Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 2008

< Commons:Quality images candidates

Consensual ReviewEdit



  • Nomination: Sunset at Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 21:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Oppose Nice mood, but too dark, and a bit soft. Try some post processing to brighten dark parts ? Benh 12:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But I love this picture, just look at the colours!... -- Alvesgaspar 12:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think sunsets have this "thing" which make them all very yummy, and I like looking at this picture too. But it could be better technically, and composition is a little boring to my taste. I oppose (for a lot of subjective reasons) since Commons has lot of other great sunset shots. Benh 14:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support light --Beyond silence 12:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Well.. Could you add this location to some your sea pictures? --Fukutaro 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    •   Info - Location added to the three of them -- Alvesgaspar 23:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Last month there were sunset pictures; in between then and this one there was somewhat rude suggestions from the cool kids to take the sunset and sunrise photographs to QI -- could this comment be formed (by someone else) into a really good question? -- carol 09:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question If this photograph falls out of CR with a draw, can it be resubmitted at a later date? -- carol 09:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw -- carol 10:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Woodlouse posterEdit


  • Nomination A Woodlouse (Armadillidium cf. vulgare) -- Alvesgaspar 23:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment You should add some text to the description. -- carol 04:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Done - Alvesgaspar 09:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The difference in the sharpness of the backgrounds kind of bothers me. -- carol 23:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)I don't think my opinion matters now -- carol 04:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support OK and encyclopedic --Orlovic (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't think the field depth of the individual images is enough. Estrilda 09:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted -- carol 10:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Gargouille Saint-Urbain TroyesEdit


  • Nomination Gargoyle. Picture by Vassil. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   SupportLighting and sky could have been more exciting, but the picture is OK--B.navez 17:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can see some jpg artifacts on the whole sculputure. But it's border line case, I think. I'd like sombody to more opinion. _Fukutaro 11:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I see no JPG artifacts. There was significant CA which I corrected. Looks OK for me. --Ikiwaner 22:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good to me. --Ianare 23:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result orginal: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 09:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)



  • Nomination Direction sign --- Ralf 21:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment I really like this image; should it get a crop on the lower part though? -- carol 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Now I am unsure.... -- carol 09:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like the left image more than the right one. And then if the sky is more blue, would be my taste. As for "for WP", I think that explanation is far to few. _Fukutaro 12:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   SupportUncroped good too. --Beyond silence 14:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - The uncropped one is better. --Ianare 23:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result orginal: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 09:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)



  • Nomination Notre-Dame Cathedral, Luxembourg -- Benh 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support It's completly QI. _Fukutaro 09:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • reluctant   Oppose. I think it is a fine image, but there are two points that bother me: first, I think you overcompressed it - look maybe at the names written on the wall, there seem to be jpg-artifacts. Second, you designate this as an HDR, but the altar(?) region is really overexposed. What exposure steps did you use? How did you do the tone mapping? This should really be fixable, which is the true reason for my opposition. Will support when fixed, will try to assist if requested... --JDrewes 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    •   Question - What names? I think this comment is for the next picture... Alvesgaspar 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - for me - QI --Pudelek 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 06:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 15:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)



  • Nomination Notre-Dame Cathedral, Luxembourg, again -- Benh 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • reluctant   Oppose for mostly the same reasons as Luxembourg_Cathedral_HDR, see above. Will support both when fixed. --JDrewes 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The altar is really overexposed and I don't like the extreme geometric distortion -- Alvesgaspar 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry for replying that late. I'll try to fix the issues raised above. JDrewes, This is a 3 exposures shot. I let the camera calculate the normal exposition, and use the bracketing function of my camera to get the +1 and -1 exposure compensated shots. Apparently, this wasn't enough to get rid of the overexposure on the altar. But maybe it's also because I don't master my HDR software (FDR tools, free version). -- Benh 15:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment What does the -1 exposure look like, is the altar overexposed? If not, a different tonemapping might solve the problem. --JDrewes 00:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • it looks slightly overexposed, but I may do something... I'll nominate a new version later, and let you know. Thanks a lot for suggestion and review. Benh 21:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 15:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mitsukoshi main branch of a department storeEdit


  • Nomination Mitsukoshi main branch of a department store in Nihonbashi Tokyo. taken by 663highland. --Fukutaro 10:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose slight tilt to the right to me, otherwise would be a clear QI. -- Benh 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    •   Done Yes, I had thought very very a few tilted too. therefore fixed. --Fukutaro 22:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment The middle of the curved section is vertical but it still looks a little tilted to me - optical illusion? --WikiWookie 01:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe. At the center grid is fully vertical. So I guess that looks like tilted comes from this building's shape(and composition). Indeed my editing was rotate it only 0.14 degrees. --Fukutaro 13:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lots of Chromatic aberration. -- Laitche 20:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) -- Laitche 17:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
<<<---- Here. Laitche 05:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  Done _Fukutaro 11:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks but still everywhere CA (green and pink). 1.  2.  3.  4.  Will you be trying to fix? :) -- Laitche 12:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  Done be correcting within bounds.. _Fukutaro 14:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Not perfect but good job. (^^)/ -- Laitche 15:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Good detail --Beyond silence 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Distortion. -- Laitche 14:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • What's that distortion? Perspective? It's aim of this in, isn't it? _Fukutaro 22:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't like this distortion(歪み), composition(構図) a little(ちょっとだけ) and I didn't oppose. :) -- Laitche 07:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support This is one messed up image :) I just played with it for a little while; I tried to make the sides straight and I succeeded but the rest of the image is incredibly screwed up now! There should be a category for photographs to play with.... -- carol 09:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 15:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)



  • Nomination tug boat --Orlovic (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Main object Tag Boat is very dark... --Fukutaro 13:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That's the point of the photo --Orlovic (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support A very beautiful image and probably a useful sillouette. -- carol 09:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree too --B.navez 19:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Lycaon 09:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Night shotEdit


  • Nomination Sunset at Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 21:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  •   Oppose Hmmm.. nothing really wrong, and certainly it's only me but I think it's too dark too. Maybe other people will disagree -- Benh 20:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe it is so, let's get other opinions -- Alvesgaspar 21:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The large very dark area in the bottom right bothers me... --WikiWookie 01:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Is that posterization or am I misusing the word? -- carol 09:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I also am not a fan of the dark area along the right. Perhaps crop off the right side and then pull up the bottom to maintain proportion? --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 06:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for the suggestion. Fresh nomination above - Alvesgaspar 17:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

result: withdraw -> not promoted to QI -- Laitche 10:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Himeji CastleEdit


  • Nomination Himeji Castle(:Cultural heritage), taken by Gorgo. --Fukutaro 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Wonderful composition by Gorgo. Odd foreground object doesn't detract - Peripitus 20:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition is fine, I'm only missing the quality side of this nom: Overexposed, not really sharp and little detail. Lycaon 08:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Exposed to my taste and I'd guess that the sharpness is about as good as the 4MP camera's system can achieve. Looks good in an A4 print - Peripitus 03:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Questions about the image:
  1. It was a POTD in 2006, but since then altered and nominated here -- is that a problem?
    That should not be a problem. POTD was not linked to FP or QI in those days. Lycaon 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. What changed since it was a POTD?
  3. Isn't it interesting how a not good review can change how you (in reality I) look at an image?
--carol 09:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1>in 2004, isn't it? What is the problem with you or QI or WP? 2>a bit contrast and tilt. 3>? You seid, some review would changed my how look?? --Fukutaro 13:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It could be me; if I read a few points about where an image goes wrong before I look at it, perhaps I am the only person who has that on my mind when I look at the image. It was a POTD in 2006, not 2004. And another problem, I was stuck in the past when I looked at this image thinking about the day that I figured out to just stop using 400 whateverSO film.... -- carol 09:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support It is at least as good as several that are QI and definitely more interesting than many. -- carol 09:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 15:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Kinkakuji in snowEdit


