Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 2008

Consensual review edit

File:BergiselInnsbruck1.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination View of Bergisel ski jumping hill in Innsbruck (Austria) from the South --Böhringer 20:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support nice composition, would be nice to have a picture of the changing colours during the night, too --Mbdortmund 20:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dull colors, main subject too small. Yann 10:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Colors are a bit blunt. Size of the subject is OK, puts the subject nicely into scale. --Siipikarja 20:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support not bad --Pudelek 10:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Subject is not clearly visible --Pymouss44 21:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Don't like colors, composition nor the technical quality. --Spock lone wolf 10:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Thermocouple Multiplexer Agilent.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Thermocouple Multiplexer Card --Harke 20:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support QI. --Karora 05:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background needs cleaning up. Lycaon 07:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Background is neutral enough to be acceptable. --Eusebius 09:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 12:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:MilfordSoundStirlingFalls_gobeirne_EDIT.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Stirling Falls, Milford Sound, New Zealand (new proposition after colour balance) --Sting 00:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support interesting enough, IMHO --Mbdortmund 22:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting but too noisy. Lycaon 08:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is taken from the front of a launch nosing into a 189 metre waterfall, so it's a very difficult shot. I've been there and there's a heck of a lot of water flying around in this place. My own photo is an unworthy comparison. On the other hand it does appear to have gained some noticeable noise, particularly on the right underneath the mossy patch, when compared against the original image, and a white balance adjustment should be able to do better than that. --Karora 12:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 12:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Seiffen_Kirche_01_(MK).jpg edit

 

  •   Oppose Agree this is an unfortunate crop. --Karora 13:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunate crop (especially considering it being a composite image). Lycaon 09:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    Your right! I thought that this argument will come. Sadly even the originals have no more space to the ground. The church stands in a kind of ditch so you can´t see more of the church --Leviathan1983 09:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose However if you did left more space down there, it would be obvious in what position the church is and it wouldn't seem to be cut off by photographer. --Spock lone wolf 12:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 12:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Zwinger gardens.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination the gardens behind the Zwinger palace, Dresden -- Adiel lo 16:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Neutral Good framing and a nice shot, but perhaps it could benefit from some careful sharpening, and please geocode the image. --Karora 07:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info I've added the location and sharpened it a little bit (I hope it's ok, I'm no photoshop expert). Adiel lo 17:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Just right --Karora 00:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks overexposed. --Eusebius 12:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support looks fine to me --Ianare 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 12:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas_Bresson_-_Cour-int_(by).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Courtyard of Roppe fortifications. --ComputerHotline 16:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Fits the QI criteria. --Coyau 02:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I withdraw my assessment, per Eusebius. --Coyau 10:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm afraid the motion of the trees ruined the merge. --Eusebius 12:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice light and colours : it's all right for me. Pymouss44 21:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per eusebius, you can see false shadows on the tall trees on left --Ianare 23:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like the composition but the false trees are not good. Can you fix it? -- Pro2 20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Maremma panorama from buratta.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination 3-pics panorama of Maremma (Italy) --Alejo2083 12:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Fix the black areas! -- Pro2 16:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC); did you mean the small dark area on top?
  • I cropped it away! and I added geotags --Alejo2083 13:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose edges severely Out Of Focus, image is not sharp --Ianare 07:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Also, I think there is something like a water drop on the lens. --Eusebius 08:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:San Francesco, Pisa, interno.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Church San Francesco, Pisa, Italy --Lucarelli 23:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   NeutralNice image, but I think the effects of the light from the windows seems to give too much glare to the rest of the image a bit much for my taste. --Karora 07:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose blown windows, noisy --ianaré (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Bamberger Dom BW 6.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Bamberg Cathedral --Berthold Werner 12:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment perspektive should be corrected --Mbdortmund 19:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment Perspective seems good. A slight trim of the pink area at the top on the right-hand side is now needed, but I wonder if you could also go back to the original and apply the cumulative changes to that, as there seems to be a small loss of definition in the corners that may be avoidable --Karora 00:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose perspective is distorted, and the top of the tower is blurry --Ianare 07:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Assisi San Francesco BW 10.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Assisi,Basilica di San Francesco, Portal of the lower church --Berthold Werner 10:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • I think that such things shoud be photographed in a way to show it's symmetry. Was it impossible here? --Sfu 09:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   QuestionHm? What exactly do you mean? --Berthold Werner 11:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    Framing is asymmetrical. I can see a part of the column on the right but not on the left. The same with sculpture. If croped I think it sould be to tight. --Sfu 05:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with sfu about symmetry --Ianare 07:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Monoski.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination A monoski. --Eusebius 12:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Neutral Can you re-take in better lighting? --Karora 07:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question Because of the reflection, or because you'd like it more exposed? --Eusebius 16:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment The reflection isn't great, but mainly because the lighting is uneven, making the lower half very dim. --Karora 23:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info I've tried to make the lighting more even through postprocessing. The result is lighter (closer to the true aspect of the object), but the reflection is unchanged and the postprocessing induced some slight luma noise in the lower part. --Eusebius 20:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support good enough --Ianare 07:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Apis mellifera Portrait.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Common Honeybee. --High Contrast 08:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose It's got good drama, but when you get down to it only the eye is in focus, and not even all of that, and it still only barely makes the 2mp limit. --Karora 12:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it is good enough to be QI. 2,5MP are enough, too -- Pro2 12:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose DOF too shallow, sorry --Ianare 07:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Johan_Ludvig_Runeberg_statue.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Statue of J.L. Runeberg. --P7r7 18:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Wow. Guess I don't need to visit in person now :-) --Karora 06:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  Oppose Underexposed and tight crop. Lycaon 07:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  Oppose I don't like that very tight crop on the top. I like it better now. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  Support Just for the record, while I agree the tight crop doesn't look so good in a thumbnail, viewed larger it looks fine. Bearing in mind that this is a vertical panorama I think it's not reasonable to expect a photo of the sky to be added on to the stack. --Karora 10:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  Comment I recreated the panorama. It's now not so strictly cropped. Brightness was also adjusted. P7r7 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  •   Comment Light and crop are much better, but there remains the stitching errors on the lower legs/feet of the statue. Lycaon 18:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    •   Comment Actually I think that stitching error was not there before, anyhow I fixed it. Thanks for all the constructive criticism. P7r7 (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine now. Lycaon 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done! --Siipikarja 10:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Musiksaal von 1896 Villa Grünau .jpg edit

