Open main menu

Contents

Consensual reviewEdit

File:Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10916-Burgweg-Jupiter.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Sculpture of Jupiter --Mbdortmund 14:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion

  Oppose Background distracting --Schlurcher
  Support good quality --George Chernilevsky 18:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 13:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10791-Burgallee-Saturn.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Sculpture of Saturn --Mbdortmund 14:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion

  Oppose Background distracting --Schlurcher
  Support good quality --George Chernilevsky 18:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 13:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 22:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10864-Burgallee-Mars.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Sculpture of Mars --Mbdortmund 14:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Oppose Background distracting --Schlurcher

  Support good quality --George Chernilevsky 18:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 13:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  Support I find this one the best of the image set of this sculpture. --High Contrast 16:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 22:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Nordkirchen 2010-100307-10868-Burgallee-Mars.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Sculpture of Mars --Mbdortmund 14:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Oppose Background distracting --Schlurcher

  Support good quality, nice composition --George Chernilevsky 18:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 13:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 22:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Ingapirca roadside pig.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Roadside pig in the Andes of southern Ecuador.--Cayambe 15:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Big is a bit underexposed --Schlurcher 17:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC).
    • I ment, that there is too much backgound. --Schlurcher 09:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Question Underexposed? I don't understand... --Cayambe 18:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   SupportGood and QI for me.--Jebulon 00:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   SupportGood and QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 13:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 22:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Wasserwerk Urfahr 1 (DFdB).JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination Water works Urfahr in Linz --Dein Freund der Baum 21:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Nice clean shot of appealing subject. Perhaps a touch dark, but QI to me. --Avenue 12:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Except the sky is all blown out. --Elekhh 05:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You're right - seems I misread the histogram. I'm withdrawing my support, sorry. --Avenue 21:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose blown sky (why didn't you do this ? But it's OK, I don't mind being the 'bad' guy ;-) --Ianare 19:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You're right, I should have. Sometimes it takes me a while to fully change my mind. Now I   Oppose too. --Avenue 15:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see a little perspective distortion below --Jebulon 14:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- --Jebulon 14:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Oysters.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Oysters in a supermarket. --Dschwen 00:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good. --kallerna 10:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose a great part of the picture looks OoF and then is unsharp, IMO.--Jebulon 13:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC).
    • The Oysters in the center are perfectly sharp even at over 12 Megapixel image size. The rest I consider background, having maximum detail on each and every oyster is not necessary IMO. Also please note that the front right shows the moving water the oysters are in. --Dschwen 13:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC).
      • OK I understand what you mean. I saw that it was moving water. I'm interested to see the evolution of this review. Thanks for answering.--Jebulon 13:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't think any of the oysters are entirely sharp at full size, but the three main ones are sharp enough at full screen and a bit more. QI to me. --Avenue 11:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Juliancolton 21:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Elekhh (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Náchod CoA - Hotel a divadlo Beránek.JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination Náchod - coat of arms above the entrance to the hotel Beránek --Pudelek 09:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good. --Cayambe 11:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   OpposeI'm sorry, the top of the photo is horizontal, but the plinths of the statues are not on the same level. Perspective distortion ?sorry I'm afraid I forgot to sign--Jebulon 16:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Jebulon is right; the distortion could easily be repaired --Mbdortmund 00:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose on this picture the correction of the distortion is worse than distortion --Croucrou 11:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per crocrou. --Elekhh 01:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose +1 to User:Croucrou, on this picture the correction of the distortion is worse than distortion. Скампецкий 11:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 02:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:pigeo.JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination Pigeons Congress, demonstrating against bad weather--Jebulon 17:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC).
  • Withdrawn
  •   Comment Is that CA (see note and delete it if I'm wrong) so I can get what it is? It doesn't mean I dont like this picture I just want to know... --Letartean 21:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you're wrong... There are three animals in your square... But I don't delete, for other reviewers.--Jebulon 22:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that's CA around the white bird. It's also detectable on the white-headed bird a bit further left. But it's not extreme; I can't see it in the 800x600px preview image, for instance. I like the photo, too, but I wonder if you've considered cropping off some from the bottom and especially the top? I think it might look better with only half the height. --Avenue 15:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC))
  • Agree with Avenue, cropping the top would get my support.--Letartean 16:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Done, cropped. My lords, I have to apologize. You are right with the CA around the white bird. And I'm very sad because I only see that bloo@?ù*$£y CA now on this photo and it is your fault...--Jebulon 21:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support With the crop, it's a QI IMO. I've uploaded a version with the CA reduced - please feel free to revert it. --Avenue 10:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thank you. Better so.--Jebulon 16:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, IMO too much CA, unsharp, size just above minimum. --kallerna 14:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As kallerna. Lycaon 07:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 20:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • after an own review, I agree with last reviewers, not good enough to make a QI.--Jebulon 09:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)   I withdraw my nomination

