Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 2007

< Commons:Quality images candidates

Consensual ReviewEdit



  • Nomination Signet ring. --Lestat 15:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •    Support of course! --Pudelek 15:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Why of course? It doesn't look sharp at all to me. Lycaon 20:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose doesnt look sharp to, over exposed highlights Gnangarra 15:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Supportimage was declined after more than 48 hrs. Lycaon 14:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Looks good to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Amsterdam at nightEdit


  • Nomination The Montelbaanstoren (1512) on the Oude Schans.
  • Decline
  •    Support The good composition of blue-yellow colors. --AKA MBG 14:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Yes, but the quality is quite poor - Alvesgaspar 15:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar. Lycaon 20:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 20:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sheep in winterEdit


  • Nomination Ovis aries after the dissolution of fog. Shot in Sennwald (Switzerland)--Böhringer 08:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •    Oppose Nice composition and colours, bur remarkable lack of detail. Lycaon 19:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support The lack of detail was mainly a lack of contrast. I corrected this and the colours and vote for being QI now. --Ikiwaner 09:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Not true. At full res, the photo is hardly viewable. Bad print scan? Doodledoo 16:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose bad quality in full res. --Lestat 22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Lycaon and Lestat -- Laitche 16:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose ->  not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 20:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lausanne ShipEdit


  • Nomination Passenger ship at sunset in winter --Ikiwaner 00:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •    Support I like this one but there is a lot of noise. Can you try to fix it? --LucaG 14:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Too much noise, I'm afraid. Lycaon 19:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Comment I converted it with less grain. However I personally prefer the first version which will perform better on paper. Don't zoom into pictures more than about 50% to see how it might look on a poster. --Ikiwaner 00:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how it looks on a poster, unfortunately. However, this version is fine so I'll    Support . Doodledoo 16:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 20:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Pusteblume im MorgentauEdit


  • Nomination Makroshot of a Taraxacum sect. ruderalia--Böhringer 08:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •    Support Nice. --Kolossos 22:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose very arty, but should there not be at least one bit in focus for QI? Estrilda 22:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Agreed 100% with Estrilda: it's pretty, but completely out of focus. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 04:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Gimmelwald - Mountain HostelEdit


  • Nomination Mountain Hostel, Gimmelwald, CH --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •    Support very good composition and perfect exposure, needs black canvas for best performance. Rather much colour noise. --Ikiwaner 23:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose You are kidding, aren't you? Far too dark and noisy for QI. Lycaon 00:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Lycaon. (Jeez.) Doodledoo 16:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose ac Lycaon --Lestat 22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenwich ParkEdit


  • Nomination A view of the Greenwich Park, from near the Royal Observatory to northeast. - Alvesgaspar 19:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •    Oppose A little bit boring composition. --Kolossos 22:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    A QI can be boring if well presented, its frequently more difficult to present the boring well. Gnangarra 00:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support good lines, presents the subject well lack of leaves permits the hill to be seen, the single person adds scale(though he could have been wearing a red shirt:)) Gnangarra 00:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support Boring? Yes, perhaps. But winter days in NW Europe are boring. And this picture renders very well that winterly atmosphere. Composition and technical quality are O.K. -- MJJR 15:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 20:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Winkelmatten - Matterhorn.JPGEdit


  • Nomination Matterhorn, Zermatt, CH (figured I'd try another photo) --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 06:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •    Support The composition is interesting. This viewpoint shows the unusual form of the mountain, it looks like the monument. --AKA MBG 10:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support Nice, high resolution. --Beyond silence 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose blown highlights, noise in dark parts. Estrilda 15:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Camouflaged Juvenile black backed gullEdit

  • Nomination Too old to still need camouflage? --Tony Wills 10:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •    Support Clear, composion ok, colors ok, DOF ok, focus is shifted, but acceptible. #! 15:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Soft focus, not complete background separation, depth of field not too good. Estrilda 12:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Comment I thought the depth of field did a good job of seperating out the background in an image that questions why the juvenile birds retain such good camouflage - these birds are very hard to spot if they are standing still on the beach, but do they really need this camouflage at this age? --Tony Wills 19:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support Yes, focus is a little soft, but I agree with Tony that there are good reasons for not having a good background separation to illustrate the camoflage aspect. Good enough for QI IMO. As an aside I suggest you add geodata to the photo. Adds value to the image page. -- Slaunger 22:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Laitche 22:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Resut: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 20:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Could someone other than me declare a result on this --Tony Wills 11:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC) (you are perfectly welcome to do it yourself. Rules are rules. Lycaon 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC))



  • Nomination High resolution shot of a male drone-fly (Eristalis tenax). Notice the hairy eyes - Alvesgaspar 12:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •    Oppose Too soft focus. Typically the hairs on the eyes are arranged in bands on this species, which is not discernible here. Lycaon 22:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Not here or in any other Commons picture of the species that I know. I think you are asking too much of a QI candidate and of a photo depicting the whole insect. The main reasons for those bands being not visible are lack of resolution and less-than-optimal lighting, not focus. Even this picture and and this and and this, where the sharpness of the eyes is a little better do not show the hair banding.

