Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 2011

Consensual review

edit

File:Mycena inclinata, Clustered Bonnet, UK.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Mycena inclinata, Clustered Bonnet Mushroom--Stu Phillips 23:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion

A stunning photo spoiled by the presence of an upturned mushroom cap. The white is rather overexposed and draws attention away. Have one without it? Saffron Blaze 13:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 Comment OK, I have another photo without the upturned cap, so I photoshopped the same bit into this one to cover it (The other photo is inferior to this one). Hope it is not noticeable? --Stu Phillips 01:45, 26 November 2011

  •  Support Good quality to me. --NorbertNagel 09:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Gidip 10:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I remove my previous objection. You should nominate this as a FP. Saffron Blaze 13:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support--Lmbuga 15:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 09:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support--Holleday 20:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks everyone. I have entered it as an FP --Str Photo 15:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 12:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Peresechenie2011-1991.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Catherine Zarva — employee of Pereslavl Museum and organizer of the «Crossing» festival. --PereslavlFoto 14:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline *  Comment I hesitate. Harsh light.--ArildV 16:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed, light and disturbing background. Mvg, Basvb 22:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The background is one of the aims of the portrait, I have to show the person in this situation with this scene background. Maybe blur the bw background photo?--PereslavlFoto 00:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The microphone hidden part of the face and the light and too strong. --Archaeodontosaurus 17:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Re: the microphone-hidden reason and disturbing background reason make me revert this nomination.--PereslavlFoto 18:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think the nominator should do this, otherwise what's the point? --Elekhh 12:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 12:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Paris - Le Pont Alexandre III - 252.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Perspective du pont Alexandre III à Paris --Thesupermat 10:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. Good diagonal on picture. Wonderful bridge. --Alexandre ORIOU 18:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I understand the intention of having a dynamic composition, but it really looks randomly cropped and unbalanced to me. --Elekhh 09:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support impressive compostion and blue sky (kidding for last part). PierreSelim 09:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition is not the best for an encyclopedia. --Berthold Werner 19:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose same opinion --Archaeodontosaurus 07:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose "random snapshot" --Alchemist-hp 13:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 12:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Ettal_-_Klosterkirche_Ettal6.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Ettal Abbey, interior of the cupola at choir --Taxiarchos228 12:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Blown out windows. Mvg, Basvb 22:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree strictly! This is a great picture of the ceiling painting, sharp, clear and with natural looking colours. The (mildly!) "blown" windows are totally irrelevant for the painting, and they are unavoidable without using HDR. I took the same picture from the same position under similar lighting condition, and I know what I am talking about. --Misburg3014 09:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Misburg3014.--Vassil 14:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose but it's tilted, therefore oppose for now --Berthold Werner 19:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Well, personally I do not think it's tilted. Additionally, cameras nowadays tend to have a level meter to avoid that. Instead it seems to me, that it's just a non-perpendicular view. As far as I know there is no axiom that photos must always be taken from a perpendicular position and always must look symmetric. But if there is such axiom, which I missed, the photo indeed is not acceptable. Misburg3014 13:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - needs perspective correction. I'm not too fussed about the windows - the subject is the ceiling. --Xijky 17:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tilt, distorsion.--Jebulon 01:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   ----Jebulon 01:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Montils (Charente-Maritime) Détail de la rue de la Gîte.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Montils (Charente-Maritime, France) : Détail de la rue de la Gîte, vase.
  • Promotion I might be very harsh, but bad compo (croped on the left and the right). --Léna 23:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC) -- You are right. Is this second version better? --Alexandre ORIOU 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support great :) QI for me. Léna 17:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Bien meilleur. Nice picture from my native department.--Jebulon 10:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it very much QI for me --Moonik 11:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support very nice light and quality is good. PierreSelim 22:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Sorry, I don't like the light and the colors. Not QI to me, but...neutral--Lmbuga 02:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 21:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Queenstown-Nueva_Zelanda06.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Overview of the city of Queenstown in New Zealand. --Poco a poco 11:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Nice view but blurry and almost no detail is visible.--ArildV 00:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Chromatic aberration on the mountain, but the whole is good. --Archaeodontosaurus 06:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO insufficient details and chromatic aberration. Sorry. --T137 11:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good conditions, but too unsharp. --Avenue 12:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As ArildV. --Iifar 19:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 12:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Freycinet-Tasmania-Australia01.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Wineglas Bay in the Freycinet Ntal Park in Tasmania, Australia. --Poco a poco 11:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose CA across the horizon, not sharp wiht no focal point Gnangarra 13:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Minor problems, good overall impression.--Archaeodontosaurus 06:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good impression --Katarighe 18:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose out of focus, nothing sharp --Carschten 19:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lovely view, but too unsharp. --Avenue 13:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Avenue. --Iifar 19:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 12:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Hôtel de Rothelin-Charolais.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Hôtel de Rothelin-Charolais in Paris --Moonik 12:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 13:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry needs a discussion because of the tilt, the distorsion and the framing--Jebulon 15:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Jebulon --Berthold Werner 15:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Jebulon. --Iifar (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 12:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Petit Hôtel de Villars.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Petit Hôtel de Villars in Paris --Moonik 12:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 13:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose discuss please, because of the unfortunate crop at left, and the tilt/distortion of the balustrade.--Jebulon 15:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor composition IMO--Lmbuga 02:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 12:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Église Saint-Martin de Orignac.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Orignac Church, Hautes-Pyrénées, 65 Florent Pécassou 20:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support bit noisy but enough for QI --Taxiarchos228 10:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Isn't it overexposed? Let's think about it.--MrPanyGoff 12:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO has perspective distortion and some parts are overexposed. --Iifar 17:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposed -- Smial 17:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 12:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Panorama SM Bydgoszcz soft.jpg