  • Nomination Kinkakuji in snow, taken by Fg2--Fukutaro 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Nice snow view, but with dust spots, especially in the water (scanned slide?) -- MJJR 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lots of noise (not snow related), green snow (sic!!!) and dirt (lint). Lycaon 08:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    •   Done Probably it's a scanned image from 35mm film, MJJR told so (as far as I see, perhaps old film about ISO400). And I tried remove dusts and green snow as far as possible. But still being left noise is film's perticles(and or snow), I think. --Fukutaro 10:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very nice, but detail, noise so bad. Sorry --Beyond silence 22:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Indeed noisy.. May here is marginal ditail for old 35mm (negative) film. _Fukutaro 11:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> Decline --Beyond silence  16:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Regent Street Christmas LightsEdit


  • Nomination By Diliff, Regent Street's Christmas decorations, December 2006. Arria Belli | parlami 14:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose It's a excellent picture, but small size for QI. Could you re-upload large size more than 2M pixel version? --Fukutaro 15:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's not mine, it's Diliff's. I'll contact him and see what he can do. Arria Belli | parlami 15:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too small for QI. Lycaon 08:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too smal --Lestat 10:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> decline --Beyond silence  16:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Paris at nightEdit


  • Nomination View over Paris, at dusk -- Benh 12:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Impressive, and what a waste of energy ;-). Lycaon 12:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I can only agree :)... But I wonder how Paris can compare to cities such as New York or Tokyo -- Benh 12:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Fractionally ;-). Lycaon 13:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose Well.. It's unquestionable super shot. But I feel not like lens distortion. Benh, could you add any exif date? --Fukutaro 13:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Hugin takes away the EXIF datas, but I write most of the useful settings in the caption. As for the distorsion, I could remove them, but chose to use a "fisheye like" projection to get a curved horizon line, to "simulate" the shape of the Earth. if it annoys that much people over here, I may switch back to some more conventional projection. Benh 14:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There is the rounded ground for intention of what is like some kind of miniatured Paris, all right, and agree on. Though my point was building leaning. I wait for any other opinions. --Fukutaro 15:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Buildings would "lean" the same way if the picture had been taken with a fisheye. I'll wait for other opinions too, that's why I submit the picture here (I'd like to make it a featured picture candidate actually, but want a "pre" review). Tonight, I think I'll make a "straight" buildings version because it's almost free ;) Benh 17:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Fantastic image, excellent quality! It would be even better, if you could correct the leaning of the buildings, but for me already QI now. -- MJJR 21:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support WOW! Fantastic photo!! --Lestat 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Stunning panorama - Peripitus 06:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support wow. Pudelek 15:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support definitely a QI for me! --Rampensau 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I'd support this as an FP. The distortion is a bit disorienting, but I don't think this shot would be possible without it. Calibas 04:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm quite sick of Paris (overdose?) but this shot would make me love Paris again! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info I uploaded a new version of it, which is a restitch using another projection and another anchor point. It partially fixes the leaning issue raised by Fukutaro (but the buildings still lean since I wanted to keep the curved horizon). I believe it's an improvement, so I replaced the old one. Thanks for your reviews and supports. Benh 20:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support It's super view. --Fukutaro 22:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Clear, sharp image, beautiful lights. Samat 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Does this picture fit to copyright law in France? (Freedom of panorama) Samat 20:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It does. Even though taking night pictures of the Eiffel Tower is not permitted, because here the Eiffel Tower blends into a much larger place, which is Paris, and which has no copyright over it. See Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Louvre 2007 02 24 c.jpg for a similar discussion. I'd add that setting copyrights over the night light scheme of the Eiffel Tower simply because it's been renewed seems to me outlaw... I wonder how this case would be settled in court. -- Benh 21:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Might as well hop on the bandwagon! This earns it. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 06:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 10 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Fukutaro 09:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Pink tulipEdit


  • Nomination A tulip (specific species unknown). --bdesham 21:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Borderline case... Color is beautiful but noisy background, feel flatten image from this lighting, so I vote here. --Fukutaro 11:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment perhaps the background can be edited without hurting the tulips -- carol 19:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I've tried to fix the background a bit… comments? --User:Bdesham
  • weak  Oppose The noise has gone allright, but the colours have gone in overdrive. The histogram has changed radically, with in both overexposure of the reds. Lycaon 00:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I think I've fixed it now. --User:Bdesham 00:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It looks better but the histogram still tells the same story (anyway, once overexposed in a channel, it is hard to undo that). Lycaon 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I've tried a fix. Thegreenj 19:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support detail, resol. --Beyond silence 08:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support now enought. _Fukutaro 09:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0.5 oppose -> Promotion --Beyond silence  16:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Winter seaEdit


  • Nomination Porto Covo, SW coast of Portugal. -- 20:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support I can breathe it, so alive --B.navez 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose But sadly, it is really too small for QI. Lycaon 12:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately too small - Peripitus 02:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 15:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Artist Point-Monument Valley-USAEdit


  • Nomination Monument Valley seen from Artist Point --Tobi 87 10:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Very well done! -- Ianare 04:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very overexposed sky! Lycaon 12:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support An emotional support -- I cannot stand to see another of the photographers images not make it into the collection. -- carol 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I tried to make the sky not so over-exposed. -- carol 04:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support high resol. --Beyond silence 13:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice resolution, sharpness, and color. --bdesham 21:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice view, colors. Samat 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> Promotion --Beyond silence  16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hydrangea germoglioEdit


  • Nomination: A bud of Hydrangea macrophilla --Luigi Chiesa 22:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Sharp where it should be, objective, categorically well done. -- carol 17:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't see any of those. Maybe in CR? ;-). Lycaon 08:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • From my background as a gardner, that plant is going to survive or perhaps make a new plant even; it is as described a 'bud'. The image page itself is wonderfully and thoughtfully laid out with thumbnails to images of more matured plants of the same species of plant -- the only thing missing from that is some fertilizer tips (nitrogen is one of the ways to change the flower color from pink to blue). The image while sharp where it should be, is not as large as the recommendation suggests, but it is nice to see a well laidout image page and perhaps that should also be part of the VI requirements. -- carol 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      A good image page is important for the VI guidelines, and it is already stated there that relevant information should be added there. -- Slaunger 20:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw -- Lycaon 15:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Papilio cresphontes chrysalisEdit


  • Nomination Chrysalis of giant swallowtail butterfly Papilio cresphontes --Ianare 22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  •   Oppose This is focused on the front of the pupa, thought not focused on the whole pupa. noise, color, lightness, O.K. I'm sorry to vote. --Fukutaro 14:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The belly and back (or both of the long sides) are soft, but the detailed tip and the less detailed tip are both really sharp as is the majority of the body. I don't really know what to look for in images like this though. -- carol 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • "both really sharp as is the majority of the body" I don't think you so. I can see that the back, the stomach, the behinde side, both tips are unsharp. This pupa having a body that is look like a rock surface, so I think it must be really sharpness. Color, lighting, composition, noise, exposure are very good indeed and look only these be enough to QI. But even then not good only focused-point. --Fukutaro 10:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see any of those problems -- perhaps when pointed out in CR I will. -- carol 20:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Enough good sharpness, high resolution. --Beyond silence 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Aperture has been auto-set too wide, the out-of-focus back is very distracting - Peripitus 11:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't see how the soft edges are a problem, given the resolution. I wanted to capture as much detail of the texture, this meant sacrificing a little focus around the edges (it's not flat, obviously). The image is barely cropped, keep in mind the chrysalis was only about 3 cm long. If you look at this image:  , it is even less in focus and at a lower resolution, and got promoted right away, if memory serves correctly. --Ianare 23:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem I see is that you left the camera on auto-exposure mode and it ran at max aperture giving the unfortuante DOF. One stop smaller and the whole chrysalis may have been crisp - Peripitus 11:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Per Peripitus. Thanks for the tip. --Ianare 18:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> (more discussion?) --carol 21:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Our Lady of SorrowsEdit