 

  • Nomination music hall in 1896 in neo-renaissance --Böhringer 20:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Tolles Bild, brauchte man da keine Fotoerlaubnis? --Mbdortmund 23:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC) * nein, heute ist das Gemeindehaus in der Villa untergebracht. Der Bürgermeister hat mich pesönlich eingelassen und freut sich über den Artikel, der in nächster Zeit noch geschrieben und bebildert wird. l.g. --Böhringer 10:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Dann klar QI --Mbdortmund 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Most of it is unsharp, significant overexposure. --Eusebius 11:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Neutral From an encyclopedic point of view, this is ein tolles Bild indeed. The overexposed parts are almost unavoidable IMO, due to the (too big) contrasts between dark & light in the room. For a pano of 16 images, the sharpness is insufficient. -- MJJR 20:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose should be sharper, blown highlights --Ianare 07:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Haliaeetus albicilla LC0194.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination White-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) --LC-de 22:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   SupportCorrect exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 10:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The feet are cut off. Good otherwise, sorry. --Ianare 14:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ianare. --Eusebius 09:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Ibis rouge (by).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Eudocimus ruber --ComputerHotline 07:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Quality looks good. I wouldn't have centred the composition though. --Eusebius 12:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Needs a thorough crop IMO. Lycaon 08:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
      Comment I'd also support a cropped version. --Eusebius 11:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support not bad, but would be better cropped. --ianaré (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose red channel on the main subject severely blown. Main subject takes up little space in the frame. --Dschwen 14:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Dschwen, loss of information on the red channel, which is significant here. --Eusebius 14:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Chartres - cathédrale - arcs-boutants de la nef.JPG edit

 

  • This picture has been taken with a deliberate angle, I really don't think perspective correction would be a good thing here. Feel free to propose a DW, though, if you have an idea about it. --Eusebius 13:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you're right and work on the perspective wouldn't help (I admit I tried and couldn't make it work :-), but it just doesn't look like much of anything as-is. Perhaps you can persuade someone else to endorse it. --Karora 23:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:A black pearl and a shell.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Black pearl and its shell by Mbz1 --Anna reg 19:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion {{{2}}}

File:Adelaide Zoo Silver Gull - pelican enclosure.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae (Silver Gull) - Peripitus 13:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Very nice image -- Pro2 15:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question Isn't the head overexposed? --Eusebius 11:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Lighting is definitely not optimal but I think the photo makes a good enough compromise between light and dark areas. --Ianare 17:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment here I was trying to get the subject to pop out from the background while keeping as much feather detail as possible. It looks much better printed than on my LCD screen - Peripitus 04:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ophrys bombyliflora (flower).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Ophrys bombyliflora in Mallorca --Lycaon 22:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment The sharp part could be cropped tighter imo --Berthold Werner 06:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   OpposeI don't mind the crop; I do think that all of the sepals should all be in focus. -- carol 18:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment Request second opinion. The flower is about 5 mm across. Lycaon 10:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The smallness in width of the flower makes the depth of field too small for the whole upper part of the plant to be in focus? There are other images of this flower which have all of those parts in focus.... -- carol (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't see anything wrong with the focus, the sepals are behind/lower than the labellum --Ianare 17:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Focus OK. Yann 08:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Hôtel des Bergues.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Hôtel des Bergues, Geneva. Yann 12:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   OpposePoor composition : the flag is in the way --Ianare 18:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  Comment That was on purpose... Yann 20:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes I assumed it was, but it hides too much of the building IMO --Ianare 22:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support IMHO technically OK, composition following acceptable idea --Mbdortmund 23:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the composition with the flag but I think it is not so good for Wikipedia. (And two are too much.) --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support nice photo, for me composition is OK --Pudelek 09:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support This is QI, not FP. Technical quality is OK. Lycaon 10:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Good Quality, flag is ok. -- Pro2 19:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Menden-20070426 103-DSC 6794-Fachwerk.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Timber framing in Menden, Germany --Mbdortmund 00:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Neutral doorway is tilted, good otherwise --Ianare 04:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC) uploaded new version (see below)
  •   Support The whole building is tilted ;-) --Berthold Werner 16:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's why I used the doorway as a reference point. It would be a very easy fix --Ianare 18:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Would you be so nice to post a proposal, Ianare, even the road was not straight but leaded down to the right...