edit

  • Nomination View of Brda in Bydgoszcz
  • Decline Albertus teolog 21:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    How does the sculpture hang there? Small CCW tilt otherwise a striking picture. Saffron Blaze 09:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Less than 2 megapixels.-ArildV 16:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A panorama definatly needs 2 MP
  •  Oppose Nothing to discuss, resolution is under 2 MP. --Iifar (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 01:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:0 Château Royal de Laeken - Jardins 2.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Gardens of the Royal Castle and the Japanese tower in Laeken, Belgium.-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 08:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline *  Oppose Some of the branches of the subject are cut on the top, and there are distracting branchs from another tree on the right border of the image. -- Rama 07:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
    *  Comment Here is a version without distracting branchses --Przykuta 15:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 01:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Il-76TD_of_MChS_Rossii_at_Domodedovo_06-Oct-2010.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Ilyushin Il-76TD of MChS Rossii --Russavia 12:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Technical well done and impressive, IQ for me --Haneburger 12:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I want to hear other opinions. Bad composition: Cropped at bottom, too tight at left and right, but perhaps QI, not to me--Lmbuga 01:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga: too tight crop on the left and bottom. --ELEKHHT 01:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Technically absolutely sufficient. Good composition; appropriate crop. The image shows a landing aircraft at an airport environment --High Contrast 19:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support For a quality image it´s roughly on the edge. Missed the important rule to leave space in the direction things are moving. Also the sky is just one color. But technically it´s good and that shall be enough for a QI. -- Avda 21:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --High Contrast 19:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Kamouraska_-_QC_-_city_limit_sign.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Kamouraska: city limit sign --Taxiarchos228 21:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline The composition is not the most pertinent we could expect for this subject. A close-up would have been better. --TwoWings 20:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    I think the composition is pertinent, a close-up is boring and the environment of the place is worth to go a bit far from the sign --Taxiarchos228 21:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment The composition is ambiguous: should be either a sign on the side of the road indicating the direction or a just the sign in itself, but as it is, is in-between. --ELEKHHT 01:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 19:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Urban_wildlife_-_squirrel.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Urban wildlife: squirrel in Montreal --Taxiarchos228 20:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Cute, main subject nice and sharp, but background very noisy, and persons disturbing. I admit a part of personal leaning here...--Jebulon 17:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


Main object is "urban wildlife" and not "squirrel", therefore the background with the persons are good and not disturbing --Taxiarchos228 19:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