  • Nomination Interior of Our Lady of Sorrows Basilica, Chicago, Illinois. --JeremyA 00:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support I think this is about perfect -- you should try it at FP even -- maybe the lights on the walls are too bright for them. -- carol 04:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed: Bad DOF for a static picture, not focussed, especially on the sides. Also some kind of de-noising has erased a lot of details. Lycaon 07:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support good composition and light. --Beyond silence 16:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree with Beyond silence. But just only losed sharpness and so not for QI. --Fukutaro 21:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support The majority of the image is sharp. A slightly higher DOF and a little polish would have made this an FP contender. Calibas 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- AnyFile 21:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support The sharpness and (noise ?) artifacts are issues to me, but I find the subject and composition great. Beautiful colors ! -- Benh 12:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful colors and lights, perfect composition, but the imige quality is not enough for QI. Samat 20:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> promote --Beyond silence  16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Polish airmans monument in WarsawEdit


  • Nomination Polish airmans monument in Warsaw Sfu 20:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose That is not good composition. Monument's base is not there. Dark part is too dark, light part is overexposed. --Fukutaro 12:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support It is not so badly over-exposed. -- carol 03:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Nice photo, interesting monument, average tech. condition.--Beyond silence 16:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Disturbing tilted low shot. And probably a copyright problem. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    I`ve made this picture from public place, what kind of problem? Sfu 16:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Even if it's a public place it's a contemporary artwork and I don't think the author is dead since 70 years. And since the photo is clearly focused on the artwork FOP might not apply. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 1.5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mute swan cleaning itselfEdit


  • Nomination: Mute swan cleaning itself --Arthena 16:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Oppose Nice pose but unfortunately it's too dark. --Ianare 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, dark? Parts of the bird are almost overexposed. --Aqwis 12:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment It looks like the sun is low, it is definitely in front of the camera, making the swan dark and the duck above very dark. -- Ianare 04:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support not that dark. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose low contrast, not enough details. Lycaon 21:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> draw -- Lycaon 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Arcola ILEdit

  Image:Arcola_IL-edit.jpg -- withdrawn

  • Nomination Grain elevators at Arcola, Illinois. --Dschwen 16:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion My eyes see some distortions in this picture, is this a composite? --Dori - Talk 21:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment UFO and mean spirited clone tool abuse -- for no good reason! -- carol 18:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It is an excellent photograph. If I could get a copy of the dusty version, I would (I think) be able to fix the problem that I can see in it. -- carol 00:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You can download a copy of the dusty version by first clicking on the thumbnail, then clicking view original. What you mistook for mean spirited clone tool abuse (kinda forgot about AGF too, didn't you?) are the dust spots. Anyways, the new edit should take care of those. --Dschwen 16:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Some of the drama was because there were so many images with problems like that to respond to -- all within a few days. I might need an infobox that declares my legally nearsightedness (but not enough to need corrective lens).
  •   Comment I would support the most recent edit, except that I recently learned that it is either against the rules or not in good form to support your own edits. This is a great image; it is a typical sight in the corn belt of United States. The star permanently afixed to the conveyor (but only lit for the one holiday season) really made this image for me. -- carol 17:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  •   Info uploaded an edit over the original. Yes it is a composite (four frame pano). --Dschwen 16:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support the edited version. Nice concept and good execution. --bdesham 15:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think the edited original should be better. -- carol 00:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Beyond silence 16:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 15:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

London Eye at nightEdit


  • Nomination The London Eye at night, from across the Thames. --Mike Peel 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Lovely lighting. Arria Belli | parlami 12:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is not sharp enough and in need of noise reduction. Lycaon 07:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support detail Lovely lighting. --Beyond silence 23:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose noise -- carol 06:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC) original version
  • Edited version on right, with reduced noise. Mike Peel 09:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral edited version. The subject is in focus and while the colors are not too my taste, it is not about that. Perhaps if the out of focus stuff on the right was cropped out? I also am only guessing at improvements -- carol 09:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reluctant   Support to the edited version. The composition is the main asset of this photo. The denoising has resulted in some loss of sharpness; the radial rods supporting the wheel are very faint in some areas. -- Slaunger 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose both I believe the camera used is capable of much better results than this. Lack of sharpness and visible noise due to wrong settings used (f/3.5 and iso 400). Composition don't save it in my opinion. Benh 13:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Result original: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 15:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Result edit: ½ support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 15:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The third edit is very nice. The original image was uploaded on 25 January and this latest version on 11 February. Can the retouched template be understood and used by such a skillful image editor? And should the edited version start over here? -- carol 20:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

*  Support Lycaon's edit (panorama version). Could be FP :) -- Laitche 11:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not for voting image. Canceled. -- Laitche 18:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lycaon's stitch. The stitching line is visible and colours are inconsistent across the picture (red sky on the left, more blue on the right.) -- Benh 20:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry! Panorama was not for voting, just for fun as the other image was available, though not purpose-shot. Though I could adjust the colour balance if I chose to ;-)). Lycaon 20:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
ooops then ! I though that was a version to be reviewed. Benh 20:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it is too different to be in the same nomination. ;-) Lycaon 20:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment So, can there be some more definitive votes about the two versions that were originally nominated here? -- carol 21:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Lycaon's edit --Beyond silence 08:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)



  • Nomination Beatrixpark in Amsterdam. --Arthena 16:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Question Can you add a location tag? --bdesham 19:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment Done Arthena 20:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good to me! --bdesham 20:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Tilted O.K? --Fukutaro 12:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't really see any tilting… where do you see it? --bdesham 16:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • some trees, red dustbox?, poles, dog, and a man... I could seemed to lean to right. Perhaps the road behind trees that is slope road? --Fukutaro 17:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Even when it gets a tilt in the right direction, the image seems to be kind of soft. -- carol 04:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sharpness sorry --Beyond silence 08:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A castle in SüdtirolEdit


  • Nomination A castle in Südtirol, unfortunately I don't remember the name (4 years ago!) --FilnikRock! 15:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline .
  •   Support Background a bit to bright, but at all a nice good ilustrating Image. abf /talk to me/ 15:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Crop, over-exposure, skewed lines, etc. -- carol 03:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree with Carol. Over-exposed sky, cutoff chimney. Peripitus 20:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted --carol 21:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hauraki Gulf SunsetEdit


  • Nomination Sunset over the Hauraki Gulf. --Ingolfson 09:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Nice color and composition, but extremely noisy… maybe a pass of noise reduction? --bdesham 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Done I tried that removed to noise and lens distotion. --Fukutaro 13:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Acceptable detail, nice composition--Beyond silence 21:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Halos around birds, water not sharp and still noisy. -- carol 00:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Spiny GeckoEdit