--Mbdortmund 23:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  •   Done I really like this image BTW. My initial vote was only to encourage it to be even better ;-) --Ianare 08:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
But now is the left part of the door tilted ;-) --Berthold Werner 06:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If my modification is undone I will change my vote to support --Ianare 14:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Until now there is no vote from you. --Berthold Werner 07:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't vote on my own edit --Ianare 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support OK. Yann 08:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 09:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Krnov castle - entrance.jp edit

 

  • Nomination Castle in Krnov, Czech Silesia - entrance --Pudelek 07:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Neutral it's a little noisy, but otherwise good. Let's see what others have to say --Ianare 18:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment Noise level is ok for me, but I think I see some kind of "aliasing" on the border of the window/doors arches. I'm not sure about it, though. --Eusebius 07:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. Yann 08:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Pyrrhosoma nymphula-1 (by).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Pyrrhosoma nymphula --ComputerHotline 16:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support ok imo -- Pro2 11:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Flat light and insufficient sharpness Compare with current VI. Lycaon 22:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Would not support for VI or FP but I think it's good enough for QI. --Ianare 18:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Neutral not bad, but DOF a bit shallow and there is gras or something else between camera and object. --Mbdortmund 23:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Distracting straw in the foreground. --Slaunger 18:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for QI. Yann 08:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Allium triquetrum (inflorescense).jpg edit

File:Allium triquetrum (inflorescense).jpg   The original has subsequently been over-written with a copy of the cropped version

  • Nomination Allium triquetrum in Mallorca. Lycaon 19:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
Original version
  •   Support Is an onion by any other name still as beautiful.... I marked this for discussion because while looking at the thumbnail, there was a scroll condition that made this image appear as if it had been cropped at the "fading away" part of the stem. I might have been disappointed to find it was not cropped there and would like to discuss it.... -- carol 11:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I really am unsure if the crop improved the image or not. -- carol (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It may have. I didn't consider that crop. Thanks. Lycaon 14:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Edited version
I have stricken my vote. If I remember correctly, much of the integrity of the reviews here was achieved by not voting for your own image, nomination or edited version and relying (confidently) on the opinions of others. Such behavior is a given for some of those with a certain kind of upbreeding in our species, perhaps (obviously) not a guarrentee of the whole group though. 'Tis easy and it also feels good, please feel free to experiment with this type of good conduct on yourself. -- carol (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, fully agree. Lycaon 20:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support (the new crop). The crop at the fade point really makes it stronger. --Karora 09:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support cropped version --Ianare 14:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • weak  Support cropped version. Very dreamy, still, the right side is too tight. _Fukutaro 15:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Very articulate review and you are correct. I had some serious problems with the "professional looking" software I use while making this crop. Perhaps maintaining the aspect ratio was not so important. (I have heard that learning English is easy, you make it appear that this is true.) -- carol (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Lycaon 09:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Canadian geese and goslings in GGP.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Canadian geese. --Mbz1 23:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Way too overprocessed, oversharpening creating artifacts (see grass) --Spock lone wolf 07:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    New version was uploaded. Please notice the small white particles in the chicks feather and at the ground is bread that somebody was feeding the birds. --Mbz1 18:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose it's still too oversharpened (although improved). Can you fix ? --Ianare 18:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oversharpened where? Thank you.--Mbz1 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Over the entire image it seems, but it's most noticeable on the chicks and the grass --Ianare 22:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, the grass was not sharpened at all. I cannot remember about chicks, maybe I sharpened them a little bit. I did make the image darker. Anyway thank you for taking your time to review the image.--Mbz1 04:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • maybe contrast adjustment ? --Ianare 05:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 09:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Sinaia steam engine 230039 cropped.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination A steam engine exhibited in Sinaia railway station, Romania. Andrei Stroe 17:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Question What is the greyish gradient on the barrier in the bottom right of the picture? --Coyau 21:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure. It could be the edge of the train window, through which I took the picture.Andrei S. 17:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info I made a crop, so it's not visible. --Andrei Stroe 23:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like it better without the gradiant, even if it makes the crop tight. --Coyau (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Good, but just. Could be sharper --Ianare 07:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Image is tilted to the right. Now it's ok for me. --Afrank99 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info I fixed the tilt.--Andrei Stroe 10:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  Comment I think you corrected it too much: see File:Sinaia steam engine 230039 cropped untilted.jpg Yann 09:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 09:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Mamila area by night.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Nightshot of Mamilla area in Jerusalem. --Adiel lo 06:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Neutral looks like the exposure time was maybe too long, but hard to tell --ianaré (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support good enough for QI. --Afrank99 08:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Dougga 05.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Temple of Saturn, Dougga --Bgag 12:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment What is the green line on the crowd of the upper left? _Fukutaro 15:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't know, probably trees. --Bgag 16:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Neutral looks OK for the most part, but I'm seeing some artefacts at the top of the columns --Ianare 13:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have imported a new version. --Bgag 21:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support better now --Ianare 05:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Contaflex BW 1.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Contaflex III with Pro-Tessar 1:4 115mm --Berthold Werner 19:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Nice setup (pleasant background and lighting), good image quality. --Dschwen 20:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Does the tilt of the image serve any purpose? Except the tilt very good. --Afrank99 08:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It makes the composition look more dynamic and visually balances off the big lens barrel
  •   Support obvious QI --Ianare 19:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Illinois_State_Senate.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Illinois State Senate. same here. --Dschwen 21:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Difficult shooting situation but it's too blurry, sorry --Ianare 05:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Given the 12MP resolution I do not think it is too blurry at all, you can even read the little "Minority" brass plaque. --Dschwen 12:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support It doesn't get much better than that. QI for me (easily).--Afrank99 20:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks amply sharp enough - Peripitus 04:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Cividale 0904 View from Ponte del Diavolo.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Cividale del Friuli, view from Ponte del Diavolo --Aconcagua 09:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Ok. --Berthold Werner 11:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment Brilliant composition and nice colors. However, appears to be a bit blurry in full size. --Siipikarja 20:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. Yann 08:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautifully done. --Karora 10:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. --High Contrast 19:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Volvox.svg edit