File:Murmansk from mni Hotel Murmansk.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination View to Murmansk from Omni Hotel Murmansk. --kallerna 14:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support OK. Would better as a pano ;-) --Ianare 19:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment The picture seems to have a quite disturbing tilt (1.5 degrees) which should be corrected for QI status. /Dcastor (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Info Fixed. --kallerna 13:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Vihtoja.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Finnish vihta (in East Finland called vasta), made of birch. It is used in traditional sauna-bathing for massage and stimulation of the skin. --kallerna 14:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Question is it really sharp ? If not, it's a pity, because this picture looks like a nice and poetic still-life. I need other reviews to be sure of my vote--Jebulon 22:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support - Sharpness isn't a problem for me. Juliancolton 13:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support - Ok. --Jebulon 16:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Elekhh 23:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Girl Septermber 2008-1.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Portrait of a beautiful girl -- Alvesgaspar 21:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • is this image not already known here? And I've doubts about the protection of the personal rights of this very young person...--Jebulon 23:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think it should be our concern in QIC. Please see my comment below, about the Russian lady image. -- Alvesgaspar 10:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
    • That is correct. Personality right are not a concern here. I assume the girl consented to uploading her image here, further compliance with her personality rights is the responsibility of the user of the image, as is stated in teh Personality Rights Warning on the image page. --Dschwen 15:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice. --Dschwen 15:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for answering.--Jebulon 16:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Good. Can you add country where the picture was taken? Yarl 17:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support really good --Mbdortmund 19:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • WAIT!!! Can a photograph of a QI photographer be QI? -- Queeg 11:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  ? --Mbdortmund 19:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support nice! --Jovianeye 20:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Avenue 15:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Avenue 15:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Canada Goose in GGP.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Canada Goose--Mbz1 16:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion did you try a little lighter exposure? --Mbdortmund 19:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
    Thank you for the comment. I could make it lighter, but I like it the way it is, so I am putting it for discussion.--Mbz1 20:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it as it is. --Pko (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support A very nice shot, although the bright halo around the bird's front looks slightly unreal. QI anyway. --Avenue 15:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support OK. Yarl 17:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Yarl 17:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Huhkon kartano, Raisio, 18.4.2010 (2).JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination Brinkhall Manor in Raisio, Finland. The history of Huhko Manor dates back to the 16th century. The oldest parts of the present main building date from the 18th century. The Empire-style appearance is from 1837-1842. --Makele-90 17:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Looks good. --Dschwen 17:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilted.--Ankara 20:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
    • What can I say to that? Not much, except: You are wrong, it is pretty straight. Look at the verticals. --Dschwen 15:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
      • My mistake. --Ankara (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't like the composition. Dark bushes before the house are distracting and they are obscuring the main subject. --Pko 23:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Composition ok with me: shows building in the landscape. Not FP but QI. --Elekhh 05:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 19:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Natural ventilation high-rise buildings.svgEdit

 

  • Nomination A schematic showing the natural ventilation used in the Eastgate building in Harare by Fred the Oyster --Jovianeye 04:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very interesting and useful. I understand ! Better than the source. I regret copyrights problems cause I would be happy to see a phtograph of this building, and know more about this zimbabwean architect. --Jebulon 13:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
      Oppose In my view a bit too simple - just a few arrows and lines. --High Contrast 09:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