  • Nomination Spiny Gecko in rocky desert habitat near Salinas del Janubio on the Canary Island of Lanzarote. Photograph by Yummifruitbat. Nom by Ben Aveling 05:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Good, but below recommended size --Ianare 10:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question This image size is 1,565 × 1,043, too small? --Fukutaro 11:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose yes, sorry it is < 2 Mpx, only just over 1.5 Mpx. Lycaon 11:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)



  • Nomination Bart from Hermh. --Lestat 11:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Amazing, but I don't see what can make it quality image --B.navez 09:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But why not QI? I don't understand Your reason to decline. --Lestat 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • mainly composition IMO : one odd singer and then plenty of black frame with two heads--B.navez 17:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality (sharpness, fringing, noise, composition) for QI. Lycaon 08:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No. Definitely not a QI (composition, quality...) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Nomination Kinkakuji in snow, taken by Fg2 --Laitche 18:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  •   Comment How is this version? No green snow.(^^)/ -- Laitche 18:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment 加減が難しいのですが、やりすぎるとピンクの雪になったり色がおかしくなってしまうのですよ。特にヒサシの裏あたり。_Fukutaro 09:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You should use English, otherwise other people would never understand :) -- Laitche 15:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Something like It is like walking on a tightrope: to much tinkering and the snow turns from green to pink... :-). free translation by Lycaon Lycaon 16:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • ----from green to pink. "Especially under the eaves." You great.. _Fukutaro 17:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • ha ha ha. Are you a translater, anyway fixed :) -- Laitche 17:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I withdraw this one. -- Laitche 19:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result: withdraw -> not promoted to QI -- Laitche 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wire Bike in ZambiaEdit


  • Nomination Wire art for sale along the road to Kitwe, Zambia. -- Lycaon 12:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good --Richard Bartz 18:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can see jpg artifacts at the edge of some objects and a bit unsharp. --Fukutaro 21:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Laitche 18:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promotion to QI -- Lycaon 12:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-albino soleEdit


  • Nomination Semi-albino Dover sole (Solea solea) from the Belgian coastal waters. Lycaon 15:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion .
  •   SupportOK for QI --Orlovic (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tip of head really too much in shadow--B.navez 16:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • OK now
  •   Done fix attempted. Lycaon 10:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment I can see dark gray part at the head side. Black part (#000).Dark gray part is nearly this color(#151515). --Fukutaro 22:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    •   Fixed You are good as seeing that kind of errors ;-). Lycaon 06:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    •   Support he he.. my pleasure. I feel a grain of rice(?) at the his face, but sharpness and ditail so enough to QI. _Fukutaro 09:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support detail, resol. --Beyond silence 08:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Beware of crocodilesEdit


  • Nomination Don't you dare!!. -- Lycaon 08:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support clearly image. --Fukutaro 14:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Foliage obscuring the message. -- carol 23:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
  •   Comment The message is very clear, the sign is not 'obscured' either, if you just want to see the sign out of context then maybe an SVG? :-) --Tony Wills 07:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It says 'NO SWIMMIIG' -- carol 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support sharp --Beyond silence 12:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support No doubt: this is a QI! -- MJJR 21:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Pudelek 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support don't think the plant is a problem! --Rampensau 21:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Common HawkweedEdit


  • Nomination A flower head of a wild Common Hawkweed. Yes, I konw I have already two other QI with the same subject but this one is the best so far... -- Alvesgaspar 23:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Technically up there with the rest of the best :-). Lycaon 08:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Your flower is usually beautiful. But there is traces of clone-tool on the upper, and so it need remove this mark. --Fukutaro 08:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment That green blotch is natural, not a clone tool mark -- Alvesgaspar 09:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment this --Fukutaro 09:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Done I got it, thank you. It is fixed now - Alvesgaspar 11:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment sorry, and more on the bottom left. --Fukutaro 13:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Done -- Alvesgaspar 14:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support O.K. thanks. --Fukutaro 14:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Perhaps you could clone a leaf back into the image. -- carol 23:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question  ???? -- Alvesgaspar 09:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Instead of taking all of the green out of the image, put some back in. It would be bokeh...? --carol 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • But I didn't take the green out. There were some minor imperfections but I beileve were not green -- Alvesgaspar 19:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I am using a word that I don't completely understand, but doesn't this image lack bokeh? -- carol 23:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Heh, with the green back into the image; the image size is .04MB larger than the original. What is up with that? -- carol 01:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bear in zooEdit


  • Nomination Bear in ZOO. --Lestat 11:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Nice and well illustrating Image. abf /talk to me/ 17:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  Comment 'Illustrative' of abnormal behaviour induced in zoo animals --Tony Wills 06:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The 'cuteness' destroys the quality. -- carol 23:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Quality is entirely independent of cuteness. --bdesham 00:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't like the way it makes me feel about myself (I have spent time watching the bears perform at the zoo -- I never went to the dump to watch them there though....); my vote reflects that. -- carol 01:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rampensau 21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Stockente Anas platyrhynchos Richard BartzEdit


  • Nomination Anas platyrhynchos Sleeping female --Richard Bartz 17:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose She is very pretty, but the lighting is off and the sharpness is also not there. Suggestion that the photographer raised the bar on his own photograph. -- carol 23:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Humm... not sharpness? I seem that the lighting and technique bring about very soft feather. --Fukutaro 22:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharpness seems absolutely O.K. (only the top of the head is slightly out of focus); good, soft light and very nice composition. -- MJJR 22:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted --carol 21:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sacred Lotus fruitEdit


  • Nomination Sacred Lotus fruit --Peripitus 12:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good depth of field and quality -- Ianare 04:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too noisy and CA fringing. Lycaon 07:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Good. Really sharp and high resolution. --Beyond silence 16:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Did you look at the bright green halos at the edge of the pod? Lycaon 15:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I tryed fixed halos and noise. a bit darkness from the color-profile. But it has to be amend template-errored. --Fukutaro 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent edit, Fukutaro. Thegreenj 23:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support agree. Lycaon 13:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks :) --Fukutaro 21:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lestat 22:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche 11:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> Promoted to QI -- Laitche 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Porto Covo by nightEdit


  • Nomination My favourite spot at Porto Covo, when the night comes. Please compare with this one -- Alvesgaspar 21:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose  Neutral too dark. --Fukutaro 17:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Changed my vote, I found of the seeing difference what either day time or night time in my room. Hummm... --Fukutaro 10:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, it is a night shot. Otheropinions? -- Alvesgaspar 19:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, "night shot" I knew it. Had it shot with fast shutter-speed when after sundown? I think: It's poor lighting presented that is not clearly view. Even if it will have corrected, it will become just low quality. --Fukutaro 10:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   SupportGood balance between the night coming atmosphere (light enough to make it clearly visible) and sharpness of the moving waves.--B.navez 22:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support light on sky --Beyond silence 20:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Expedition: EverestEdit


  • Nomination The Expedition: Everest ride at Walt Disney World. --bdesham 02:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose tilt --Pudelek 10:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)   Support now is OK Pudelek 15:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    •   Done Fixed, sorry. --bdesham 19:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support nice --Beyond silence 17:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   SupportDilaudid 09:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 10:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)



  • Nomination The Dalles Bridge. --Cacophony 09:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Question A better caption would add value to this Image. Where are we (country, continent, etc.) what river is this? how old is the Bridge? etc.--Berru 07:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Sky lighting is a bit unfortunate, but detail on the bridge is good. --Dori - Talk 18:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Withdrawing support until the fix, it's a pretty easy crop to do so I don't see why you don't just upload a new version. --Dori - Talk 20:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   OpposeFrame problems in upper right corner. -- carol 07:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good catch, should be easy enough to fix. --Dori - Talk 07:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Should be is the operative phrase here, I think -- carol 23:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      •   Done Lycaon 08:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support detail is good.--Beyond silence 10:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support nice -- carol 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted -- carol 20:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Class 81 trainsEdit