Alvesgaspar 23:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  •    Support I think the photo is good enough for QI. Not wow, but this is not FPC. -- Slaunger 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support --Beyond silence 19:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bronze wingEdit


  • Nomination Brush Bronzewing Benjamint 09:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •    Question How much sharpening has this had? Ben Aveling 11:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Only a bicubic downsample Benjamint 02:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Neutral Tricky. It's really sharp and clear. The crop is a bit close on the right, but I can live with it. What I find odd, is the way the head looks in front of the background. It doesn't really look like the bird is where I know it is, that is, surrounded by the tree fern. I'm not sure why, maybe an artefact of the flash used, but it almost looks like it's been cut and paste in front of a different backgrounds somehow... Perhaps it's because there is some in-focus fern on the left, and it's not clear if it's in front or behind the bird. Maybe a tighter crop would help? I'm going to leave this one for someone else to decide on, sorry. . Ben Aveling 20:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support Harsh flash lighting but sharp and clear. Yes, QI for me. --LucaG 14:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Flash light, crop (tail!) and discernible traces of oversharpening spoil the image. Lycaon 19:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support I've seen harsher flash light pictures. This is in fact quite well done. I see no oversharpening and the image is illustrative. --Ikiwaner 00:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Jewel bugEdit


  • Nomination Jewel bug Benjamint 06:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •    Support DOF is a little bit shallow or the focal plane isn't fitting just a little bit. But nice (^^)/ --Laitche 06:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Comment I feel that the new version is a little unnatural, I think that the former version is good enough. --Laitche 14:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Opposefixed The new version has distracting and unnatural looking vignetting. The old version was fine. Thegreenj 03:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reverted Benjamint 09:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support --Beyond silence 16:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak    Oppose Mainly to get more opinion before promoting. I too have issue with the DOF. Rocket000 07:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You have to take ino account that it's a macro though, this shot has better DOF and sharpness than many macro FPs Benjamint 09:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I know. I can overlook the antenna but the whole right side kinda bothers me. Another vote one way or another would be nice, but if not, go head and promote. Rocket000 12:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak    Oppose . DOF, a bit too shiney, borderline size, and what is that blue circle? Ben Aveling 13:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose DOF issue --Lerdsuwa 08:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As I've said, the DOF is better than many FPs and it is within the size limits. Too shiney: Thats just ridiculous; beetles are shiney and glittery, please come up with a decent reason for opposing. Benjamint 09:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I dislike your suggestion that I'm looking for reasons to oppose. Yes beetles can be shiny, but leaves should not be shiny, nor should, IMHO, this beetle be quite as shiny as it is. Front flash, I'm guessing. I don't mind the back of the bug going out of focus, but the front antenna being out of focus detracts from the image. Lastly, I don't like the composition - a tighter crop on all sides but especially above would be better. As an aside, if you know of an FP that shouldn't be an FP, you should nominate it for delisting. I know macro shots are hard, and this isn't a bad shot. I just don't think it's good enough for QI. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support Good quality for QI. Lycaon 09:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. There is a slight focus issue, but it's understandable, and still a quite good photo. And I like the shiny. Superm401 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support --Amrum 18:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support Agreed that the DOF is a tad off, but I think it's otherwise a good photo. Shine on, you crazy beetle. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 02:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support Beautiful although resolution it at the lower pain limit. -- Slaunger 22:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 2.0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Apricot whole444Edit


  • Nomination Apricot on white bg, I read somewhere recently that we need more of this type of shot so I thought I'd try it out. Benjamint 10:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •    Oppose It is quite good, please try again. I decline because of the POV. This fruit should show some typical cleavage ;-). Lycaon 11:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support IMO it's also interesting to see it from this side. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I've run out of apricots (without bruises imperfections etc.) for now but I'll continue in this vien for a while, see cherry image above. Benjamint 09:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose - Agree with Lycaon on the POV issue. Also, I believe it is possible to have a better DOF and lighting, the fruit appears quite flat and lacking detail - Alvesgaspar 08:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support --Beyond silence 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support --Lerdsuwa 18:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose There are some of us who can survive without cleavage; and those who can't. :) --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 05:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support --Aqwis 09:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Klein Matterhorn.JPGEdit


  • Nomination Klein Matterhorn, CH. The small dots upon the mountainside are mountaineers --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 01:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline At full resolution, a little noisy. But with so much else to like, it's a great shot. Ben Aveling 12:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC) PS. I understand the temptation to put the Image number into the name, but probably better to have called it Klein Matterhorn 4069.
  •    Oppose very much chroma noise. Estrilda 12:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose , underexposed too. --Aqwis 16:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Estrilda. I like the series of geocoded photos though, look great on Google Maps. I can almost follow your trail and the directions you looked in ;-) -- Slaunger 22:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The Nividic lighthouse, at Ouessant island (Finistère, France)Edit