 

  • Nomination Volvox --MichaelFrey 22:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Well done -- Pro2 17:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Doesn't show depth properly. Lycaon 08:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice! --Gummitierchen 17:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Supertalent USB-Stick.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination USB flash drive --Afrank99 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Although the chain isn't the subject, it is distracting, because some of it is cropped out. Either take the chain off or take a picture with all of the chain included. --Jolly Janner 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I cannot agree on that, please discuss. --Afrank99 06:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, in my opinion you need everything in the picture, because it is all important. There's no point in taking a photo of a building if you can only see half of its face. I hope that you understand my opinion more now. --Jolly Janner 22:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand why the chain of a USB stick could be important. Actually, the attention of the viewer should be directed to the stick, and not to the chain, so the stick must be the prominent part of the picture. I like it that way - I don't necessarily need a QI tag. --Afrank99 08:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
That is exactly the point. The chain is not important, but the way it is cropped it distracts the eye, which wonders where it ends thus taking focus away from the actual subject. With a tighter crop, where the chain only intersects the image edge once it would be less prominent and the actual subject would get more focus for the viewer as it deserves. --Slaunger 09:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Take another picture without the chain. The chain is attached to it, so it is all one object. --Jolly Janner 15:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I also find that the cropped chain is too distracting to pass my QI bar. --Slaunger 21:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think simply editing out the loop of chain in the top-right corner will improve things: with the chain leading cleanly out of the picture, it should look acceptable. --Carnildo 23:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    •   Comment I agree. --Slaunger 18:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • better now? --Afrank99 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support yes, it's better --Ianare 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Good quality photograph. Chain is no longer distracting, but it's a shame it's not all visible. --Jolly Janner 18:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good now for me. --Slaunger 21:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Vergleich_zwischen_Manga_und_Foto.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Comparison between photo and drawing in anime/manga style --Niabot 21:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Clean drawing, good photo (like the lighting of the face). --Dschwen 21:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment the drawing looks a little bit distorted to me. I would like to discuss it. --LC-de 09:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    •   Comment Can you define, what exactly looks wrong? Your explanation let's me in the dark. --Niabot 17:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
      • As I wrote you in the german WP: Keeping the original proportions and symmetrie of the face, just lowering the eyes gives me the impression of a somewhat deformed face. --LC-de 22:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 11:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Petrified tree in Curio Bay.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Petrified tree log at low tide --Karora 10:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Ok. --Berthold Werner 12:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, I think we can afford to take some time on this one and talk about the low depth of field. --Dschwen 15:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm even less happy with the weird waviness of the horizon. Lycaon 17:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --Ianare 22:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I can probably fix the horizon, which is distortion from my lens, but DoF fix will have to wait another 20 years for my next visit... :-)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Passerculus sandwichensis CT2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area, Quebec, Canada --Cephas 16:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose overprocessed --Ianare 18:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question Can you upload the original image ? --Ianare 05:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support What a difference ! Very nice now. --Ianare 01:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 11:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Cygnus olor LC0201.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mute swan (Cygnus olor), head details --LC-de 15:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Perfect exposure and background. --Afrank99 19:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Leaving playing card icons after the support of this image...? -- carol 19:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mbdortmund 23:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 11:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Clematis montana "rubens" flower.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Clematis montana flower. --Jolly Janner 21:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Nice colors, but main flower out of focus. Yann 07:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but overexposed. Yann 20:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good & crisp to me --Herbythyme 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose like Yann --Mbdortmund 23:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Asparagus stipularis (detail).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Grey asparagus (Asparagus stipularis) in Mallorca, Spain. Lycaon 16:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Good DOF but because of the angle many of the flowers/buds are OOF --Ianare 15:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment That was on purpose. Lycaon 15:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Coccoloba uvifera flower.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Seagrape flowers --Ianare 10:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Request please review --Ianare 15:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me. Lycaon 15:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Bombycilla garrulus CT2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bohemian Waxwing (Bombycilla garrulus) Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area, Quebec, Canada. --Cephas 01:49, 9 May 2009 (CEST)
  • Promotion
  • Better, but still overprocessed. Can you upload the original image ? --Ianare 05:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Good now --Ianare 20:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Original is very good already --G.Hagedorn 16:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good shot indeed, but the shadows are too disturbing for me. The image as a whole is too dark. --Eusebius 11:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

