Open main menu

Contents

Consensual reviewEdit

File:Rüstkammer, Dresden - burgonet 1.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Rüstkammer, Dresden - Burgonet. Produced in Augsburg, 1594-1599 --Pudelek 12:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline   OpposeToo dark IMO, can't see the details in the lower part --Broc 18:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
      Comment I see details in the lower part - so, I move to discuss --Pudelek 21:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
      OpposeThe atmosphere is nice but it is really too dark --Mbdortmund 11:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Image:Dome of the Clocks, Umayyad Mosque.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination: Dome of the Clocks, Umayyad Mosque, Damascus --Bgag 00:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC) The first of the three spheres (or globes) (right) has a hard perspective problem: it's not spheric !. Same (less)issue with the second (central, which is a little oval too)Only the third (left) is 'round' enough, IMO. Not enough to decline, but maybe others opinions could be interesting.--Jebulon 16:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Comment I don't see a perspective problem, but I do see a notable CCW tilt. --MichaelBueker 15:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Mbdortmund 11:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Juniper Springs, FL 2.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Juniper Springs 2 --Ianare 02:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Unfortunate composition. It takes some time until you understand what you actually see. --AngMoKio 10:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, it does. But that's how it is in real life as well ... this is why I annotated the image. --Ianare 18:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I discern following problems: CA, WB, noise and focus. Lycaon 08:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Realize that all of this image is under a very blue water and a very bright sun. That the bottom is visible is testament to the clarity of the water, but some distortion is to be expected. Look at the fish to see WB, CA is from water, focus is on the source (annotated) and pretty good imo considering it's about 2 meters deep. --Ianare 19:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 21:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Juniper Springs, FL 1.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Juniper Springs 1 --Ianare 02:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Unfortunate composition. It takes some time until you understand what you actually see. --AngMoKio 10:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, it does. But that's how it is in real life as well ... this is why I annotated the image. This one I didn't even realize there was a spring until I looked at it on the computer ! At the time, I just though the turtle's shadow was cool. --Ianare 18:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support No problem with the compo to me. It's a nice and rare picture (particularly sharp, through the water) of an interesting natural phenomenon, well depicted. The turtle and its shadow are lovely. --Jebulon (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   SupportDifficult subject but the result is good. --Archaeodontosaurus 17:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC
  •   Oppose WB and CA. Lycaon 08:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not convinced that it's CA. The blue fringe is below the shadows in every quadrant of the image, so it doesn't radiate out from the centre like typical tranverse CA. It also seems to mainly appear on the floor of the pool; I can see a few shallow dark objects with little or no fringing, despite nearby shadows being strongly fringed (e.g. the dark stump projecting up into the sand patch upper right, and the branches above white sand on the lower left edge). So I suspect the fringing is real, i.e. due to the optical properties of the pool, not the lens. --Avenue 09:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Avenue, realize that all of the image is under a very blue water and a very bright sun. That the bottom is visible is testament to the clarity of the water, but some distortion is to be expected. This one is deeper than the other, about 2.5 - 3 meters deep. --Ianare 19:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Jebulon. --MichaelBueker 15:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support per Jebulon and Archaeodontosaurus. --Avenue 11:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Avenue 11:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Trepanated skull, Bronze Age.JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination A trepanated skull from Bronze Age, exhibited in the Jordan Archaeological Museum. --High Contrast 22:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support I'm very skeptical about this skull, not on your photo that is good. She can see there a lot of restoration in plaster but it has been crudely painted with the brush hairs stuck. I think that the basic skull is true. Or it's a copy and must be reported or it is poorly restored ... and we can not do anything. --Archaeodontosaurus 06:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I send it to CR because of the crop... --Eusebius 07:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree with Eusebius.--Jebulon 14:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - as was said, it's a bad crop. Mattbuck 23:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Elekhh 05:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Lamborghini_Super_Trofeo_22_2010_amk.JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination Panning shot Lamborghini --AngMoKio 15:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion Pic hard to take, I imagine. Good enough IMO. Sharper than your Formel3...--Jebulon 15:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
      Oppose Good, but too tight crop. --kallerna 14:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    agree quite tight but nothing is cut off thus documenting the car and panning adequate. --AngMoKio 14:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support I too have felt that the cropping is tight but given the difficulty of the shot I am willing to make an exception! --Jovianeye 14:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mbdortmund 17:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer 20:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose -- Nice shot, but the extremely tight crop is visually too painful IMO. --Elekhh 00:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support - it doesn't look too good in thumbnail, but larger size looks good. Could always use CS5's voodoo to add a bit to the left hand side. Mattbuck 00:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Mattbuck 00:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Mănăstirea Frumoasa3.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Frumoasa Monastery, Iaşi - view from the west (the bell tower and the walls) --Cezarika1 04:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion It needs perspective correction. —Jagro 12:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    + noisy, colours washed out. --kallerna 15:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    imo acceptable with a little correction --Mbdortmund 11:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