  • Nomination
  •    Support The Nividic lighthouse, at Ouessant island (Finistère, France), at the limit of waters between the English Channel and the Iroise Sea in the Atlantic Ocean. Verdy p 23:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •    Comment One of the places with the most important navigation traffic in the world, and one of the most dangerous. Marvelous colous, taken in one of the rare times with calm waters, this place is highly regulated due to the importance of its traffic for Europe, and is known for the many boats and carriers in difficulty during the numerous tempests and powerful currents that bring boats to the rocks. The construction of the lighthouse itself is an exploit, because these waters are so dangerous, the lighthouse is nearly unaccessible except in few moments like this one; unlike other Breton lighthouses in the area (known as the "infernos") this one has never been inhabited, it is automated and now fueled by a submarine electric cable from Ouessant and the continent. Verdy p 23:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose - Pretty photo, but there is some significant noise and it is not particularly sharp. If you have other photos or further opportunity to take more, it may do better in landscape format: you may be able to zoom in on the subject (the lighthouse) while still maintaining the sky and rocks. Don't be too disheartened if this doesn't make it -- I've already had a couple dozen of mine declined :) --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 00:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Is the landscape format mandatory? The purpose of this image is to show the lighthouse in its environment, so the sea and the sky are noth necessary. It is very descriptive of the area and needed to understand why the lighthouse was built there. I've been in the place (but I did not take this shot) and it's marvelous to see. But you cannot go there easily, only during summer time with calm waters, and even in this case, the navigation is dangerous. The same is true for the lighthouses near Ile de Sein in the south of the mer d'Iroise. Note that lighthouses are typically always photographed in portrait, not landscape, because this would contradict the subject of composition. Verdy p 01:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Nope, not mandatory: but it may enable you to enlarge the subject while maintaining the view of the sky and rocks. The subject of the current image appears too insignificant considering the power of the waves upon the rocks. That's just artistic opinion, however -- my understanding of quality images is that ratings are based on technical merits. From a technical perspective, it appears rather blurred and there's a significant amount of noise (my camera has the same problem with lower-light photos at a higher shutter speed). --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 01:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Artistic, but the lighthouse should be the subject of the focus, not the foreground. And it isn't quite straight. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "It's not straight" you said. It is NOT supposed to be so! The lighthouses themselves are straight, but NOT the sea level ! There are several meters (about 3) of differences of levels in this area, and this is the main cause of the powerful and dangerous currents (the colder waters coming from the English channel are coming above the warmer waters of the Atlantic Ocean and turning around the Mer d'Iroise, and they are melting there... If you've been in boat there to see the phenomenom, you can see the effect of this, with a unstable wave constantly coming back and forth, as if the Atlantic was a sliding beach, on which the Channel tries to pass over. Naturally, the mean level of waters is NOT flat! This produces along a line going from the Northern side of Ouessant to the Western side of Sein in Audierne Bay (boats cannot go directly to Sein from Audierne, and must turn and come to it from the south-western side, where the effect of this wave is lowered; no marge boat can pass in this area, only small fisher boats and navettes for the tourists, because this requires high experience of navigation and agility, that larger boats can't do effectively; that's why the navigation area for supertankers and carriers is going several miles away westward from Ouesssant and Sein: they must not approach this coastal area). Verdy p 00:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose I like the light, the clearly windy conditions, but as mentioned previously the subject (the lighthouse) is not well focused. -- Slaunger 22:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Comment Yes a fantastic mood shot, I think the smallness of the lighthouse within the overall picture, emphasises the isolation. I think the portrait format is right for it, and a close-up showing detail of the lighthouse is an idea for a separate photo, this one indeed shows the lighthouse's environment well.
Having the horizon in the centre of the image is a bit odd. If you crop it so that the horizon is a third of the way up (ie only show the white foamy sea), or halfway down (ie crop off the top half of the sky) you get a more 'pleasing' image. But having said that, you then loose some of the mood of the image (the first brings the lighthouse closer - reducing the isolation, the second removes that dramatic sky).
Technically the low light levels mean the sea does show a lot of 'noise' and there is also noticeable chromatic aberration (green and purple fringing) down the sides of the lighthouse and other tower.
Your blurring of the noise from the original has lost a little bit of detail (eg compare the definition of the structure on top of the lighthouse). The tilt correction was good.
So although a great photo I think it falls short of our narrow technical 'Quality Image' definition --Tony Wills 11:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    OpposeVery nice picture: subject, composition, format, light, atmosphere... But unfortunately the sharpness is bad. I really regret! -- MJJR 20:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

View of Mount Fuji from Tanzawa, Kanagawa, Japan.Edit


  • Nomination View of Mount Fuji from Tanzawa, Kanagawa, Japan. --Σ64 08:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •    Comment Maybe a bit pale. You should increase contrast or color strenght. --Orlovic (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Comment Not really pale, but hazy and therefore bluish; even a little bit too dark too -- MJJR 20:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Done I increased contrast and brightness.--Σ64 07:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose A little noisy and composition, maybe around 10% upside crop, around 5% underside crop would be better :) -- Laitche 11:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support Enough good, high resol. --Beyond silence 17:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose I had thought the crop might help out, but I think there's just too much going on in this photo. It might be neat to try this same angle on a cold day (perhaps dawn in late-autumn or early-spring; or dusk in the wintertime) so that you get a low mist within the mountains. That may help clear some of the haze due to the distance, and thus alleviate some of the noise. Lower-level clouds may also help emphasize the height and power of Fuji-san. Additionally, a spring photo may bring out some color from the landscape prior to the mountain. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 02:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Mt.Fuji edited version

  • Nomination View of Mount Fuji from Tanzawa, Kanagawa, Japan. Created by Σ64 -- Laitche 09:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Contrast, noise reduce, crop, down size, etc. -- Laitche 09:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    I withdraw my nomination Thanks --Laitche 06:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: withdraw -> not promoted to QI -- Laitche 15:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Clementines whole, peeled, half and sectionedEdit