  • Nomination British Rail Class 81s awaiting scrapping. (In before "it's too noisy".) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Opposephoto has a yellowish tint and is unsharp to the edges (especially the bottom right part). this can be fixed with reasonably good image editing software. Fabelfroh 15:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Unsharpness cannot be fixed with software. Thegreenj 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support strong composition, out of focus region is foreground weed and doesnt detract from the composition Gnangarra 02:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp. -- carol 04:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 13:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unbloomed tulipEdit


  • Nomination An unbloomed tulip. --bdesham 17:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline .
  •   Support Really good. abf /talk to me/ 14:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Two things, the tip of the bud is not sharp and it is below the size recommendation. -- carol 22:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The latter is actually not true: 2,462,208px > 2Mpx. Lycaon 00:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • doing too much, perhaps. sorry -- carol 01:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I think if it was cropped properly, it would not meet the size suggestion. -- carol 04:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark & the tip is out of focus. –Dilaudid 07:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> (not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 13:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Höckerschwan Cygnus olor 3 Richard BartzEdit


  • Nomination Mute Swan Cygnus olor --Richard Bartz 17:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Great exposure. Calibas 01:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Some of the water drops are completely over-exposed the ones on the beak can be removed? -- carol 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment See next image for comment. --Thermos 17:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis 21:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Thermos 20:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Plenumchamber 22:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted --carol 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Höckerschwan Cygnus olor 8 Richard BartzEdit


  • Nomination Mute Swan Cygnus olor --Richard Bartz 17:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Nice. Calibas 01:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Hot spots(?) -- carol 23:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment See comment on different kinds of highlights. --Thermos 17:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I have this same lense with 350D and it does poorly sometimes on low light, such as in this case on the shadowed neck. It really irritates me, and it's more visible in some of my images (see Image:Deer 3378.jpg), but I also see it here. --Dori - Talk 05:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 13:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Höckerschwan Cygnus olor 4 Richard BartzEdit


  • Nomination Mute Swan Cygnus olor --Richard Bartz 17:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support I like the composition. Calibas 01:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Some of the water drops are completely over-exposed. -- carol 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I beg to disagree. When highlights are considered, one must understand the difference between reflecting and non-reflecting highlights. In non-reflecting highlights, the lightest area is simply white. Take clouds or white side of tyres as an example. However, in reflecting highlights, the highlights simply reflect the light source, where no detail exists. Hence, in reflective highlights, it would actually be unnatural to get some detail in highlight area. Typical examples of this would be chrome bumber or for that matter - drops of water. Consequently, this should not be declined on the basis of blown highlights. --Thermos 17:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, the "overexposed" water drops ADD to the picture. --Aqwis 21:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Thermos 20:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose ->  promoted to QI -- Lycaon 13:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Birger Jarls Torg, StockholmEdit


  • Nomination Birger Jarls Torg, Stockholm --MRB 15:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Lighting is unfortunate, sorry. --Ianare 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment Changed to promotion after reading comments, especially the 'typical lighting' one. -- Ianare 04:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, uneven lighting does not equal bad lighting. In fact, I love the lighting in this picture. --Aqwis 12:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support these patches of sunlight only on some places make the very quality of this picture. --B.navez 02:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support This kind of lighting is so typically Stockholm, made me feel nostalgic! Great picture! --Jnpet 03:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted -- carol 22:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Solenostomus paradoxusEdit


  • Nomination Ornate ghost pipefish, Solenostomus paradoxus, defined against pink coral background. Taken at Lembeh straits, Indonesia --Jnpet 11:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline

  Oppose Too small for QI. Lycaon 12:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Lycaon, why am I not surprised? First complain about a an image of ghost pipefish because it had no "outline" and when it does it still is not to your liking with no explanation. Is it the tail? At least explain, otherwise it would be personal. It's certainly not too small for QI. --Jnpet 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Per resolution guidelines. I'm not inventing anything here! Please read guidelines before venting complaints. Why do you think I have never nominated this image? Lycaon 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, I see I was wrong. I didn't even realize it had reduced so much in size. I had cropped it to fill the screen. Anyway, the guidelines appears to be merely a suggestion. If it's a strict rule, it should probably say so. I'll withdraw the nomination. Going to Anilau, Philippines to go diving tonight. So I'll be off line for a few days. --Jnpet 03:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Have a nice trip. Lycaon 07:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  Oppose I'm sorry but it is too small, well below 2 Mpixels. I do not see Lycaons vote here as personal. It would be a good Valued images candidate though, once we get that process going, although it is compteting with other Solenostomus paradoxus. Very interesting fish by the way. -- Slaunger 23:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case a VI gallery would probably be appropriate because the fish comes in such a variety. From white, red, yellow to black. A gallery, would show the variety. Looking forward to see VI come on line. --Jnpet 03:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
If the different varieties of the species are considered sufficiently valued for the VI reviewers to consider as different aspects of the same species, The VI guideline is open for giving several images of the same species the VI designation. I'd say the gallery or image set idea in the VI proposal is more reserved for images which relate to each other in a process or something similar. I am working as much as my time and real life permits to get VI online. I am glad you are looking forward to it.-- Slaunger 15:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think we may want to make some exceptions for underwater photography. Nearly every single one here gets declined for either being too small or unsharp. Go check the quality image gallery, every underwater image is either about the same quality as this, or of something in an aquarium. For those who don't understand the challenges of underwater photography, try taking picture in a dust storm. Calibas 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment I think we can find a reason for exception for any kind of picture (e.g. desert picture -> it is hot, so allow for more noise; night shot -> it is dark so allow for underexposure; old picture -> old hardware so allow for unfocussed pictures; underwater -> different diffractive index so allow for CA fringing; and so on ...) , or alternatively we could give every image a QI stamp indiscriminately ;-). If the quality is not there, sorry then it is not there, full stop. If it has real value, fine, VI will be running soon, but QI is meant (as a concept) for high (technical) quality images. Lycaon 08:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment One of the purposes with QI is to encourage and acknowledge users, who do a real effort in obtaining a good technical quality within their domain (I think that is in the spirit of the project). So, if a User contributes with underwater photos, which are of high technical quality relative to what is normally acheivable in underwater photography, I think this should be acknowledged as being QI worthy. The same goes for, e.g., scanning electron microscopy images. You would only very seldomly get that in the same technical quality as a good photograph of, e.g., a building. However, if it is of high technical quality compared to what is normally acheivable in SEM, it should be recognised as well.-- Slaunger 15:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment quod dixit. Lycaon 15:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> not promoted -- carol 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Watermill at sunsetEdit


  • Nomination Watermill (silhouette at sunset) --- Ralf 20:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Beautiful colors and nice composition! --bdesham 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noisy sky. -- carol 09:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sky is not noisy, but the image is out of focus. --Mark (Mschel) 03:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support not too noisy --Beyond silence 10:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support a few noisy sky and black part. But enough QI. --Fukutaro 10:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> promoted -- carol 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Luzhniki Olympic Stadium in MoscowEdit