File:HomePlace.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination "The Homeplace", a recreation of an 1850-style farm, at the Land between the Lakes National Recreation Area. --JMSchneid 14:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support good composition, sharp --Ianare 05:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose At least one dust spot in the sky. --Eusebius 10:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Removed two spots, one dust the other unknown.--JMSchneid 16:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
      •   Comment OK. --Eusebius 18:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

File:PairOfMules.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination A pair of mules. --JMSchneid 12:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support interesting black and white composition, good details and atmosphere --Mbdortmund 12:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No reason for desaturation. Also blown sky and highlights. Lycaon 09:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Really nice atmosphere and composition. Pymouss44 21:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as Lycaon --Karora 09:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
      Support Though I'm still curious about the desaturation. --Karora 10:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
      Oppose OK, now I've seen the actual colour version (via private e-mail - thanks) I would far prefer that. I think the B&W presentation is cute, but that kind of post-processing is possible for anyone, and what we should have here is the colour version, with the B&W as an 'other versions available'. --Karora 08:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I should have done this earlier. I looked up the original and found that I had a RAW file as well as the JPG. I processed a new image from RAW and replaced the blown version. JMSchneid 15:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support much better --Ianare 07:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment now to dark for my taste, the main objects were much better in the first exposure, you could repare the blown out sky without making the whole picture darker.--Mbdortmund 12:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Under-saturated. --Jolly Janner 13:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment A comment on the procedure here. This is a pain for determining supports and opposes. Support was given to a different version. Does that support apply to the new version? It is easier to determine the outcome of the consensual review if an altered version is uploaded and displayed with the original nomination. It is even easier to allow the first version to fail (if that is what is going to happen) and nominate the second version, but this might be too challenging to suggest.... -- carol (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Same applies for the World Health Org building, higher on the same page. --Eusebius 12:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support come on guys - this is not about wether you like b/w images or not, it is about the (technical) quality of the image, and this is an image of extraordinary quality in terms of sharpness, detail, composition. --Afrank99 16:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia and we should encourage colour photographs, because they are more educational. Jolly Janner 16:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I really do hope you're kidding. Color photographs are not very good in educating on black/white photography. By the way, this is not an encyclopedia, this is Wikimedia Commons, a media library. --Afrank99 20:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Black and white photographs are useful for educating about black and white photography, of course. This photograph was taken with a colour camera and there is absolutely no need to desaturate it. In doing so, you can't see the colours on the horse etc. Jolly Janner 20:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you may mean say "mule", rather than "horse". Wsiegmund 20:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I wonder if you might be willing to upload a color version, as well as this one? Interest has been expressed in that image. The "other_versions" field of the Information template may be used to link versions. Wsiegmund 20:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Done! Now everyone will know the color of his hat, shirt and pants! :) --JMSchneid 00:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Yann 08:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support B/W version is superior, in my opinion. The color version draws too much attention to the man's clothing. Wsiegmund 04:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote? Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

File:GIPE25 - Ardea cinerea (by-sa).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Ardea cinerea --ComputerHotline 19:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support quality image --Ianare 17:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose weak composition. -- carol 19:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw Eusebius 09:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Illinois_House_of_Representatives_detail.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Illinois House of Representatives. --Dschwen 21:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support OK --Ianare 05:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough for me (pose a bit too long, no tripod?). --Eusebius 11:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Focus is on the bottom row of desks which is pretty much perfectly sharp. The image has 12MP so there would be plenty room to downsample if you enjoy looking at 1:1.--Dschwen 14:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
      •   Comment It's not so sharp and I don't think the focus should be there, I think it should be on the second row instead. --Eusebius 15:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Mh yeah, you do have a point there. Off to Springfield for a third time... --Dschwen 03:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw Eusebius 09:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