  Info I corrected perspective distortions and improved the colors.--Andrei Stroe 12:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  Support imo OK now --Mbdortmund 14:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)   Support --Cayambe 10:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 14:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Enallagma cyathigerum.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Agrion porte-coupe. --ComputerHotline 19:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Supportgood --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   OpposeBoth head (eye) and tail are OOF. Lycaon 20:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose see Lycaon --Mbdortmund 11:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support The eyes wasn't out of focus. If you look below the eyes you saw the head was in the focus and if you look in front of the eye you saw for example the legs who are in the focus. the Blur of the eyes is due to the texture of the eye. I met the same type of problem when i take picture of Agrion --Croucrou 12:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support OK imo --Ianare 08:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Croucrou 12:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

File:SchachtZeichen, Diergardt 2, I.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination: SchachtZeichen at Zeche Diergardt --Carschten 15:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Review   Comment little bit overcorrected buildings and lanterns on the right side --Tasto 16:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    I don't see overcorrected parts --Carschten 22:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  Comment The building and the lanterns are tilted cw. --Mbdortmund 00:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Mbdortmund 11:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Rombergpark-100516-13077-Oldenburg.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Rhododendron hybrid in Dortmund --Mbdortmund 19:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Supporta little noisy but within limits imo --Ianare 17:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   OpposeExcessive noise and a tad underexposed. Lycaon 21:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   CommentI tried to get it a bit better. I took the picture "inside" the bush against the light because I thought the lighting looks interesting and shows blossom and the leaves. --Mbdortmund 11:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
    •   Neutral It is better but I'm not yet convinced. Lycaon 21:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Lycaon 21:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:MonedaSantiagoChile.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination La Moneda Palace, Santiago (Chile)-- Elemaki 00:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline The compo is not so good IMO (not perfectly centered), and there is something strange with the blue(s) of the sky, but I like this picture. I think a CR would be interesting.--Jebulon 08:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I think it is more or less central, but the way the shadow falls draws the eye away from the centre, which is just as bad. Mattbuck 00:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

File:cytise Laburnum anagyroides.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Leaves, flowers and buds of Laburnum anagyroides in La Rochelle, France--Jebulon 23:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support OK --Mbdortmund 00:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For me the flower is out of the focus. need to be discuss --Croucrou 16:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Croucrou. --Eusebius 19:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
    •   Comment I'm sorry but...hmm...Well... You're right.--Jebulon 16:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - a bit out of focus. Mattbuck 00:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Elekhh 05:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