  • Nomination Luzhniki Olympic Stadium in Moscow, Russia. --S[1] 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Decline
  •   Comment You should adjust the levels on this image. --Dori - Talk 18:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe some more green, like this version? --S[1] 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest a selective level change like this. --Dschwen 23:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks Dschwen, I've added this now as "other version". --S[1] 23:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Levels is weak sauce, I went to town with Curves. Please excuse my idioms. Added 3rd image. Calibas 07:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support really good one. ABF 19:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For obvious reasons. -- carol 00:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- carol 07:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is something weird with the light. Overexposed buildings in the BG, yet not bright. Foreground rather drab in all versions. Lycaon 09:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose ->  not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 13:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Mahana panoramaEdit

  • Nomination: Panorama taken at Mahana Beach (aka Green Sands Beach) on the Big Island of Hawai'i. Self-nomination. --jonny-mt 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Great view. Removed sky noise might be better. --Fukutaro 10:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see too much noise and also stitching error(s). Estrilda 16:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll see if I can't do something about the noise, and if you'd be so kind as to point out where the stitching errors are I'll take a crack at those, too. I checked it before I uploaded but wasn't able to find any. --jonny-mt 01:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
      • noise was removed. Where is stiching error? --Fukutaro 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah. Found and fixed the stitching errors. They were subtle, but they were there. --jonny-mt 04:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes you found the stitching error, sorry for not replying earlier BTW. But now the denoising has erased a lot of the detail that was previously there. Estrilda 14:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
          •   Done Detail unsharp was already fixed. --Fukutaro 04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   OpposeI assume you have changed your vote to the later support --Tony Wills 04:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC) I didn't see (or look at) the original nomination. There is noise in the water by the beach. The rocks and land features on the washed out wall seem unsharp and I would have liked a less mottled sky (which can be repaired). I would be neutral with only two of the three problems. -- carol 14:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support nice view --Beyond silence 12:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support you can only vote once Lycaon 11:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC) -- carol 03:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
One vote cancels out the other, which way do you actually want to vote? --Tony Wills 07:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this a valid vote? --Fukutaro 01:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

::  Info It seems reasonable to either take it that one opinion cancels out the other, or the second opinion represents a change of mind, either way this would result in a promote. --Tony Wills 04:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Seems reasonable, but not right ;-) --Tony Wills 10:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment last chance, one more vote or it goes into limbo --Tony Wills 10:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice photo. --bdesham 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Trying to stitch two photos across an area of the sea with reasonably large waves as here is an unforgiving task. I actually tried that today myself with much smaller waves and I gave up. There is a clear vertical dead band due to a bad stitch on the outermost large rock and it progresses down as a line in the sea, where it is clear that the waves simply do not match. I think it is a pretty impossible job to stitch that right. Perhaps it can be fixed if you are a really good cloner. I read the article about the rare type of green sand beach this is. Very interesting by-the-way. There is a faint olive-green taint to the beach, which I guess must be due to the olivine. I had actually anticipated that the olive-green colour had been a more prominent coloured feature of the sand there. Are the colours as you remember them? The image is somewhat noisy and lacks some sharpness. Personally, I think I would downsample it to around 50% of its present area to lower the noise. I do not think you will loose much detail by doing that. Finally, I recommend adding some geodata to the image page. Adds value. Sorry for the long comment and for casting a vote, which will prolong the CR even further. -- Slaunger 21:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> a draw -- carol 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hawk 3705Edit


  • Nomination A red-tail hawk, Buteo jamaicensis. --Dori - Talk 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Neutral A little blurry; interesting enough for QI with the shadows? -- carol 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The other ones were better as far as outright quality, the only reason why I put this on was to show it in a more "natural", camouflaged pose. It doesn't usually hang out in the open. --Dori - Talk 18:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  •   Comment This poor hawk had the most monotonous sky; after uploading a version with an edited sky, I thought the new sky might be a little too green. -- carol 12:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Grabbed two blues from FPC.... -- carol 00:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  Oppose sharpness weak, sorry --Beyond silence 10:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> not promoted -- carol 00:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Powerline sceneEdit


  • Nomination Powerlines over fields in a winter scene. --Ingolfson 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion

Underexposed, isn't it? - Till 17:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  •   Comment I do not consider this image underexposed. Ingolfson 08:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment This image is very very pretty with a levels adjustment. -- carol 09:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  •   Comment Levels adjusted version was uploaded into the namespace. -- carol 12:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it's much better now. -- Till 13:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted -- carol 23:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dingo Flour MillEdit


  • Nomination Dingo Flour mill, North Fremantle Western Australia, Gnangarra 15:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   OpposeNice composition and colours, but sky treatment very rough and weeds on left foreground not interesting--B.navez 18:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment sky treatment rough please explain, typical sunset colouring for Western Australia. forground left isnt "weeds" is part of the planting for sand dune restoration additionally it hides the carpark and train line in between camera and the subject. Gnangarra 15:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • sky colouring is really valuable, but passage from pale blue to pale pink is very mottled and I think it has something to do with the photograph not with the sunset ; plantations with blue protections are also interesting elements but grasses just in the left corner are really too dark and too much out of focus. --B.navez 16:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> not promoted -- carol 00:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheat Sheet in a ball point penEdit


  • Nomination A Cheat sheet in a rollerpen __ ABF __ ϑ 16:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Image has poor composition, is a bit a noisy and lighting is a bit harsh Booksworm 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment The Hawaii pano is so much more noisy than this -- carol 03:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Begging your pardon, what do you mean by a Hawaii panorama? Booksworm 20:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't quite get the connection between the Hawaii Pano. and this image... In any case, it just isn't quality image material! --Booksworm 15:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, in a quality ranking, this image is several multiples of more quality. The amount of noise, the sharpness, etc. -- carol 17:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support For me, the technical condition of the photo is of sufficiently high quality, and I think it illustrates the subject well. Side-issue: It is also refreshing to see some new topics. Good idea.-- Slaunger 23:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Usually the cheaters are the most quiet -- carol 21:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose noisy, underexposed. Lycaon 06:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I know those moments.. Super picture! --Petar Marjanovic 13:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support even if it's silly that ABF shows his teacher how he cheats ;) Ireas talkdeen 14:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> promoted -- carol 00:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Schloss Reinbek2-3Edit


  • Nomination Schloss Reinbek (near Hamburg). --IqRS 17:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Nice light, good sharpness & composition. -- MJJR 19:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Really boring. -- carol 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
@carol: What do you mean with "make a little clone mark"? The image is straightened, I didn't remove any dust. This is the original image as it came out of the camera: Schloss Reinbek. --IqRS 22:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ooo, it is a little boring for me to point out every single mark in these skies. Perhaps look at the original and see where the dust was and then assume that the mark is right above that. -- carol 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • As pointed out earlier: you are mistaking the out of focus dust spots for clone marks. The problem is not that bad cloning has been done in this image, the problem (if at all) is that no measure has been taken to remove the dust spots. --Dschwen 00:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • It is a problem that I have had when using the clonetool in areas similarly shaded gradients of color. I have never seen one of my photographs express dust this way. This doesn't mean that my diagnosis is correct -- but what tool do people use to remove dust spots from the sky? -- carol 08:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • You'll only get dust spots like this when you use a digital SLR with exchangable lenses. The clonetool is bad for removing since you'll never clone the exact gradient region. Come on, you are a Gimp-Expert, there is the heal-tool, which acts similar to the clone tool, but adapts the cloned area to local color gradients. --Dschwen 13:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
          • GIMP expertise seems to be highly dependent on corporate employment and access to cameras such that you describe; I challenge you to find any evidence that I ever existed from within the records of GIMP O'Softvell, as it should possibly be named. Healtool makes old people have the complexion of a babysbutt, and that is all I know about that. To reproduce this problem that has appeared on many many of the photographs here recently, I could do this by using a soft brush with clonetool to remove regular dust spots. What has made so many people have dusty lens? -- carol 15:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with MJJR. Nice photo! --bdesham 15:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Beyond silence 10:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted -- carol 00:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Building construction site, MelbourneEdit