File:RubyThroatedHummingbird(Crop).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Archilochus colubris female--JMSchneid 00:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • My first reaction was wow. But the pic is pretty heavily denoised. Did your camera do that, or do you have a less processed version? --Dschwen 01:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment The original is a jpg and the EXIF indicates that in camera noise reduction was off. A levels adjustment was made on the right of the histogram and possible a slight unsharp mask. This file is cropped from the file File:RubyThroated Hummingbird.jpg. The adjustments were made to that file. Except for brightness this image looks like the original when examined up to 100%.--JMSchneid 03:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment is that denoising, or an artifact of the flash? Looks technically QI to me, and an impressive shot, for sure. --Karora 11:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment Flash was used. --JMSchneid 20:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support despite some apparent weirdness in the post processing. It's an impressive shot ! --Ianare 16:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Wildpferde Tripsdrill.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination nice picture --null 11:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment This is already a FP, what's the point of nominating it here? Yann 21:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok IMHO --Berthold Werner 06:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose FP is not QI. Quality fails. Sharpness is insufficient and light is only so-so. Lycaon 06:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Lycaon -- Pro2 12:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Because of composition and atmosphere --Mbdortmund 21:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lycaon --Ianare 22:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Thermohygrometer rotronic A1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Hygrometer --Harke 18:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Looks ok. --Eusebius 18:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't like the blotchy background. Lycaon 19:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    I have no problem with the background. It could be removed quite easily I guess, but honestly I don't think it is worth the effort. It is rather clean, neutral, and shows a soft, natural shadow. --Eusebius 13:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support background doesn't bother me --Ianare 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Melospiza melodia CT.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Song Sparrow, Melospiza melodia Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area, Quebec, Canada --Cephas 22:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support cute --Mbdortmund 21:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unfortunate crop --Ianare 11:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Crop, bit overprosessed (noisy). --kallerna 11:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Camp celtique de la Bure - baraque 1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Archaeologists barrack in Camp celtique de la Bure. --Coyau 20:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support good --Ianare 01:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lots of CA in the sky and noise in the shady parts are too disturbing for QI IMO. Lycaon 22:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
      Neutral still not 100% but not bad enough to oppose ;-). Lycaon 08:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info Denoised from RAW file. I don't know how to fix CA. --Coyau 19:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Temple de Mînâkshî01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Meenakshi Amman temple, Madurai --Bgag 23:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline a little tilted --Pudelek 14:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 'Dirty' (posterized?) sky. Also some CA. Lycaon 22:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Libellula quadrimaculata 04 (MK).JPG edit

 

  • Nomination a Four-spotted Chaser (Libellula quadrimaculata) --Leviathan1983 12:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 16:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Chaotic composition, very little on focus -- Alvesgaspar 19:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - As Alvesgaspar. Lycaon 08:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Dijon - Palais des ducs - Minerve crop 1.jpg edit

 

  I withdraw my nominationEusebius 07:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Stalactite (by).JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Stalactite in an old NATO station --ComputerHotline 08:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose I find the composition distrating, the stalactite is hanging out of nowhere. --Spock lone wolf 10:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I am not sure about the quality (noise?), but I like the composition. Yann 19:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 07:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Trier Sankt Maximin BW 1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Church of former St. Maximin's Abbey in Trier, Germany --Berthold Werner 13:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose soft focus --Ianare 01:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support still a little soft at the top of the building (maybe due to the lens?) but noticeably better now. --Ianare 19:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 07:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Sayornis phoebe CT3.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area, Quebec, Canada --Cephas 10:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment I removed the noise, should be okay now. -- Pro2 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice shot. --kallerna 13:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ianare 21:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 07:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Dendrocopos major on ripped pig kallerna.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Great Spotted Woodpecker (Dendrocopos major) on ripped pig. kallerna 19:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support strange enough --Mbdortmund 12:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Strange and special, yes, but quality (e.g. sharpness, light) is insufficient for a QI label. Lycaon 11:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw --Eusebius 07:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Fronton Cathédrale Saint-Pierre Genève.jpg edit

 

  I withdraw my nomination

File:2008-07-11 Chapel Hill bus passing South Building.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Chapel Hill Transit --Specious 21:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   OpposeNice picture (though unsharp), but where's the rest of the bus? --Afrank99 06:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support - Not the best crop, but good quality. This art of taking pictures is not easy but this is quite a good work -- Pro2 12:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support As Pro2 already said: crop my not be optimal, nevertheless image quality is convincing. --High Contrast 13:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor crop, the bush is in the way, and not very sharp. For such a common subject I would expect a better image. --Ianare 01:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ianare. --Eusebius 07:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Wrist and hand deeper palmar dissection-numbers.svg edit

 