  • Nomination Clementines (by carol). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •    Support Could have used a tiny bit more DOF but good enough for QI. I might be a bit biased since those things are so damned tasty. Calibas 01:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose DOF, vignetting, etc. -- carol 03:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support A bit blurry on the peels, but overall I like the image (though my appetite may have biased me a bit). It might benefit from a bit of cropping on the sides to center the image (the top is tighter than the other 3 sides), but I'm not sure if that'll tighten up the image too much or not. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 05:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC).
  •    Oppose Vignetting -- Lycaon 07:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Vignetting, crop, and blurriness. Rocket000 06:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Complementary background is distracting. -- carol 17:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Nice arrangement. But may I ask why you thought the image was worth uploading if you are not convinced that it is of sufficient quality? ;-). --Dschwen 18:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I used my little and secondhand camera to replace this image on the english wikipedia page where it has been located for a while now. It sits there until a better quality image can take its place. The first image that I nominated here was of far more 'quality' than this one and it did not get the approval needed to be a 'quality' image. And that is what has happened here for the last few months. If there are indeed ~3000 images uploaded here a day, you worry about this ~1 image? -- carol 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, that sounds like you are a bit disappointed n the process. Well, since the people reviewing the images are only humans, and different people for each image, you cannot expect 100% fairness and exactly equal standards. But most people are very aware of this and just accept it as this process is designed with speed and throughput in mind. You are exactly right, that one image in this case does not matter at all. But it was not the image that was causing me to comment, but your peculiar reaction in the review. --Dschwen 17:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a process that stands out as not a disappointment? I would not like to feed any elite attitude that might have some life here by suggesting that this process is any worse or better than any of the other ones that 'run things' and 'handle large sums of money' all in the name of 'public good'. -- carol 18:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
@Carol: "more votes" mean "more votes by other people". Of course you can add a comment with other reasons but you can't vote twice! That's why I've changed your 2nd "oppose" into a "comment". Get it? And sorry to have nominated this picture: I just happened to really like it even if its quality was not perfect! Regards --TwoWings 14:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not a comment it is a second opposition. Typically, wrongly cast votes are struck out and a snippy little comment is left about the rules. -- carol 18:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be sorry that you nominated it. I like it as well and I actually respected that you nominated it. This actually felt like fun to me. For example, I haven't had a reason to use the word complementary in a sentence which was appropriate for the subject in a very very long while. -- carol 18:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Comment If this image is not good enough to replace this image then these lovely Clementine do not belong in these contests at all. What exactly are these contests anyways? An attempt to get the best photographs into a collection or something else? -- carol 22:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Well I guess it's just a way to get recognized for something! Awards are pleasant sometimes! -- 07:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
So, this contest is 'fixed' and this entry and votes for it was just a small treat? The overall documentation of these two 'vote for good images' suggests that the goal is to collect the best of the encyclopedic images and not to 'reward' people. Now I am considering the reason that more 'rewards' are given to some than to others -- especially if the goal is not about the best images. Fixed contests and ones that give small treats occasionally are so very not interesting to me and to so many adults I know; very good for kindergarten through 5th grade though. Perhaps some additional thought could be put into that last statement or the documentation should be adjusted about the mentality level of the proceedings here.... -- carol 17:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Citrus maxima pieceEdit

  • Nomination Pomelo (Citrus Maxima) piece. #!George Shuklin 21:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •    Support I prefer macros a little higher quality, but it's not bad. Juicy. -Rocket000 03:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose This image is of lower quality than the clementine arrangement in CR. The flash lighting is unappealing. --Dschwen 18:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    I can understand this: than the clementine arrangement in CR - could you sai in other words? #!George Shuklin 17:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe he's saying it's lower quality than this picture, which is also currently in CR (consensus review). Rocket000 23:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose The shadow is a problem. And the flash makes it a bit hard to see the details of the flesh of the fruit. Ben Aveling 13:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per other opposers. And the colurs seems too cold for a citrus. -- Slaunger 22:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Luna Drexler - Bust of Priest BokhanowskiEdit


  • Nomination Luna Drexler - Bust of Priest Bokhanowski --Lestat 16:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •    Oppose The lighting is substandard and it's rather noisy too. RedCoat 21:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This is natural light in the museum and ISO 100 - I think that is good photo. Please for another opinion. --Lestat 20:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Poor lighting. --Lerdsuwa 08:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Laitche 21:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)



  • Nomination Ballot-box from election of Duma of Russia #!George Shuklin 18:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •    Oppose Rather boring, is there something special about this box? Calibas 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No, this is a just plain ballot-box for illustraing article about ballot boxes. Do you expecting an amazing effect from image of ballot-box? #!George Shuklin 08:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
      • To clarify, I was wondering if there was anything special about this specific box that would outweigh the flat composition. A plain subject doesn't need to make a plain picture. Calibas 20:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support The image is sharp and high res. Yeah, it's just a ballot box standing on the floor, but flies are even more common and they are instant QI here. I really wish this page would get back focussing more on technical quality than on subject matter. We have FP for the latter! --Dschwen 15:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • How is technical quality a focus when the majority of the images are either promoted or declined within little boxen here? -- carol 15:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
      • What is the point of your comment? What does box-size have to do with focus on technical quality? --Dschwen 18:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It was not a point, it was a question about technical quality focus being reduced to what is more often than not a Support or Decline icon and a small text area. This is also about the methods of the web system here, the html area and not about the image of the box that George Shuklin nominated, although interesting that it should unfold here. Voting gets hacked and voting gets hacked and voting has gotten hacked for centuries and centuries. My question was about technical quality focus without much discussion. In bigger systems (bigger than this little election/selection aparatus), people get scared away so the same scary people always end up being in charge of things, which to me is an abuse. Is there a point to making my question into a point? -- carol 03:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose the bottom edges, the floor and large portions of the vertical edge of the box pointing toward the camera are not well focused (DOF), too close crop for my taste, lack of measure makes estimation of object's size difficult (a person or an item of known size would be nice) --JDrewes 18:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose On the grounds of composition (would like some context) and lighting. Dori - Talk 18:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support Sharp. It's not something you will find lying around in the backyard. --Lerdsuwa 16:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support(vote too late) --Tony Wills 11:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC) it illustrates a Russian ballot box so it's rather interesting than beautiful. But it's a QI. Lighting on the sticky tape and the ugly ground are just due to "natural" conditions. It's a good documentary illustration. --TwoWings 08:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