  • Nomination Melbourne construction by User:Diliff. --Dschwen 15:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Inconsistent sky (weird colour shift: is it a composite image?) and CA fringing (left). Lycaon 12:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Inconsistent sky? -- carol 07:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support good composition, IMHO sky looks fairly consistent for Melbournes four seasons in one day Gnangarra 01:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. -- carol 12:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted -- carol 23:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Peral Submarine CartagenaEdit


  • Nomination: Peral Submarine Cartagena, Spain --Przykuta 10:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Not the best time with the overcast sky, but it's still good quality. --Dori - Talk 21:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment It is also a little smaller than the ideal size. -- carol 09:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I don't like the tight crop for an already too small image. Lycaon 23:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> unassessed -- carol 23:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Citroen AX whiteEdit


  • Nomination Citroen AX --Orlovic (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment I have uploaded a different version to the same file name, after a discussion I will probably decline both versions. The uploading is the interesting thing right now to me. -- carol 08:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC) -- carol 16:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is wise to support your own here in CR... Lycaon 16:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • okiedokie -- carol 17:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like this photograph and will support it if it is allowed for me to support my edit (rotated and slight color adjustment -- I can't call this a color correction...) and if the edit persists. It is a place where the rules seem fuzzy to me and also votes can be gathered and then versions get changed. -- carol 08:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
your edit is OK --Orlovic (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks. I didn't do that much to it. -- carol 13:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Personally I do not find the subject very interesting, but it is in fact a good illustration, and I find it has sufficient technical qualities. It is also IMO the best illustration of this car model on Commons. --Slaunger 22:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Humm... I think it is the difficulty vote. I'm not sure of that image had taken eather car or street. --Fukutaro 15:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted -- carol 23:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


  Image:Warszawa-Focus-perspective-edit.jpg -- Withdrawn

  • Nomination Focus office building in Warsaw. --Sfu 13:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment ISTM that the picture needs to be rotated counterclockwise a bit. --bdesham 17:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment ISTM it is just perspective distortion (for the right angle of the frontage is vertical) but I find it acceptable--B.navez 18:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --B.navez 05:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Ease of fixing the perspective reduces quality of the original? -- carol 06:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    Good question. It was my idea, to go so far from the building in order not to correct distortion. When compering this two versions, I can see some quality loss, but I must look very deep. The quality is almost the same. That`s why now I think edited version in better. Sfu 11:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    First picture (not edited) is better : perspective distortion gives out like human eye. On edited version, right rear angle is tilted and the wrong way.--B.navez 14:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support the edited version. --bdesham 18:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support the edit although the perspective correction could be sub-optimized (left edge of building is not completely vertical). -- Slaunger 22:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  •   Comment I tried it again; re-edit is now in the old edit namespace. -- carol 12:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Sory for late reaction. It`s just beacause left edge is not vertical in fact. It`s noded few degrees. I`ve uploaded corrected version over original.Sfu 16:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I withdrew my attempt(s), the original is much better now. -- carol 18:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted -- carol 23:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Abstract panoramaEdit


  • Nomination An abstract panorama which blends in multiple panoramas of the same scene shot on the same day at different times by Fir0002 -- carol 00:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment It is wasteful to slightly stitching are there and not smooth color in the sky. --Fukutaro 13:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support An excellent idea, and an excellent picture too!--Berru 17:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment I said there is problem of sky... --Fukutaro 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC).
    •   CommentYes you did, but it was a comment, not a promote/decline decision. Anyway, now you decided to move from Promote to discuss, let's wait for somebody else to choose--Berru 10:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Like the idea. QI IMHO. Please geotag if possible. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 14:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I really like this image. They opposed it in English Wikipedia because it was not encyclopedic enough for non-earthlings. Then, they continued to begin to understand the image and its abstraction the way that an educated earthling might. I like this image in that jealous way, where I wish I had not only taken the image but had had the idea to take it. I would like to be able to vote for it, but can't as nominator. -- carol 16:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support. Not much to discuss here, the quality is superb. I don't see how you could blend the sky significantly better, each shot had completely different lighting. --Dschwen 16:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support. Strange but very interesting and original composition, excellent quality. -- MJJR 21:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Encyclopedically quite useless, but technically very well done! So certain QI. Lycaon 20:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Its encyclopedic value could be improved if it were geocoded. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 20:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • In general yes, but this shot is taken from the photographers front porch, and he has privacy concerns. --Dschwen 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promote -- carol 13:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fallen leaves with Orton effectEdit


  • Nomination An example of the Orton effect --bdesham 04:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support An excellent image, perhaps worth FP --Berru 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC).
  •   Oppose Yes, nice color. But I think it had over-corrected. It's not natural for me. --Fukutaro 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you talking about the saturation? That's sort of the point of the Orton effect… --bdesham 13:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • "saturation" yes, "Orton effect" yes too. They are needn't for QI/WP unless you have some especial intention (e.g., example for explain about OrtonEffect). However, it's photogenic veiw for my individual taste. ;) --Fukutaro 18:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, the intention of the picture is to show the effect. An identical picture without the effect is shown at right. --bdesham 20:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The efx should be more discreet, maybe less saturation or different grading. Honestly i must say (and won't offend anyone) that the original source is not the best --Richard Bartz 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I find it OK that the effect has been dosed quite high given that it is made to illustrate the Orton effect. I think the end result is quite nice at showing the intention of the effect, which among other things is to add a "glow" or warmth to the photo (as I understand it). I do not see it as a problem that the original material could be better. That actually demonstrates quite nicely how much the effect can change the original. -- Slaunger 23:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No big deal. -- carol 13:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> declined -- carol 13:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hitching shed Arcola ILEdit


  • Nomination Hitching post (shed) for Amish Buggies on the parkking lot of a bank in Arcola IL, an area with a significant Amish population. --Dschwen 21:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Commentperspective distortion at vertical-line, and it's have to need cropped. detail is O.K. --Fukutaro 13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I certainly hope that at 12.8MP detail is more than just O.K., the perspective distortion is minimal, and I disagree about the cropping. --Dschwen 14:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I think it's certainly QI, but I would have cropped as well mainly to get rid of some vignetting on the upper right side. --Dori - Talk 21:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
see the window of the brown building on the right, vertical-line is leaned to the left, and also the edge of the white building is leaned to right. And the tire of the silver sedan which is warped. I think they are not minimal for especially a building photograph that like a here is image. --Fukutaro 17:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment These girls, especially Dschwen are just being mean. -- carol 18:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that what I am seeing is places where dust was removed from the image. This image has one large spot like this, right above the tree. -- carol 05:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I just don't get your incoherent obscure remarks most of the time... --Dschwen 16:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Before Lycaon's sunset, most images did not have these problems. After that sunset, many many images did. It is difficult not to see a pattern when one exists. My reports of feeling traumatized -- this was incoherent? Do help me to communicate with you more efficiently. -- carol 17:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
My guess is, the pattern is your perception. You noticed the spots on Lycaon sunset which made you aware of them, now you started looking for them. The same thing happened to me a few months ago when i first noticed those spots on somebody elses image. I guess I've gotten sloppy again. --Dschwen 18:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  •   Info uploaded an edit over the original. Please re-evaluate. --Dschwen 16:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Thunks! enough to QI. --Fukutaro 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- carol 23:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Beyond silence 18:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted -- carol 13:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)