You can click on the English or Spanish version for the text depending on your language and it will show it. I nominated this, because it is the "master" version and doesn't show a preference between English or Spanish language. --Jolly Janner 16:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
To be useful it should include a key. It can be imported from the localized files, and possibly put inside a {{Hidden}} in order to preserve a decent appearance of the image page. --Eusebius 16:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  Done. --Jolly Janner 22:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw --Eusebius 10:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

File:World Health Organisation building south face.jpg edit

   

Original version (left)
To make these kinds of edits really work with the review system here, please revert to the original nomination and upload the edited version into a different namespace and display the edited version here. Not everyone is as mentally agile as Dschwen surely must be and can remember what the original looked like. Opinions of support or oppose can then be made for specific versions and the person who is doing the work of tallying the votes (not easy, btw, and this kind of reviewing does not help) will know for certain what has been supported or not. -- carol (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Please nominate only one version. How can one vote when there are several versions to vote? Please withdraw this entry and renominate which ever version you think is better - as you have apparently done above. --Siipikarja 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you can oppose because I have proposed an alternate version. You can vote for each of the version or none. Yann 22:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Comment You think or know? If you think, you cannot revoke my vote as you have done. Please point where in QI rules it is said that I may not oppose based on duplicate nomination. See QI guidelines and QI rules. In guidelines it says: "Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is frowned upon." I'm not saying that it is forbidden to have multiple versions under one consensual review item (as nothing is said about this in the rules), but if you have the same image both in review section and consensual review section (as user Dschwen pointed out below), then either of them should be withdrawn in my opinion. Just for the sake of keeping the voting process simple. Perhaps I used the word "version" a little inconsiderably in my previous comment, I should have used word "entry". Sorry for the confusion. Anyhow, perhaps the QI rules should specify in more detail what is the policy with duplicate versions / entries. Especially, to which version does the QICtotal template apply when there are multiple versions of a single entry under on consensual review item? To avoid any further hassle, I revoke my vote. --Siipikarja 08:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The edited version was declined. I didn't revoke your vote. And yes, your comment was not clear: I understood that you oppose that I proposed an alternate version below. Yann 21:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Clouds are indeed not correct: or too white or too grey. --Estrilda 22:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I withdraw my nomination

Edited version (right)

  I withdraw my nomination

File:Thomas Bresson - Pres-de-entree (by).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Near the main gate in the Bois d'Oye fortifications --ComputerHotline 07:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support very good --Pudelek 20:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)<
  •   Oppose Barrel distortion is disturbing. Lycaon 07:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose White balance. --Eusebius 10:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Dijon - Palais des ducs - Minerve crop 2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination One out of three crops. If one gets more support, I'll withdraw the others. --Eusebius 21:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support celle-ci me plait le plus, mais à mon avis la meilleure prise de vue serait comme l'originale mais légèrement décalée : en haut montrant l'horloge en entier, en bas coupée entre la devise et les fenêtres. --Ianare 20:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Would be my choice as well, I think. I had even forgotten it was a clock... Now I remember that I had to crop it because of a bad reflection. I deliberately wanted to keep the "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité". --Eusebius 21:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment It still has the purple/green chromatic aberrations that it had when you nominated it in January (mainly apparent on sides of downpipes, and flag poles). Maybe you could do a little bit of a clean-up before getting a QI medal :-) --Tony Wills 11:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    OK, now I remember why I have three versions of this picture... I had forgotten about the first nomination. I suggest you simply oppose, because I'm unable to remove the CA (mainly because I barely see it, and also because I just don't know how to do it). --Eusebius 11:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Eusebius 10:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Dijon - Palais des ducs - Minerve crop 3.jpg edit

 