 Support Main subject is cute nice and sharp as said by Jebulon. As the picture is about wildlife in the city I don't find the background disturbing. PierreSelim 13:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 CommentNo misunderstanding. The urban background is not disturbing, given the subject. I said that 1) the background is too noisy, and 2) the persons just behind the beast are disturbing to me.--Jebulon 15:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I can denoise the picture --Taxiarchos228 15:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose The squirrel seems to eat the person. On any other place the person could be, but not right below his mouth. Mvg, Basvb 15:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose as Jebulon and Basvb, it is not the urban character of the background but the unfortunate overlaps that are distracting. --Elekhh 01:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
No more oppose now that the horror scene is gone. --Elekhh 12:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment daddy with children moved on :) --Taxiarchos228 10:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral No more reason for an opposition after the removal of the persons. There is still (acceptable) noise, that's why I stay neutral. Please add the "retouched" template in the file description page. Nice job anyway !--Jebulon 15:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good Job, and QI now for me --Archaeodontosaurus 13:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC).
  •  Oppose The file description is incomplete. "[I]nclude the scientific names for minerals and taxa naming for organisms" (Commons:Image_guidelines#Image_page_requirements). Sciurus carolinensis? --Wsiegmund 17:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the exact scientific name for this organism (I am a botanic idiot), if you know it feel free to add it. IMO the name is not relevant for this picture because the picture shows first the fact of "urban wildlife" and only second a special animal. --Taxiarchos228 18:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Sciurus prob. s. carolinensis. Mvg, Basvb 19:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Added scientific name to description; struck oppose vote. --Wsiegmund 04:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 14:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Lustiger Schnappschuss! --Haeferl 01:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The sky is quite boring, but the important things are there. -- Avda 21:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 12:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Suricata suricatta - meerkat - suracte - Erdmännchen 01b.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Guarding suricate/meerkat --NorbertNagel 19:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Very nice, but I don't like the detail, a bit blurry to me--Lmbuga 22:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC). I like the image. I think that it's necessary other opinions, I can't decline it because it's really beatifull. I would like that the photo was QI--Lmbuga 22:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Indeed it's a bit blurry and the shadow under the rock is too dark for me. Same as Lmbuga, I really like the picture, it's nice. Very hard to say decline. PierreSelim 13:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support - It might not be the best on sharpness and shadows but good enough on that and perfect as composition. QI for me. Mvg, Basvb 15:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga + harsh shadows --Carschten 10:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness not perfect, but still great image. --S nova 19:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition. But several technical problems: Blurry, overgrown contrast and chromatic aberrations around the lower parts of branches. --Archaeodontosaurus 13:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral per Lmbuga. --Alchemist-hp 23:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Archaeodontosaurus. --T137 13:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ok, now I'm sure. As Archaeodontosaurus.--Lmbuga 20:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 12:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:LeMans1985WinningPorsche956C.jpg