С. Г. Чириков - Александр Сергеевич Пушкин (акварель).jpgEdit


  • Nomination Yet another rare copy of picture with flash. A.S. Pushkin (about 1810). (note: compare to older avaible version on net: [1]) #!George Shuklin 07:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •    Oppose Not a creation by a Commoner; too noisy. User:O
    •    Question Noisy? Are you sure? ISO 160, big matrix, flashlight. May be you talking about texture of aquarel of original? #!George Shuklin 22:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
      • That point it moot, since this image does not qualify for QI anyway, since was published (copyrighted) prior to being uploaded here. User:O
    • O, please use simple signatures on this page as your complex one breaks the templates. Thanks, Dori - Talk 16:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support Same as for the other image, this is good quality, the painting is surely in the public domain by now. Dori - Talk 16:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support . A creation by a Commoner, and a nice photo. --Kjetil r 05:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support - This a nice photo by a Commoner about an art object. User O is seriously misinformed, see previous history of QI pictures of paintings.--Szilas 08:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support I'm not gonna oppose something like this simply because there's an ambiguous rule. This should be discussed on the talk page. Calibas 20:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Comment - it shouldn't use {{PD-art}}, see Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#When_should_the_.7B.7BPD-Art.7D.7D_tag_not_be_used.3F. Kjetil r 22:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I think it should be up to the photographer. Personally, I disagree with that guideline. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. surely applies here. What makes Commoners so special they can claim copyright (by using a CC license), but when we find photographs of art else where we say "too bad, this is PD"? Rocket000 07:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Bridgeman v. Corel only applies in the United States. A free license would allow the photo to be used in the rest of the world. --Kjetil r 09:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support --Lerdsuwa 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI (seems to be the consensus to allow these) -Rocket000 16:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)



  • Nomination As being suggested in CR... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •    Support QI, no doubt--Szilas 17:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose I Declined this photo because: 1. It is unclear what the Photo Main subject is, the van or the roof of some barn Max 01:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    Odd argument! Can't the subject be both? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support Clearly from the title and description the subject is both - the ruin of a building and a van --Tony Wills 05:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support Yay! Recent ruins! -- carol 07:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support nice composition -- Pudelek 22:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 04:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)



  • Nomination Pollution and wood. -- 18:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •    Oppose Interesting subject, but I find the composition is quite arbitrary and I am not too fond of the strong reflection in the water, although it emphasizes the floating wheel. Why the anonymous nomination, btw? -- Slaunger 19:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrary?! A composition is ALWAYS arbitrary! As for the reflection, you got it: it emphasizes the wheel. So? Sorry but I don't understand your criteria of opposition... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I generally accept the decision of any reviewer but in that case I don't feel the review is good enough! (BTW sorry for the anonymous nomination...) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
CR is also for getting a second opinion, so I am fine with that. It may be a language thing, but I am actually a little surprised about your statement saying that A composition is ALWAYS arbitrary!. Of course the individual arrangement of the pieces of wood and other objects is quite arbitrary and not under your control. However you can control how that area of floating wood and objects are oriented and placed in your photo. It was this arrangement I intended to refer to as arbitrary. As for the wheel I understand the effect you want to make with the reflection. It just does not work for me. I hope this brings a better understanding of why I oppose it as a QI. -- Slaunger 12:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. But any angle you choose will be arbitrary. Except if arbitrary doesn't have the same meaning as in French --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Two users communicating in a language which is not native to any of them sometimes leads to misunderstandings;-) I think this is an example thereof. Unfortunately, I am ignorant of the French meaning of the word arbitrary; other words could be somewhat casual, or somewhat random. -- Slaunger 14:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Then you may try to explain how it could have been better - and especially how it could have been a non-arbitrary picture. That could help me to understand your opinion. I think arbitrary means "personal choice" and IMO any picture is a personal choice... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, we definately put different meanings into that word, thus the confusion. I will try to explain what I mean about the composition. When I see the photo I miss some kind of indication of where all this floating material stops and is heading towards. Is it pressed against some bank due to wind or is it flowing in some direction? As a viewer I miss some other objects that I can relate the debris to. I do not know what the scenary looked like, but maybe by changing the direction of the camera some of these elements could be have been included. -- Slaunger 15:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
OK now I see what you mean and I can understand your opinion! Here's my explanation then: I can understand that my composition might not be the best for an encyclopedia/information value and I guess that's what we mainly expect here. I remember I hesitated when I took this picture and I think it was almost impossible to include the dam wall in the shot or the composition wouldn't seem as beautiful as the final choice. But again I suppose the "artistic" choice might not necessarily be the most important criteria for QI on Commons! As for the details, they're written in the description of the picture but I suppose this is not enough because it proves nothing! If you look at this picture you can localize where it has been taken: on the left of the dam wall. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
(Reset indentation). Glad we understand each other now, and thanks for the explanation. I fully understand the context now, but of course it is preferable that the context is self-explanatory from the photo itself. -- Slaunger 21:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad too and I understand. And your POV made me wish to go back to this place and try to take another picture like that but self-explantory (but of course there might be no wheel anymore!) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support Spooge. I have seen spooge before. This is a good image of spooge. It should be inspiring to some. Most of it is organic stuffs anyways. -- carol 09:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose--Lestat 12:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Any explanation maybe? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Please state a reason for opposing in courtesy of the nominator. -- Slaunger 15:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't like and don't understand this image, crop and way to show the subject, but OK, I strike my vote. --Lestat 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You have just stated a reason, which is what was asked for. No need to strike out the oppose if you find it ought to be declined. -- Slaunger 23:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Opposeand agree with Slaunger. The composition looks not very thoughtful to me, and the strong reflection is distracting (even though it does emphasize the wheel well). Maybe the use of a polarization filter would have helped. It also looks a little underexposed, but that's just my personal impression. --Florian Prischl 23:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support--Lerdsuwa 09:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> more votes needed --Slaunger 10:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Abel Tasman National ParkEdit


