice ! Buffoleo 16:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Cccefalon 18:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a sharp image. Very fuzzy lips or blurred lips. Not QI for me, sorry--Lmbuga 18:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Underexposed IMO--Lmbuga 18:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lmbuga. Focal shift – left ear is sharp, lips and nose aren’t. --Kreuzschnabel 20:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others.--Jebulon 14:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Joydeep 06:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Marennes_17_Coin_de_rue&cour_2014.JPGEdit

Marennes 17 Coin de rue&cour 2014.JPG

  • Nomination Street corner with old building and closed courtyard, Marennes, Charente-Maritime, France. --JLPC 13:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am sorry, anything really noteworthy: Out of scope IMO--Lmbuga 17:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Let's ask someone else. --JLPC 21:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI imo. --P e z i 09:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe a bit confusing, but technically very good. In scope: it remembers me my birth country, (normal: it is.). Typical architecture of the departement of Charente-Maritime.--Jebulon 14:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The pespective correction is "overdone", giving an unreal look. In such cases, a wee "convergence of verticals" should be kept to keep the image natural and here ther are "divergent verticals", like the photo was taken from up looking down. --Stegop (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lmbuga 18:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support due to the aspect ration. (@Lmbuga: I move the weak. This confuses the bot :) ) -- DerFussi 19:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks--Lmbuga 20:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. --Joydeep 06:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Joydeep 06:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Francia_vs_Portugal_-_2014_CERH_European_Championship_-_07.jpgEdit

Francia vs Portugal - 2014 CERH European Championship - 07.jpg

  • Nomination France vs Portugal, 2014 CERH European Championship. --Kadellar 23:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The head of the blue person is crossing the image border. --Cccefalon 05:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    But he is not the main subject. --Kadellar 09:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    He is interacting with the main person, so he is part of the topic "France vs. Portugal". Feel free to send to CR. --Cccefalon 10:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    I'd like to read more opinions if you don't mind. I understand yours, but imo the crop isn't so severe. File names are all in a row so I don't go crazy :P (but they're precise enough imo). --Kadellar 11:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Of course I don't mind. I cannot be right all the time Clin Of course it was not the name of the file, but in my perception, the motif is about a duel between the two opponents. So in my understanding, the opponent in blue clothing should not touch the image border with his head. Yes, let's hear other reviewers, it might be interesting to listen their opinion. --Cccefalon 13:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Cccefalon. a little less below = a little more above... This is a composition issue, IMO.--Jebulon 14:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Either the player in blue is part of the main subject, in which case his head should not be cut off, or he isn't part of the main subject, in which case he is too sharp and distracting. Unlucky composition. --Generic1139 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Somewhat overexposed, composition is ok, it's sports... -- Smial 21:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Porta_del_Carmine_Salo.jpgEdit

Porta del Carmine Salo.jpg

  • Nomination City gate "Porta del Carmine" in Salò --Moroder 18:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 05:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    {{weak oppose}} The top half is too bluish. The color of the sky is not vivid because the sky was darkened IMO (underexposed). Too tight at left--Lmbuga 11:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The crop can be an opinion and a taste but if it does not take away something I don't see why it should not make the image eligible for QI. Underexposure is a fact and this sky is NOT underexposed --Moroder 14:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • {{o|Strong oppose}} See what has been said before. I'm not sure how to say this (es: El edificio está cortado) in English, perhaps "leaning out at left (SEE NOTE)". --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 18:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Changed crop, I got your point, thanks for the hint--Moroder 11:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks and sorry. Better now Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me--Lmbuga 23:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Sarah_Chepchirchir_-_Paris_Half_Marathon_-_5222.jpgEdit

Sarah Chepchirchir - Paris Half Marathon - 5222.jpg

  • Nomination Sarah Chepchirchir, 3rd of the Paris Half Marathon 2014, crossing the arrival line --PierreSelim 14:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm pretty sure it's tilted to the left.--Tupungato 08:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think it's ok. Mattbuck 21:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is a QI for me. Very nice "capture" and composition.--Jebulon 14:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice and good IMO--Lmbuga 18:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Joydeep 06:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)