edit

  • Nomination The '24h of Le Mans 1985' winning Joest-Porsche 956C of Klaus Ludwig (D), Paolo Barilla (I) and "John Winter" (D). Photo by RX-Guru --ArildV 08:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support ja klar! --Ralf Roletschek 13:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the effect and the tight crop on the right. Mvg, Basvb 15:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    *  Comment That you dislike panning is a weak reason to decline. QI is about quality, not personal taste. This is obviously a picture taken by a skilled photographer. Regards--ArildV 17:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Why is only half of the car panned? and I've 2 reasons 2 oppose, also the crop on the right side. Mvg, Basvb 19:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
     Comment This image shows the result of the usage of a speed filter. It's an optical filter marketed by en:Cokin, dunno if other brands also make such filters. Grand-Duc 19:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition is not the best for an encyclopedia. --Archaeodontosaurus 07:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The speed effect doesn't look true, it looks artificial, because the car and the background are in speed (not only one of them). --Haeferl (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry the speed effect ruins the picture, it forces to crop the back of the car, the effect is not needed, the original picture seemd to already have a very nice effect of filé. Without this effect the picture would be valuable IMO. --PierreSelim 13:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight at right, and the speed effect seems a bit overdone (compare File:LeMans1985Runner-upPorsche956.jpg). --Avenue 13:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 08:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Пожар Троице-Измайловского собора, СПб, 24.08.2006 - ангелы.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Trinity Izmailov Cathedral in fire, 25 August 2006 (by Олег Сыромятников). -- Achim Raschka 07:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Wonderfull encyclopedic value. I would suggest to run it as Valued Image, about the quality I'll let another person decide. Mvg, Basvb 22:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Basvb, could maybe be valued but the technical quality is too poor for QI (too dark & blurry). --kallerna 19:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
i think, we can diskuss. --Ralf Roletschek 14:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC) --Ralf Roletschek 14:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a QI for me: dark tones are too dark (it's impossible to distinguish between tones), picture looks blurry at 100% (QI has to be examined at 100%). However I think it is a very valuable picture, it should be candidate to VI in the scope in fire of Trinity Izmailov Cathedral. (note: the picture is impressive) PierreSelim 14:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 08:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Hege Wier.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Vliedberg from Beetgum - Basvb 16:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeNice realisation but bad compo IMHO (too much sky). --Léna 17:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    This is QI, not FP. Mvg, Basvb 19:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support For me the composition is good an the picture a QI--Haneburger 09:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for me also QI, good composition, nice Sky. --Ralf Roletschek 13:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Iifar 17:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 17:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Toronto_-_ON_-_King's_Landing_Condominium.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Toronto: King's Landing Condominium --Taxiarchos228 12:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Noisy sky, bad crop of the tower behind for me. --Léna 17:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    •  Support QI now, you're right the building behing the main object is not that disturbing :) Léna 23:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment denoised now, the building behind the main object is not main object of this building, so what`s the problem? --Taxiarchos228 18:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me too. PierreSelim (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 13:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Fontaine des mers.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Fontaine des mers on the place de la Concorde in Paris (by BigPilou)-- Achim Raschka 17:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Wär schön, wenn jemand die Staubflecken aus dem Himmel killen könnte. (dust spots) Tolles Bild... --Mbdortmund 17:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice picture, but is noisy, and the picture suffers from distortion --PierreSelim 18:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I disagree --Mbdortmund 01:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, perspective aberrant.--Archaeodontosaurus 07:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice pic, but it has perspective distortion. --Iifar 17:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per other opponents. Looks totally artificial, and the color balance is wrong. I'm sorry this picture is in the top ten of WLM 2011 in France...--Jebulon 22:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 08:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Cathedral of Christ the Saviour-1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, Saint Petersburg. --Aleks G 21:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality and therefore a QI --Haneburger
  • 17:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
     Comment needs perspective distortion correction --Carschten 17:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support now corrected.--Alchemist-hp 01:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Toulouse_-_Qercus_leaves_-_02.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Leaves of Quercus rubra during automn --PierreSelim 01:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 07:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sky very noisy --Carschten 17:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Denoised now, for me QI --Taxiarchos228 21:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support For me too.--Jebulon 01:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me now.-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 11:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 12:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Al-Masjid al-Nabawi 06.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Inside view of al-Masjid al-Nabawi, Medina, Saudi Arabia --Americophile 10:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Noisy, light glares, could be more sharp. --PereslavlFoto 12:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 Comment I don't understand why this picture is in CR, because we have only one opinion, negative...
Was it a typo by PereslavlFoto ? --ELEKHHT 08:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose... and two now, per above.--Jebulon 01:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above --Elekhh 08:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 08:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Stromatoliit2.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Stromatolites in Saaremaa, Estonia (by User:Tpani) --WooteleF 22 November 2011
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good and very usefull --Haneburger 05:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very useful but the caption is too succinct. It lacks the geological strata and thank you for an English tradution --Archaeodontosaurus 14:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Commentwell for the translation, it lacks the stage --Archaeodontosaurus 06:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Iifar 13:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Acer saccharum Rogów.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) foliage, Rogów Arboretum, Poland. --Crusier 18:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Maybe incomplete DoF (on the subject). Othere opinion? --T137 11:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment DOF is fine for me, but the leaf damage is very disturbing. --Gidip 20:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Check now --Crusier 17:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not convinced, but i'm  Neutral. --T137 22:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Now I like it. --Gidip (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment The editing is very well done, but I really don't see why! The damage was natural and in my opinion not ugly but instead it gave a rather dull picture a bit more character. Frankly, I would rather support the old version than the new. But perhaps you could make it a little bit brighter. Jopparn 16:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I like both versions. --Iifar 13:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Iifar 07:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Dortmunder-U-2011_0569.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Dortmunder U --Mbdortmund 00:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Severe perspective distortion. Please try to correct with Hugin or other software --NorbertNagel 19:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • IMHO perspective correction would be violent to this picture. The picture seems good to me but not perfect: Better DOF would have been possible with f11 or so, I made a crop on my computer without the disturbing shadow at the bottom of the tube in the center and without the second tube right - so it looks better to me --Haneburger 19:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)  SupportFor me it's a QI, what I've said before are not really arguments against it --Haneburger 16:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support A special perspective is allways allowed. It is not possible to correct this image without destroying it completely. -- Smial 23:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support same to smial --Taxiarchos228 12:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The building on the right is totally collapsing. Looks interesting, but I prefer non disturbing images. -- Avda (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Avda --Archaeodontosaurus 17:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Avda--Lmbuga 00:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose maybe a version with a straight U could work, but not this one, I'm afraid. Matter of taste, maybe...--Jebulon 01:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Avda. --Iifar 07:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 01:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Arlesheim_-_Domkirche4.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Arlesheim: Cathedral of Arlesheim, church clock --Taxiarchos228 19:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeNeeds a perspective correction IMO.--Jebulon 22:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
    • why? --Taxiarchos228 17:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Because is such a tight crop. --Elekhh 08:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
        • to tight for showing clock? I don't think so --Taxiarchos228 09:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
          • No, I'm talking about the image as a whole of course, the inclined towers in conjunction with the edges of the frame. --Elekhh 19:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Slight oversaturation, but good view of the clock. Perhaps the description should mention the fact, that this image is targeted to this clock and intentionally shall not show the whole church towers. -- Smial 13:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It´s not just a slight oversaturation. Set some more natural colors and you´re fine. -- Avda 21:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support after the perspective correction. --Alchemist-hp 01:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support No more reason to oppose, it is a QI now. But maybe, some day, the nominator could make the corrections himself ? Some day ? Maybe ? Thoughts ? ;)--Jebulon 01:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 01:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-11-09 14-35-51-sun-in-h-alpha.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Solar prominences. --ComputerHotline 15:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality: blurry and all the reds are noisy --PierreSelim 15:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    Isn't that noisa (gas explosions) supposed to be there? Mvg, Basvb 15:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
     Support Noisy or surface structure? I think, it's the surface. Let's discuss --Llez 16:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC) The surface of the sun is not regular. --ComputerHotline 17:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please decide for support or oppose. --Mbdortmund 01:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The resolution is too low for QI, in my opinion. --Wsiegmund 05:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeThis section is about Quality Images, this picture can be a Featured Picture for its importance, but have multiple quality issues for sure. --Cesco77 08:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 10:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Brabersweg4a.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Farm "Eve Ver" in Mijnsheerenland, the Netherlands - Basvb 09:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 10:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Left wing of the farm is unsharp (somehow out of focus ?) --PierreSelim 12:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Slight underexposure, too high colour saturation. Main issue: denoising has killed details. -- Smial 23:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 10:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Hotel Concorde.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Hotel Concorde, Berlin (by Axel Mauruszat). -- Achim Raschka 11:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality --Moroder 20:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC). Good quality, good prospective --Moroder 14:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think it' too noisy. --Sfu 20:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Sfu and chromatic aberrations--Lmbuga 20:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy and chromatic aberrations. Sorry. --T137 22:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above. Tree and building windows have aberrations.--Ahonc 10:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice view, very good composition, lighting, and exposure. Some minor technical issues, yes, but noise is acceptable. This is not FP. -- Smial 23:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose one tiny step to the left an the branch wouldn't have obscured the top of the building. Also grainy and CA. --Elekhh 07:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 10:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Monschau, Kalterherberg, Norbertuskapelle, 2011-09 CN-01.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Interior of the chapel Norbertuskapelle in Monschau --Carschten 15:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Bad light. No enough exposure, especially for the sculpture. --TwoWings 20:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I want to have some other opinions, please, because it's chapel without any light source in it, so of course the statue is rather dark, but at my monitor it's lifelike and IMO well detailed. --Carschten 20:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 Support enough light on the sculpture for me. Léna 23:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad light. Improvable light--Lmbuga 02:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Die Komposition ist gut, die Aufnahme scharf, würde dafür stimmen, wenn Du die Belichtung noch etwas bearbeitest. Hab es mir gerade im PS angeschaut - die Qualität ist gut genug, um die Tiefen noch etwas aufzuhellen. ;-) --Haeferl 02:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor lighting. Alvesgaspar 21:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination because File:Monschau, Kalterherberg, Norbertuskapelle, 2011-09 CN-01 - retouched.jpg is promoted --Carschten 15:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 19:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Great Sphinx of Giza 9049.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Great Sphinx of Giza. --Alchemist-hp 02:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline

 Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 07:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  •  Oppose May we discuss please about this shadowed dark corner I find disturbing an distracting ?--Jebulon 20:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose Good image, but per Jebulon, and too much color noise in the shadows (not QI to me, but good image)--Lmbuga 21:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Too much noise? Sorry, but this picture was made with ISO 200 with a Canon EOS 5D Mark II. I can't see any noise and the shadow at the edge does not affect the main object. This is a handicap for a excellent picture but for sure not for a QI. The quality of this picture is highly above the usual standard. --Taxiarchos228 21:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - The shadows are too harsh for a QI imo. Alvesgaspar 22:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 14:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Chartres,_Maison_15_rue_Saint-Brice,_lucarne_03.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Dormer window in Chartres. --Coyau 00:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion *  SupportGood quality -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 08:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    *  Oppose The picture is unnaturally distorted. You see, that the photographer was not centered, but it should look through perspective correction as if it would have been. The pitched roof has different angle, the roof on the right side disappears behind the window, the left one does not. I'm sure it was built not as wrong as it appears here. --Haeferl 12:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but not all houses are square and symmetrical, the roof is asymmetrical as in reality (about like this and the window is in an corner). --Coyau 13:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support No obvious distortion IMO. Looks good and natural, per the nominator's arguments.--Jebulon 14:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 14:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Pazo de Hermida - Lugar en que escribiu Rosalía de Castro - Dodro - Galiza - 07.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Garden of Hermida Palace. Place in which Rosalía de Castro wrote. Lestrobe, Dodro, Galicia, Spain--Lmbuga 16:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline you cannot have better light conditions, they are really really superb. But, I think the image would be better with some more contrast, and I don't understand why you use f/10 and 1/60s, and not f/8 and a ~1/160s. QI to me, though --Carschten 16:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    New version with more contrast, but I took another picture with f/7.1 and 1/160s. I have uploaded the image now and I'm going to propose it. If you think that the another image is better, you can decline this proposal.--Lmbuga 18:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    Why should this be a QI? Boring greenfield with almost invisible subject. --NorbertNagel 20:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination Thanks. File:Pazo de Hermida - Lugar en que escribiu Rosalía de Castro - Dodro - Galiza - f 7.1.jpg is also better to me (I'm learning)--Lmbuga 19:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