  I withdraw my nomination--Eusebius 10:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darkling beetle.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Darkling beetle --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support sharp. --Afrank99 09:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Don't agree. Sharpness, DOF and lighting insufficient for QI. Lycaon 12:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
      Oppose Poor lighting, sharpness could be better. Kaldari 18:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment At 4mm, sharpness can't be better without a better macro lens --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 06:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Musei capitolini - Colosso di Costantino.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Parts of the Statue of Constantine in Rome --Alejo2083 09:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Too soft focus --Ianare 02:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info I improved it by a sharpening filter, is it better now? --Alejo2083 08:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Sharpening is mainly for bringing out details on a well focused image, it won't help as much if the focus has problems. --Ianare 10:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • well, out-of-focus images look blurred and sharpening can make them sharper. It can't add details that the original blurring effect removed, but in this case there are none (considering the high resolution of the pic, too). Just to know for the future: can you please explain me where you see there are focusing problems? I can't see any! Thanks a lot!! --Alejo2083 11:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Gentiana dinarica.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Blooming Gentiana dinarica --Chrumps 18:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 09:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC).
  •   Oppose Part of the left side is missing. --Estrilda 22:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Estrilda. --Bgag 15:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 10:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Donna York.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Towboat Donna York pushing barges of coal.--JMSchneid 12:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Great quality, exhaust looks cool. Crop is a bit tight and separation from the background would have been nice. But this is still above the cut for me. --Dschwen 12:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - It's too tilt for me --Pudelek 14:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • now is OK --Pudelek 15:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   CommentI uploaded a level version.--JMSchneid 18:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose CCW tilt. Lycaon 09:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   CommentI hope this version is level. I could not see the tilt at first.--JMSchneid 13:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This version looks level ;-). Lycaon 15:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Maedin 08:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Wind turbine - C-Power (Thornton Bank).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination 5 MW wind turbine on the Thornton bank, Belgium. Lycaon 13:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Bad crop: the lower blade is cut. Yann 15:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment It didn't fit. Seriously, the picture is about the largest turbine in the world, not the blades, I have other pictures for those. Lycaon 15:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment If it's about the turbine only, maybe you should crop it even further to emphasize the subject. --Afrank99 09:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I must agree with Afrank99, composition (and designation of the subject) is unclear. --Eusebius 10:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Afrank99. - Till.niermann 05:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Maedin 08:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Papaver_dubium_a.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Long-headed Poppy --Spock lone wolf 19:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Noisy. --Eusebius 07:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question Can you point out the noise to me? Seems to me we're both looking on different picture. --Spock lone wolf 20:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Spock lone wolf, I don't see unacceptable noise. I think it can be promoted. Maedin 06:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I retract my opposition, obviously it was a bad review, sorry. Perhapas I was looking at some other picture, but my best guess is that at 7.40 in the morning, everything looked noisy to me. I want to point out, however, that there is significant CA on the edge of the topmost petal. --Eusebius 10:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noise is prominent in the BG though. Lycaon 10:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question Happy now? --Spock lone wolf 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. Yann 10:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Maedin 08:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Haight Street, SF.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Haight Street, San Francisco --Bgag 15:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Not seeing a lot of Value in this picture. Kaldari 18:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's Haight street in san fran. In any case, this is Quality image, not Valuable image. --Ianare 02:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support quality is OK --Ianare 02:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too much compressed -> Compression artifacts -- Pro2 11:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose But the framing is terrible. Way too much cut off, including the interesting detail on the fascia board. Think this could have been done much better in portrait, maybe a few steps back, or maybe stitched. Maedin\talk 09:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Maedin 08:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Andean Condor 065.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Andean Condor --Ltshears 19:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support good enough for QI --Ianare 21:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC).
  •   Oppose Maybe there is not enough space over his/her head? --Estrilda 22:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   SupportI don't think we need more (useless) background on this one. Maybe for FP, but good enough for QI. --Afrank99 07:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Maedin 08:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Libellula depressa (by).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Libellula depressa --ComputerHotline 16:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support - good details --Mbdortmund 21:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Overall unsharpness, disturbing yellow background -- Alvesgaspar 16:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --kallerna 15:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would have liked or the head, or the tail to be sharp, but both aren't. --Estrilda 22:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Several areas of the insect are out of focus, wings are dirty (looks like he just escaped from a spider web). Kaldari 18:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sharpness is lacking, and the yellow plant is overexposed in parts. Maedin 08:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? Maedin 08:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Zampieri - Adam et Ève (détail).jpg edit

 

File:Sea Turtle Nest Boca Raton FL.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sea turtle nest --Ianare 12:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Overexposed sky. Striking my comment. Maedin 07:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • would like a second opinion. I agree parts of the clouds are very white (sun was directly behind me), but there is still detail imho --Ianare 09:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If the image is about the Turtle Nest, the warning is not readable, if it is about the whole place, the hut is out of focus. Yann 09:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose Interesting picture, very good composition, and the sky is not overexposed! But I agree with Yann about the sharpness and DOF. -- MJJR 20:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment The intention was to show both together as well as possible. The sign was identical to this one, and there are plenty pictures of lifeguard tower images on commons. The sign does have enough resolution to show the date the eggs were laid, which is more important than the fine print. --Ianare 02:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Dendroica caerulescens CT.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Black-throated Blue Warbler, Dendroica caerulescens Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area, Quebec, Canada. --Cephas 09:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Too much noise, both on the background and the bird. --Eusebius 07:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info Edit uploaded. Hopefully it's ok now. Maedin 06:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm sorry, but it is now obvious that the bird has been digitally processed, so I won't remove my opposition. I'm not sure which version of the pic is the best. --Eusebius 10:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose both versions are overprocessed. Given your camera, lens, and abilities, you shouldn't need to do much correction if at all. --Ianare 21:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • also, if you must, look into photoshop's 'unsharp mask' rather than normal sharpening. --Ianare 22:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Eusebius 11:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Gulmohar leaves closeup.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination: Gulmohar tree leaves closeup. --Kprateek88 13:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 09:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very nice idea but the result is a bit too soft for QI. Lycaon 07:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw --Eusebius 11:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Campus TU München, Garching.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Campus of the Technical University of Munich. --High Contrast 12:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Black spots in the sky. Please clean. Maedin 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Stitching error in the crane. --Berthold Werner 05:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose like Berthold. --Mbdortmund 13:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Lycaon (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)