  Support confirmed--Jebulon 21:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  Support fine work and very useful Скампецкий 11:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jovianeye 22:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Fritillaria imperialis lutea.JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination a whole plant of a yellow crown, Parc floral de Paris.--Jebulon 22:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 09:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you know what ? It could be my 50th QI!--Jebulon 14:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, don't want to disturb the birthday party, but is a very busy composition, light is not ideal and has few overexposured areas. I think it deserves some discussion. I just want to make sure your 50th is a really good one :) --Elekhh 13:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Too late, my friend, the 50th is already another one...lol !--Jebulon 17:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Some area overexposed but acceptable. QI and Best in scope... --Archaeodontosaurus 12:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noisy, overexposed, CA, too large DOF. --kallerna 14:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as others. Furthermore, I don't like the crop (bottom of the plant is cut off) sorry. --Ianare 19:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Schlurcher 17:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --kallerna 14:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Russian lady 2.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Old russian lady. --kallerna 16:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Doubts about personal rights ? --Jebulon 21:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment - There are several QI and FP showing ordinary people and personal rights shouldn't be our concern at QIC. As far as I know the present Commons policy about the depiction of recognizable persons is to insert a "personality rights" template into the image files, warning for the possible restrictions on their use. -- Alvesgaspar 10:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, I think Alves is entirely correct here. --Dschwen 15:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Ok many thanks for answering. French law is very sensitive with these problems (as you know perhaps...). If this russian lady ask in a french court of justice about violation of her "private life", she will win the trial...--Jebulon 16:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  Oppose composition : subject should be walking into rather than out of, the frame. --Ianare 19:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 19:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Echium April 2010-2.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination A Purple Bugloss -- Alvesgaspar 09:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Too much of the image and flowers out of focus. DOF sould have been considered to cover the flowers and leave the background blurry --Tomascastelazo 16:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment I ask for other opinions. The assessment is contraditory in its terms. -- Alvesgaspar 22:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't see any problems within this picture – QI to me. --Dein Freund der Baum 13:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good, but I can't concentrate on anything because of the background. Sorry. --kallerna 17:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Agree with Kallerna. Normally I'm not one to object to natural-looking backgrounds, but this is a bit too busy. Juliancolton 17:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Seems to be a matter of taste, I think the short DOF is the only possibility here to set an accent on the main object --Mbdortmund 00:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think the flowers that are in focus are beautiful and sharp but they're not put foward by the rest being too busy. I also can't concentrate on the subject for a while 'cause my eyes move to understand the background. I guess this means you could do better for this one. --Letartean 03:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support In small preview the backgroud is to présent but if you loot the picture at 100% the background is enough blurry, QI IMO --Croucrou 11:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree with opponents, and agree with supporters.--Jebulon 20:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus 15:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition is too busy --Lawboy25 14:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Meets QI criteria. Lycaon 18:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Promote?   — Lycaon 18:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Monastery of El Escorial 05.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Monastery of El Escorial, Spain --Bgag 14:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Ok imho --Berthold Werner 15:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose blurry parts, artifacts in the sky --Carschten 16:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I think these are acceptable. --Berthold Werner 09:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Artifacts visible even on thumbnails. --kallerna 14:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful composition, minimal artifacts that are acceptable --Archaeodontosaurus 09:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support per Archaeodontosaurus. --Cayambe 14:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 11:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Flower April 2010-6.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Flower of Coleostephus myconis -- Alvesgaspar 14:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Oppose Just another flower --Lawboy25 12:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC) --   Comment - Not a legitimate reason for opposing. Please stop the childish behaviour -- Alvesgaspar 13:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)   Comment I do not think the subject is interesting or in any way special, hence no QI --Lawboy25 15:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Lawboy25 please withdraw or reconsider your assessment, following QI criteria. "Not special" is not QI criteria. --Elekhh 00:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support- i am not a fan of centered compositions but i dont find any reason why it shouldnt be a QI -LadyofHats 12:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I was about to support, but the image has some sharpness issues.   Oppose. --Dschwen 13:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - too dark. Скампецкий 16:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jovianeye 18:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Palmetto Park Rd and Mizner Blvd 2.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Palmetto Park Rd and Mizner Blvd 2 --Ianare 03:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Comment...in Boca Raton, Florida, USA.--Jebulon 14:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   OpposeI don't like the exposure on this one, a bit too light. --Dschwen 15:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO good enough. Yarl 17:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support as Yarl.--Jebulon 09:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   ----Jebulon (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Silo i Eslöv-1.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Grain silo in Eslöv, Sweden. /Dcastor 22:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose noisy sky IMO, sorry.--Jebulon 17:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support In my opinion, the noise is not that much disturbable and does not hide details. And the detalisation of this silo is very high. Скампецкий 13:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice sky, but noisy and blured antennas. - Elekhh 03:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 03:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Church of the Protection of the Theotokos in Rubtsovo 16.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Church in Rubtsovo --Lodo27 19:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Nice and sharp, but the tree in the foreground obscures too much of the subject for me. Some overexposure and perspective issues too. --Avenue 11:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment The trees are really close, so a less obscured image of this facade doesn't seem to be possible, and winter is a good choice for taking the photograph. The image appears to be useful and in use. --Elekhh 05:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support - Agree that the trees are unavoidable in this instance. Juliancolton 13:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree some obscuration seems unavoidable here, and that winter is a good time, but I think a less obscured view of the main tower would be possible; the Russian article's lead image, for example. There's no indication given that the photo's main subject is the rear facade, and the angle doesn't seem ideal for that either. Meanwhile there are the other problems to consider. The overexposure is on the building as well as the snow. It isn't a bad shot, but I'm still not seeing it as a QI. --Avenue (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  •   Neutral As I see it is a building in a park, so all four facades are relevant, even if not equaly important. But the point you make about the potential to have a less obscured view of the main tower (image taken from further left) appears to be valid, so I switch to neutral for now. --Elekhh 23:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  Oppose the tree against the background of the church. Not interesting. Скампецкий 16:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 14:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Lincoln_Log_Cabin_3.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Lincoln Log Cabin, State Historic site, Illinois. --Dschwen 16:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion overexposed ? let's discuss --Ianare 14:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support a little bit overexposed but imo okay. Nice sharpness. QI for me --Carschten 12:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support - Fine for me. Juliancolton 14:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Fine for me too, nice detail. But is there a fine CCW tilt or is the whole front facade and chimney tilted? --Elekhh 22:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 12:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Télviec Crane Homme Profil Droit.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Teviec Human Skull, Mesolithic. Picture by Archaeodontosaurus. Yann 10:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support good --Mbdortmund 11:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose already nominated and promoted, if I'm not wrong.--Jebulon 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    Had a different background, imo --Mbdortmund 16:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    This image is NOT promoted. Besides, this is no reason. --High Contrast 18:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Next with white background? And then blue, and then...? It's the same image whatsoever. --kallerna 16:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)