  • Nomination A view of one of the beaches of New Zealand's Abel Tasman National Park. Arria Belli | parlami 23:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •    SupportMi piace la composizione e gli colori sono bellissimi. Dori - Talk 01:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    OpposeI agree about the pretty colours, but the quality (compression artefacts) is too low for QI. Lycaon 10:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose- Little detail, unnatural colours, artifacts - Alvesgaspar 14:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
   CommentI think you'll find the colours are fairly true to life :-) --Tony Wills 19:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    SupportI think it's great and I don't mind the compression artefacts (they're quite discreet to me) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Opposedue to the very strong JPEG artifacts. Also, the compositon (portrait rather than landscape) is not very satisfying. I know it is tempting to take photos in the more uncommon orientation, but I guess there is a reason the horizontal orientation is called "landscape"... The colours are great and I do believe they are natural. --Florian Prischl 00:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    Yes there is: a traditional cliched reason! ;-) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Nomination Police car at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. --Dschwen 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •    Support--Good enough image - it's a Dodge Charger I think. --JDrewes 20:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose--I don't believe this is a quality photograph : the unfortunate poor daylight makes that the picture is too dark and the general form of the car difficult to see. It's very hard to see the wheels for example even at 100%. Sting 19:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a tad dark but I can see the wheels just fine. Perhaps the contrast on your monitor is off? Calibas 06:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    SupportCalibas 06:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Opposeagree with Sting. Lycaon 10:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Oppose- As other opposers - Alvesgaspar 14:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    OpposeThe colour(brightnes correction of the original image washed it out, so this is actually worse than the original. --Florian Prischl 00:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    Opposeagree with Sting --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 02:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  5 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Nomination Police car at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. Some curve corrections applied.
  • Decline
  •    CommentSorry, but it's a black car with black tires, why do you expect some magic contrast here? The picture is perfectly sharp and high res. May I suggest reloading Special:Random/Image a few times to get a perspective on what low and high quality means? --Dschwen 15:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Comment--The photograph is good, but it wasn't the day to take it, that's why I think it isn't a QI : a poor lightning on a black car doesn't help. The same on a sunny day would be much different. Sting 14:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    OpposeDue to the uninteresting and unfocused (in terms of concentrating) crop. The angle is also a little awkward to the downward slope of the ground. --Florian Prischl 00:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    OpposeIf the photographer has the capability, I'd recommend another photo with the vehicle in a more scenic location. My primary issue is that it's a parking lot and there's a second car adding some clutter to the background. As it's a college setting, I'm sure there are several two-lane roads with heavy foliage and some buildings with lovely architecture which may make for a nicer backdrop. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 02:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Detail of rusty van.JPGEdit


moved to discussion because of length

  • I'm happy enough with the subject matter. But I don't think the photo is straight on? Ben Aveling 21:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe not totally. But why does such a picture need to be strictly horizontal anyway?! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    It's not just about being horizontal. Being flat on to subject makes the best use of available DOF and offers the least distractions to the eye. We want the viewer to look at the subject. That means that the best composition is one that doesn't get noticed. For a flat subject that usually means straight on and, yes, strictly horizontal. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    OK I understand. That's a pity because I liked this shot a lot... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    OpposeFor the reasons stated by Ben Aveling. -- Slaunger 21:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
the van and its home
  •    CommentI like it; I actually like it a lot and am really glad that it was put here so that I could see it and know it is here, but I think I like the 'bigger picture' better. I saw so many photographs of old architecture from Europe recently that seeing something that is both new and old, comparatively speaking was nice on my eyes. -- carol 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    OK I've nominated the other shot. But I want to notice the purpose/use is not the same. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    CommentFrankly the van shot is a much better choice for QI. Dori - Talk 03:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    SupportNot bad. --Beyond silence 09:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Opposeand agree with Ben Aveling. The problems he mentioned are present in this shot. --Florian Prischl 23:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    OpposeIn addition to a flatter angle, I recommend the photographer try to find an area where the horizontal lines aren't in the center. The space between the panels commands too much attention away from the rust. If the rust reacted to the break, it'd be neat; but it doesn't seem to have any effect. Try and use the lines to break the image into thirds. I do like how the rust is more pronounced in the top half (more of the subject to look at) and runs off in the bottom half (showing its effects), so it may be quite tricky to realign the lines whilst maintaining the rest of the image's quality. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    I can understand but to me it was also interesting to have those two halves: the bottom one with more paint (and another line cutting that half in two parts!), the other being mainly rust. It was kind of a crescendo for me. Anyway I won't be able to redo it since it was taken during my Summer trip to Romania and even if I go back there the van may not be there anymore! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  3 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Amphiprion polymnusEdit