File:St.PankrazenInStambach-retouched.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination I have uploaded a retouched version with the structures removed. Is this a better one? --Herzi Pinki 20:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support This version is better and IMO it's really enough to be QI. Jebulon could you put notes on the picture to help us to see where you see the process and where is the other structures. Please Herzi Pinki, don't post the same picture two time in the same page (I talk about the picture "St.PankrazenInStambach-retouched.jpg" you post in the discuss place and in the nomination place)--Croucrou 11:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is some remaining structure, a pole and a white spot that could be a pile of sand or similar, but I do not feel this is disturbing so I did not retouch it away. Thanks for support, I'm just beginning to get feedback on my images and some comments sound a bit harsh. I really wanted to give up on this one until I saw your comment. --Herzi Pinki 21:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Needs dust spot removed. Lycaon 11:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC) It's gone ;-) Lycaon 05:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment, Hi Lycaon, can you give me a hint, where you found the dust? The three annotations have been fixed before your comment, and now there was a bird in the upper left corner which I also have removed. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hello Herzi Pinki. Much better now without the "structures", IMO ! Well, Lycaon is right, At high resolution, I can see two or three little dust spots too. I'll try to put them in a yellow square. If removed, I'll promote.--Jebulon 16:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hello Jebulon, I tried, but it was beyond my eyes' capabilities. I have uploaded a new version, where I worked on the areas you marked, but I have to give up here. --Herzi Pinki 19:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok, I removed the marks of dustspots. That's not a real problem.--Jebulon 00:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit too much sky but all in all a good image that deserves the QI status. --High Contrast 19:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support and change from discussion to promotion. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Lycaon (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Turdus fuscater male Paute Ecuador.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Great Thrush (Turdus fuscater) feeding on Aguacate blossoms in southern Ecuador. --Cayambe 16:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline   Support Good. Trace 16:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I hope it isn't my monitor, but I see every pixel in this picture. --Carschten 17:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It looks strange. --Berthold Werner 18:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • then now   Oppose --Carschten 14:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Same as Carschten.   Oppose Sizing the picture down a little–and giving the colors more contrast–should make it fine though. --MichaelBueker 15:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Sorry, I hope it's not my monitor, but I do not see real problems...--Jebulon 16:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 ??? Have you taken a close look on the eye of the bird ? --Berthold Werner 18:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The picture seems to be upscaled by software like from a camera with digital zoom. (Though I thought DSLRs do not have a digital zoom??) One has to downsize by 50% in order to make the pixel effect vanish. If you then crop much of the empty background around the main subject, the picture resolution easily falls below QI minimum of 2MP. That's why I oppose. Otherwise the downscaled picture isn't bad. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support The bird seems to me perfectly normal for this species. There are a few missing but we are not in FPC but IQ. This photo has a real value is a shame to denigrate that. --Archaeodontosaurus 07:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It may be nominated as VI --Berthold Werner 08:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Info The image was not upscaled intentionally. The original picture was cropped with the crop tool in Photoshop, the option "Front Image" being activated, in order to preserve the 3/2 length/width ratio. This makes that the initial file dimensions (number of pixels) are preserved: the cropped image is therefore upscaled. (When cropped with the option "Front Image cleared", the image is not upscaled) by PS.
  •   Question Does anybody know ho to crop with the option "front" image" on, but without upscaling the image? --Cayambe (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
No PS experts here? Strange! --Berthold Werner 08:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
In my case I use CaptureNX, Gimp, digikam and i haven't got PS that's why i don't understand your question. --Croucrou 11:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too pixelised --Croucrou 12:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too pixelised --High Contrast 16:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per pixel texture. ZooFari 20:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 01:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Paeonia lactiflora.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Paeonia lactiflora.--Andrei Stroe 07:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Oversaturated. --kallerna 14:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    I reduced the saturation.--Andrei Stroe 16:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  Comment Details not really sharp --Mbdortmund 01:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  Question don't need a support vote to be here in CR ?--Jebulon 23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  •   Oppose sorry, but even with lower sat. colors looking unnatural to me and I agree Mbdortmunds comment. Maybe try another shot without camera settings "Saturation: High saturation / Sharpness: Hard" --J. Lunau 18:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 14:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Image:Alamo Square, San Francisco.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Painted Ladies, Alamo Square, San Francisco --Bgag 22:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support QI to me.--Jebulon 23:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For me it's a bit tilted and it need to be correct before promotion. I talk about the background, all building of the city is tilted --Croucrou 11:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  Done Tilt corrected. --Bgag 16:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  Info thanks to correct the tilt, but now you add compression artefact line in the sky --Croucrou 22:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support QI to me now. --Cayambe 18:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Isnt this place where "Full house" episode was filmed, it was in starting cadre also ? --PetarM 20:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Herbythyme 14:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Hemiptera sp (1).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Eurydema ornata --ComputerHotline 17:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   OpposeNo sufficient ID. Lycaon 18:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC) ID'ed. Lycaon 18:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Info ID founded. --ComputerHotline 11:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Question is the nominator allowed to put his own nomination in CR without a support vote ? CR is not a Court of Appeal, IMO.--Jebulon 16:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes it is allowed. It is like asking a second opinion. Lycaon 18:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not very sharp. Specular highlights of flash disturb. Lycaon 18:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me. Best picture for this species I suggest going as an image value --Archaeodontosaurus 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lycaon. ZooFari 16:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose OOF. --kallerna 16:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 22:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Hemiptera sp.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Eurydema ornata --ComputerHotline 17:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose No sufficient ID. Lycaon 18:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC) ID'ed. Lycaon 18:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Info ID founded. --ComputerHotline 11:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Questionis the nominator allowed to put his own nomination in CR without a support vote ? CR is not a Court of Appeal, IMO.--Jebulon 16:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
    • See above. Lycaon 18:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Mostly OOF. Specular highlights of flash disturb. Lycaon 18:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unsharp. ZooFari 16:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 22:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