:-) --Carschten 20:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Enzian am Saukarkopf.JPG

edit

File:Fontaine Charlemagne Paris 4e 003.jpg

edit

File:Folie Saint-James.jpg

edit

  • I don't want to disappoint you but this is what I see. As a whole, the image post-processing is overdone, imo. It is even difficult to annotate because I hardly see „healthy“ part of it. For instance, the entire building has a strong white fringe, not to mention the antennas... The facade is artificially lightened which gives it a lot of noise and generally poor quality at full size view. Parts of the sky are in very bad condition too. Again, I'm sorry to say it but I have feeling as if the photograph was taken with 2 megapixels pocket camera or gsm.--MrPanyGoff 08:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*  I withdraw my nomination I agree the post-processing is overdone but it's not the camera fault but the photographer! --Moonik 09:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss_Klaus2.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Schloss Klaus --Herzi Pinki 15:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Es hängt leicht nach rechts, wobei ich es links passend finde, rechts hast Du es mit der perspektivischen Korrektur etwas zu gut gemeint. Vielleicht kannst Du das noch korrigieren. ;-) --Haeferl 15:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment vielleicht täuscht die Perspektive durch die Schräge dahinter, aber gerade rechts sind die Senkrechten pfeilgerade (leg mal ein Lineal an). --Herzi Pinki 16:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Don't see a problem, composition well done, QI for me --Haneburger 07:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Iifar 12:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose pfeilgerade ist da irgendwie nichts, auch mit angelegtem Lineal. In 100% kippt alles leicht nach rechts, auch wenn es in geringerer Zoom-Stufe es links kippend wirkt... Bitte noch korrigieren, dann geht die Promotion in Ordnung. --Carschten 20:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support trotzdem gut für QI --Böhringer 21:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 05:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Megachile montenegrensis female 1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Megachile montenegrensis, female --Gidip 19:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too small. --kallerna 18:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment What does this mean? It is above 2 mpx. --Gidip 16:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    Reviewers may choose to demand more if the image would benefit from it.--Iifar 12:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good image, but not QI to me. It's too small because the image would have to be cropped IMO. I don't like the crop--Lmbuga 20:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Rue des Petites-Écuries (Paris), New Morning.jpg