  • Nomination Saddleback clownfish, Amphiprion polymnas. --Jnpet 08:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •    SupportSome noise, not completely sharp, but underwater shots are hard. I think this is good enough. Ben Aveling 09:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Suspending support pending resolution of species. Ben Aveling 11:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    OpposeBadly needs colour correction, and id is also faulty (it is A. polymnus). Lycaon 09:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    •    Questionyou mean it is tagged as Amphiprion polymnas but it shouldn't be? If so, any idea what it is? (I guess you've seen the conversation at: en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fishes/Archive_1#Amphiprion_species_identification?) Regards, Ben Aveling 11:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Nope, I even hadn't. Only reacted on the species epitheton polymnas which does not exist (polymnus does however, as I noted...). Lycaon 15:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Had a good look at the id. It is an A. polymnus all right (white tail borders), but that doesn't fix the colour cast. Lycaon 19:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I've fixed the id. I'm prepared to have a go at the colour cast, but I'd like some guidance on what you'd like to see - a bit less blue? Regards, Ben Aveling 21:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
            • I admit it is not easy to get a proper colour balance, live under water, but something like this could be appropriate. Less blue in the BG, more orange on the 'face'. Lycaon 23:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
              • I've had a go. I'm not happy with the blue that is still in the tail, and it seems noisier, overall, I think I've improved it, but I don't think I've quite got it to where it would need to be?   Regards, Ben Aveling 11:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Berlin -Schlossbrücke 01.JPGEdit


  • Nomination Nike takes the fallen hero to Olympus. --Lestat 14:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline


CommentThumbnail looks like a spanking, I want reasons for that or a different angle. --- carol 12:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Methinks that image should be assessed at original size. -- Klaus with K 15:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I was rather emotional late one day when I ran through the candidates and declined quite a few -- the list seemed dormant to me. This image and the image being discussed below were two of my declines that day. It does look better a little larger. -- carol 04:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    OpposeI think it falls short - just a little too burnt out, just not quite sharp enough, and the roof line interacts with the plinth in an odd way. Sorry. Ben Aveling 09:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support--Beyond silence 18:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Opposeas Ben Aveling--Szilas 10:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 07:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bench-Kilt Rock.JPGEdit

  • Nomination Bench on Skye (Scotland) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 23:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •    OpposeThe light is not very good on this one, were you trying to capture the mood of the impending storm? Dori - Talk 23:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    InfoYes I was. Do we only accept sunny and happy pictures? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily, but better light makes for more detail and a better quality picture. I also don't think the composition is all that great on this one. Just my opinion. Dori - Talk 17:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    SupportLet's keep the image in the discussion. -- Klaus with K 13:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Neutral- I would support despite the lack of quality (light, detail in the background) if the bench were in the right side of the frame, with some space in front of it - Alvesgaspar 17:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I did that on purpose since I didn't want to be cliched. But QI criteria are not really opened to "creativity" like that, aren't they? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I like to believe it is, yes! But maybe I'm on the conservative side on this one ;-) -- Alvesgaspar 20:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I would understand that conservatism if someone was sitting in the bench and looking toward the left but there isn't. What's more, it wasn't so beautiful on the left of the bench! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Supportthe composition to me is strong, having a worn path in front the bench wouldnt add to the image. Gnangarra 04:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    SupportThis is QI for me. I suggest you add geodata to the photo (preferably including a heading). Adds value... -- Slaunger 20:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
       Done... even if I have to admit it could be some few meters away from these coordinates! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    BTW why don't we see the heading in the template when it has been given? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    As far as I know the optional location parameters such as the heading are not displayed in the Location templates. However, the important point is that if you now click on the Google maps link and zoom out a level, a Wikimedia icon now pops up pointing along your heading (wait a few seconds such that the search in the database completes)! (Cool, right..). BTW you had an error in your location. You should use W for West. You had used O (a French thing?) (which I first thought you intended to be East, but that location was in sea West of Denmark). -- Slaunger 20:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 07:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ф.Я.Алексеев - Москва. Вид от Лубянки на Владимирские ворота.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Moskow, begin XIX cent. (Central Pushkin museum, St. Petersburg) I'm not sure to nominate a painted picture, but I really tried to make a quality copy... #!George Shuklin 22:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •    OpposeNo because one of the rules is "only works made by a Wikimedia user". It's obviously not the case here... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    SupportThat just means that a wikimedian must have taken the picture. Not that they would have had to have painted it too (otherwise might as well require people to have build all the buildings in all the pictures. Dori - Talk 23:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry but there's a BIG difference between a photograph of a painting and one of a building because of the possibilities of angles, POV etc. It would seem a bit strange to me if someone nominated this upload of mine by considering I'm the author of the scan! Apart from the quality of photo/scan, anyone would do the same shot so IMO it's not eligible as a QI. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Making a good photograph/scan of painting is harder than it looks, I don't think we should exclude them from QI. Calibas 06:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
OK I admit it... Does it mean I could nominate the scan I was speaking about? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Supportas Dori. Acarpentier 03:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Supportas Dori. One of my images, edited also by Thegreenj, was accepted as QI, several others were refused, but not on the above basis--Szilas 14:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support-- Sergey kudryavtsev 13:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    SupportThe JPEG artifacts seem to be a little strong, but this might just seem so because of the nature of the painting. I do not think that the fact that the actual painting is by a Non-Wikimedian is a problem, as the photograph was made by a Wikimedian. See also Dori's argument... --Florian Prischl 23:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    SupportCould somebody provide a good translation of the description? --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 03:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That should be done, yes. Unfortunately I don't speak/read Russian. --Florian Prischl 12:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
my try: F.Ya.Alekseev - Moscow . View from Lubyanka to Vladimir gate -- Klaus with K 14:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 6 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mosquito 2007-2.jpgEdit