  • Nomination Iron truss bridge, Chesterville, Illinois. --Dschwen 16:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Reminds me of how many times I've passed over the Lincoln bridge but never gotten a picture of it and other bridges around there. --Dori - Talk 21:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support The clonetool spots -- they are there to torture my eyes? Discussion of undue cruelty.... -- carol 07:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks. It isn't easy cleaning dust from areas with as fine a gradient as a pretty sky can have. -- carol 22:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • My educated guess is that the slightly darker spot (original image version) is a dust particle inside the lense. Had that with one of my cameras for a while. --Klaus with K 17:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • definetely is. I'll have to clean it real soon, the frequent lens changes left quite a bit of sirt on my sensor. By the way, dustspot removal in the sky is easy, the Gimp healing tool takes care of the fine gradients. I wouldn't recommend using the clone tool at all for this job.--Dschwen 18:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Preliminary   Support I can't see any clonetool spots. Where exactly are they? --JDrewes 14:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Yes, where are they ? --Richard Bartz 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Follow the line from the tallest stem of the tree to the most right and behind the bridge at the same angle that the branch is. The spot is more than 1/4 the distance to the photograph edge and less than 1/3. Moving the photograph might also help to see it -- which I think is something like using peripheral vision to see the Pleiades constellation while star gazing. -- carol 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok got it, thanks. --Richard Bartz 22:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That looks like a run of the mill dust spot. Should be cleaned up, but it doesn't look at all like the work of the clone tool to me. --Dori - Talk 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Done it is gone (I hope). Lycaon 22:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted -- carol 13:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Obertraun - Stormwater managementEdit


  • Nomination A stormwater management system in Obertraun, Austria --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 17:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Quality is not bad, but the composition is pretty confusing, which makes me reluctant to promote. --Dschwen 16:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Agreed, it's hard to figure out what's going on, and then I think it's still an odd composition… too close to the subject, and perhaps a bit tilted. --bdesham 17:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral as per comments. The image of quality and composition such that I would like to know more. -- carol 09:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting subject, but the composition is not optimal and there are too many distracting elements like bottles, a pot and a water hose. It should be quite easy to retake such a photo at a better angle and with those objects removed. -- Slaunger 22:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose 1 Neutral -> Declined -- carol 13:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Pena Palace backEdit


  • Nomination Please see the FP nom ... I think this is a striking image, of an architecturally significant and historic palace that does not have much coverage on Commons. It's not going to pass FP but it deserves recognition IMHO. Photo taken by User:Husond --++Lar: t/c 17:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion

  Comment True, it's a nice one. But please correct the distortion (verticals). And clipping the right edge would get rid of a distracting dark building part. When that's done, I will support. - Till 12:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I have tried to rotate it (1.2 degrees left) and crop to preserve the tower but remove the building sliver to the right. I had to fill in the sky a bit in the upper left. (else would lose more of the tower. ++Lar: t/c 03:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Image has improved but sharpness is insufficient and crop of the spires denies this image promotion. Lycaon 11:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment The image never had all of the spires in it (unless the version history lies). I did what I could to construct a better version and I would like to discuss both versions while not interferring with the beating it is taking as an FPC. -- carol 17:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. I lost some of the existing parts of the front spire
  2. there is a purple outline around parts of the tower -- is that Chromatic Aberration?

  • Edit: has been rotated, has a reconstructed spire, the sky has been isolated and blurred because the original was splotchy to me. I have question about if the part I straightened was the best choice -- the taller part of the tower is now leaning some....

carol 17:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  •   Support edit: detail, composition. --Beyond silence 23:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • In FPC you opposed bcs of "detail"?! Did anything change concerning "detail"? --AngMoKio 19:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Original and edit, unless other problems can be fixed or excused -- carol 06:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC) I am kind of mostly happy with this most recent (and I think final) edit to this image. The two most important vertical lines are vertical now and the fuzzy of the spires seems not such a problem now. -- carol 14:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support (can't vote for own pic in QI) edit: detail, composition. Húsönd 15:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info You can not nominate and vote on the same image, but if it is nominated by someone else, then you can vote. In this case they are voting for the edited version anyway. --Tony Wills 05:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support edit. --Dori - Talk 19:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I think the edit is good. Nice place by the way. Visited it some ten years ago and liked the climate and atmosphere a lot. A pity with all the tourists, but it is probably hard to get pics without them on this highly visited location. -- Slaunger 22:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> promoted edited version -- carol 13:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)



  • Nomination A rusty fence. --AngMoKio 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Fine and well-balanced picture--B.navez 17:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very very shallow. -- carol 09:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Shallow concerning what? --AngMoKio 12:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The area of focus. I laughed when I saw it because I wondered if the fence were moving very fast that the photograph might have been more in focus. -- carol 12:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't you think your position on DOF is almost religious ? Too much DOF would make it flat.--B.navez 13:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Well it was my intention to have only a small part of the fence in focus. With the speed you are refering to my car photos, I guess...well sometimes I enjoy when my "models" are not moving ;) --AngMoKio 13:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support B.navez said right. And I think that if it would be Pan-Focused(focused only the whole fence), then might be more better for WP in this veiw/composition. But it is no problem for QI. --Fukutaro 14:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fountain at France, EpcotEdit


  • Nomination A fountain in the France pavilion at Epcot. --bdesham 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Contre-jour doesn't usually produce good quality, and that's the case here as well IMO. --Dori - Talk 21:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Just out of curiosity, specifically what is the problem? Composition, or just technical stuff like noise and sharpness? --bdesham 23:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The parts that I don't like are the big spot of overexposed sun, underexposure in many other parts, and the sun flare at the bottom. --Dori - Talk 23:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support No, it's GREAT!. --Beyond silence 23:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • weak   Oppose on technical grounds (sharpness, colour fringing), compositionally I agree with Beyond silence. But I think it is quite challenging to get this kind of shot up to QI levels. Lycaon 09:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think Lycaon put it perfectly: it's certainly a neat photo, but an extremely difficult one to get which could make it to QI. The very nature of the subject and the intended lighting makes it prone to technical issues. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 05:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2.5 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A fleeting blue sky above the JungfraujochEdit


  • Nomination A fleeting blue sky above the Jungfraujoch, CH --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 17:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  Comment I think contrast is a little dark.--Fukutaro 14:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Funny name, beautiful landscape/sky -- noisy and compositionally challenged image. -- carol 07:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It's funny that is opposition with funny name. --Fukutaro 04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Two reasons that I liked the image and then two reasons that I opposed it being in the QI collection -- not as funny as the name. -- carol 12:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Castle in OgrodzieniecEdit


Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> Not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Palace in KurozwekiEdit


  • Nomination Szydłów Castle --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   OpposeSharp forcus, but noisy wall, tilt, and not on the center. --Fukutaro 09:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment What do you mean by noisy wall? I don't think it is tilted; I can certainly upload a 'centered' image - see Image:Palace in Kurozweki - 01.JPG, is it better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I meant it as Castle's wall(surface). There is like this noise on there. --Fukutaro 18:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmmm, I don't see it. Are you sure it's noticeable enough to disqualify the image? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, let see 100%-size image. Your uploaded images may are good useful for WP, but I don't think enough to QI. Maybe, your image's noise, unshrp forcus, these are from parformance of the camera. If you next shooting, try to slowly shutter speed, lower ISO, not use digital zoom, highest image mode, use tripod, as possible. --Fukutaro 03:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 08:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)