edit

  • Nomination fr:New Morning entrance, Paris. --Coyau 21:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Person is cropped and motion blurred. Mvg, Basvb 22:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    •  Info person removed. --Coyau 19:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
      Into discussion then. Mvg, Basvb 08:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's a fine photography of this Jazz-Club! But when all vertical lines are perfectly straight, it looks unnatural. It looks as if the building is wider at the top. --Haeferl 01:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- The framing doesn't look right, too "snap-shooty" to me. Alvesgaspar 21:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Stairways in the PHS building.jpg

edit
  • Nomination The stairways in the Paul-Henri Spaak building (PHS), the European Parliament, Brussels (2011). Jopparn 19:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Copyright problem: What is the status of FOP in Belgium ? Sorry the legal status of the picture has to be clarified for me --PierreSelim 10:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC).
  • Is even FOP in Belgium relevant since it is within an EU-building? As I have understood it they are not part of Belgium judicially, just like embassies have a different judicial statues. But I am really not sure... And the FOP page does not really say anything about it. Jopparn 11:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • FoP is not relevant because it's inside a building. Mvg, Basvb 10:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
      • In line with Basvb's comment I have changed the nomination to "Discuss" now since the major problem presented perhaps is not existing. I hope that it is ok that I, as the nominator, did this. I thought that it would be best to do it right away so that the QICbot does not remove the picture. Sincerely Jopparn 07:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Inside a building the rules are more strict then on the streets. Inside a building there is no FoP. But maybe EU-buildings are an exeption, I don't know. Discussing about Belgium FoP is not relevant is all I wanted to say. Mvg, Basvb 16:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Sorry bringing up the discussion to FOP, I believed the pictures was outside of a building (in front of an entrance somehow). --PierreSelim 11:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info Jut to clarify the above, the image is an interior and contains a sculpture as well, so would require permission both from the architect and the sculptor. COM:FOP in some countries includes building interiors, whereas in Belgium there is no FOP at all, of any kind (not even non-commercial). Also the Commons precedent is that extra-territoriality does not apply. The image has no chance for a long life on Commons. --Elekhh 20:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    • But with that logic all of the pictures in for example Category:Paul-Henri Spaak building should be deleted since it has not been 70 years since the architect died (in fact the building was built in 1989). Is that correct or have I missed something? Jopparn 23:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
      • That's correct, except by some de minimis could apply. See the same issue raised here. --Elekhh 23:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
        • That really is to bad! But ok, I guess it should be deleted then. Do you think that it can be moved to enwp for example since they accept fair use before being deleted? I also have a few pictures of corridors and such that does not really show anything of architectural importance (or what I should call it, at least it seem so to me) - would those pictures be ok you think? Jopparn 23:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
          • I can't answer for enwp, but yes it's an alternative to have it upload under fair use. For buildings, you can upload them on frwp too we have confirmed recently we accepted photos of buildings under non-free policy. PierreSelim 10:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
          • You can upload it on various Wikipedias which prioritise educational scope, but often under complicated conditions. On en.wiki some of the conditions for fair use are that it has to be published previously and has to be lowres. So first you would have to upload it to flickr or some other external website so that is published, than upload a lowres version to en.wiki following fair-use guidelines. On the German Wiki is easier as you can upload any image from Belgium simply based on the German Panoramafreiheit. See example. Would be of course much better to find a better solution on Commons, and change our current self-imposed restrictive policies which are not helping us in any way. But that's just my opinion, others disagree. The latest debate on this is here. --Elekhh 13:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   No FOP in Belgium. --Elekhh 05:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Paris - Les Invalides - opéra en plein air - panorama - 003.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Scène installée dans la cour d'honneur des Invalides à Paris. --Thesupermat 17:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good panoramics, composition and useful. ~Pyb 22:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think there are stiching errors (it would be nice if it could be fixed). PierreSelim 09:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Stiching errors need to be fixed --PierreSelim 09:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Stiching errors and overexposed sky. --Iifar 12:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-11-27-rose des sables.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Desert rose. --ComputerHotline 18:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood quality and useful (very nice DoF). --PierreSelim 07:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Technically no abnormalities. The environment is too distracting, a clipping would have been preferable--Archaeodontosaurus 08:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Too tight crop, distracting background. Alvesgaspar 21:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Odeigne Vi1a.jpg