  • Nomination A female Culiseta longiareolata, one of the larger mosquito species. Notice the long needle-like proboscis used to suck blood from mammals, humans included. -- Alvesgaspar 12:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •    SupportShe is beautiful, I have to trust you that she is supposed to be blue. -- carol 08:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    OpposeI have some problems with sharpness (both over sharpening halos and lack of sharpness elsewhere) and DOF. Lycaon 11:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    CommentPerhaps it should just be deleted from the page. -- carol 14:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    SupportThe focal plane is about a millimeter too far away, but it's a wicked looking blue mosquito. Calibas 04:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    SupportConsidering the challenge I think the DOF is OK enough. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support-- Slaunger 11:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    Support-- Laitche 16:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 07:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cerkiew w Wierchomli1.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Wooden cerkiew (orthodox church) in Wierchomla Wielka, Poland:--Pudelek 10:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •    OpposeSorry, the composition doesn't seem right to me. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe another opinion? Pudelek 17:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    CommentI'm not going to vote.
    In my cleaning spree I saw so many images of churches. I think there are even more churches in this world than there are villages in Slovenia (but I am just guessing about that). This is a nice church, not ornate (like more effort was spent on the task of living on the piece of earth god put them on than showing god how much they like and are able to suck up to god) and I was going to comment about it being insulated or not heated because the roof is white with snow, but the roof is white because it was made that way, so I won't. I will not vote for the simple fact that I am sick of seeing churches (can you imagine how god must feel about them (if there is one) since I only spent one long weekend looking at some of them) and this image deserves a better eye than that. It is a good photograph, I wonder if it would be more interesting with a corner view, even though the stairs are nice. Can a long comment be considered as an opinion? My opinion is that there are a lot of photographs of churches here, and not all of them are very clear about where they are and stuff.... -- carol 10:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    SupportNot bad. --Beyond silence 09:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    OpposeBecause I very much dislike the stone column masking the wall of the church. Also, the angle the photo was taken at creates some "collapsing lines", especially at the right side. I think a better position for the photographer would have been further to the left, maybe standing on a wall or so. --Florian Prischl 22:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    OpposeI agree with the stone column's intrusion. I think it could be a really good photo if the photographer took a couple steps to the left -- that'd move the column away from center and between the windows (but don't block the entry room of the church) and it'd also put that that hut between the windows. The only catch is that those bushes at the bottom-left might then get in the way... --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 03:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  •    OpposeAgree with others about moving a bit left for better composition. --Lerdsuwa
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator),  4 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)



  • Nomination Church of Santa Maria, Portor, Negreira, Galicia.--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 21:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •    SupportAcceptable detail. --Beyond silence 17:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    OpposeIt is a good photo, but it has geometric distortions (tilt and perspective, verticals are not vertical). If this is corrected, I will support. -- Slaunger 20:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    SupportNot only this detail is of great quality but I am against the "phobia" of perspective and non-strict verticality. Asking such things doesn't always seem illogical to me. For instance, in that case, it might be impossible to have a different perspective apart if you have a scaffolding! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    Often, I don't mind the perspective either, but for such a two-dimensional motive, I think it is in order, and it can be done in a postprocessing step. -- Slaunger 21:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    I understand. I guess it's a question of taste since I always prefer "natural pictures" (I mean without postprocessing). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    I agree, it should still look natural. I hope the below still does - what I did with it was pretty mild. I think. Postprocessing's something I'm just starting to dabble with - I know the first rule is that if you can see that it's been post processed, you did it too much. But I don't yet know much about what can be done up to that point, how much is too much, or what the best things to do in that space are. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    I understand. But what I wanted to say is that it always feels better to me to be honest and show things as they're seen. Postprocessing sometimes seems to be a lie. It makes people think everything is perfect naturally and little by little almost nobody wonders if a publicity has been postprocessed (just an example). I am a bit disappointed sometimes to see that people don't accept close-to-reality images anymore... And I think it starts with that kind of soft postprocessing. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    IMHO, the key issue here is encyclopedic value. The image should explain something, and be as close to the truth as possible. It should primarily convey knowledge/information, not beauty. Of course(!!), if both can be achieved at the same time, then that is preferable. However, to show what kind of icon/statue/figure/whatever exists in that particular location, a neutral, "normalized" perspective is generally the best solution. --JDrewes 18:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    Well IMO it's the contrary. An encyclopedia should be the most objective/real possible so it should mainly consider things as they're seen, not as they should be seen. It's a question of integrity and sincerity to me. It makes me think of something else: people generally prefer to see WP articles with shots of landscape with beautiful blue skies whereas a more objective vision of some place should show different sorts of weather. A dark cloudy landscape is almost never be promoted as QI because people consider we don't see much details for instance, as if the atmosphere/weather was not an important item to talk about! Another example of that normalized way of considering images: I recently realized the Category:Nude women and its sub-cat has a strong proportion of White/Caucasian women. There are tons of things like that. Commons (and mainly QI) should have a truer and more sincere approach of life/reality. That implies less postprocessing and diversity. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  •    SupportI am supporting both versions. Pick one of the two (but no point promoting both). --Lerdsuwa 09:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)



Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)