File:trawlerstade.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination a trawler in La Rochelle, France, supporting the local Rugby Union team (colours, coat of arms).--Jebulon 14:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good. --Cayambe 07:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
      Oppose I find it a bit too blurry and unsharp. In addition, the ship itself is not completely pictured - the mast is cropped. --High Contrast 15:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support for me this photo is enough sharp --Pudelek 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Vallée_des_Contamines-Montjoie.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Panoramic of the Contamines-Montjoie valley, France.--Trace 21:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Lovely composition, and well annotated, but spoilt IMO by the camera's inability to handle the bright sky (particularly over Mt Joly on the right, but with some posterisation extending even halfway across the image). Sorry. --Avenue 03:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
      Support yeah, of course, the brightness on the right is bad, but apart from that the qualiaty and composition are imo very good. --

Carschten 15:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

  •   Oppose per Avenue. Sorry.--Jebulon 23:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 21:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Snowflake moray, Echidna nebulosa in Kona May 2010.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Snowflake moray, Echidna nebulosa in Kona--Mbz1 02:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Comment Good quality for an underwater shot, but maybe not the best composition - while hiding in the rocks is a typical behaviour, a slightly lower viewing angle might have looked better. Still, it's a difficult image to get at all... Adam Cuerden 03:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
    I almost put my hand to his face and BTW his teeth that are clearly seen on the image. If I have put the camera lower, he could have bitten me.--Mbz1 13:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice shot of difficult subject. --Avenue 21:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support prolly not FP but meets QI standards --Ianare 08:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Good. --High Contrast 20:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very poor quality for an easy shot. Moray eels rarely venture from their hideouts and are rather docile as they are often fed by divers. No mitigation really. Lycaon 09:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It is actually a very good quality for a very difficult shot.--Mbz1 13:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 22:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Zaltbommel - Gasthuisstraat 24 2250.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Dutch national monument from the 16th century. --NormanB 22:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline *   Support Nice Picture of good quality to me, but I like to see, what others think about the blur on top of the roof --J. Lunau 09:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A bit too unsharp, I would say. --A.Ceta 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose looks distorded (tilted) from front to back. The whole façade doesn't look "flat" or vertical, due to the series of photographs IMO--Jebulon 22:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose see Jebulon --Mbdortmund 08:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Mosquée Al-Adiliyah.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Al-Adiliyah mosque, Aleppo. --Eusebius 09:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support All is good IMO.--Jebulon 15:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Slight CCW tilt. Lycaon 11:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Not easy, the minaret is not straight (there is an angle around balcony level). Does the original version look tilted to you (this one is an update)? --Eusebius 12:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll check. Lycaon 12:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Quality to me - good quality compared to some here --Herbythyme 18:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Phalacrocorax brasilianus (Costa Rica).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Phalacrocorax brasilianus in Costa Rica. Lycaon 00:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   SupportWish the head was more in focus but QI to me, it is a beautiful shot --Letartean 04:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree however the head is not in focus which for QI should be important --Herbythyme 14:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support QI to me without doubt, even with the little focus problem. J. Lunau (talk)
    • I would suggest that correct focus was a bare minimum for a "quality image"? --Herbythyme 14:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree, focus is a bare minimum. But you have to consider how much focus is possible and if maybe the blur gives an idea of movement. This shoot was taken with focal length 500 mm, 1/320 sec, so I guess, blur comes from birds movement. IMHO in this case blur is acceptable, because very hard to avoid. Maybe it still can be reduced a bit more, even it is already a sharpened version of the photo --J. Lunau 17:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)