edit

  • Nomination The town viewed from the « Sur le Ri » road in Odeigne -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 11:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 11:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose The main subject, the town, is quite small part of the photo. Also quite lot of CA. --kallerna 18:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose CAs and as kallerna--Lmbuga 00:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Chartres,_Maison_15_rue_Saint-Brice,_lucarne_02.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Dormer window in Chartres. --Coyau 00:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 08:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't like the composition: too tight, perspective distortion IMO, overexposed sky, but I'm not sure--Lmbuga 21:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose By what has been said, and the vertical lines of the cristals of the windows aren't stright--Lmbuga 21:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Too tight crop. Alvesgaspar 21:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Centaurium tenuiflorum 1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Centaurium tenuiflorum --Gidip 22:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Ok. --kallerna 18:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness could be better and the two stones are too much distracting --Marie-Claire 20:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sharpness is not available. --Alchemist-hp 14:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Everything seems out of focus here. Alvesgaspar 21:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Swakopmund_ev-luth_Kirche_2.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Evangelical Lutheran Church in Swakopmund Namibia, inner courtyard side. --Alchemist-hp 22:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Partially bit distorted but overall ok. --kallerna 18:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too important perspective distorsion --Marie-Claire 20:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    What is the problem? --Alchemist-hp 14:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support don't see a problem, clearly QI --Taxiarchos228 21:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree. The light come from the wrong direction, but the main subject is not too dark.--Jebulon 14:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good work--Lmbuga 20:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice and not distorted. --Iifar 12:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 05:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Graffiti. Padrón. Galiza.PA13.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Graffiti. Padrón. Galicia, Spain--Lmbuga 20:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. What's the meaning of the writing? --Alvesgaspar 23:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, I can not understand it--Lmbuga 23:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that it's in English--Lmbuga 18:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Let's discuss - Sorry, lighting and framing could be much better --Marie-Claire 12:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 17:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me too. --Alchemist-hp 21:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 05:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Pazo de Fefiñáns. Cambados- Galiza. CBD15.jpg

edit

  • Nomination The Palace of Fefiñáns, Cambados, Galicia, Spain--Lmbuga 00:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 10:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment In comparing this one to the first image of this series this one appears tilted CW. Most noticable in the door frame. --Saffron Blaze 09:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but seems...--Lmbuga 19:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
No tilted to me. Perhaps it is a hostile opinion--Lmbuga 19:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hostile? That's a disturbing thought. Attempts at humour aside... upon a second look I was incorrect in my first impression and withdraw the comment. I think I was led astray by the angled design on the road in front. I should have checked the door frame against a straight edge. Saffron Blaze 21:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I've uploaded a new version. Sorry, I can not understand your words. I'm thinking whihdraw the image--Lmbuga 02:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
No, do not withdraw. Your image was correct; my assessment was wrong. It looked tilted, but when you really check it is not. Saffron Blaze 07:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 09:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --Jebulon 12:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Kadellar 16:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 04:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Antalya Side Apollo.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Temple of Apollo, Side. -- Saffron Blaze 18:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Quality to me. --NorbertNagel 20:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Definition is very good, but isn't it a bit underexposed? Could you upload a more lightful version, please? Kadellar 13:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but as explained to you on my talk page: No and No. Saffron Blaze 22:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice. --Iifar 17:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- Elekhh 12:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Holy Mother of God Church - Sofia.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Holy Mother of God Church in Sofia. --MrPanyGoff 13:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 14:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, dark to me (the image was taken at 13:12 h.). Green CAs at upon of the tower--Lmbuga 20:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I uploaded brighter version.--MrPanyGoff 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      •  Support Better now, and less CAs--Lmbuga 18:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 12:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Yaiza - Lanzarote - Spain. Y06.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Yaiza, Lanzarote, Spain--Lmbuga 18:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion * Comment What building is this? Needs more precise description. --Elekhh 10:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Incredible, please "discuss"--Lmbuga 21:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
      particular house = house of a family, I think--Lmbuga 21:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Not sure what's incredible, any image needs a meaningful description. --Elekhh 05:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support This building is not typical for Yaiza, where the architecture is mainly more traditional. But the image quality is good, despite the tight cropping. -- MJJR 22:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 12:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Yaiza - Lanzarote - Spain. Y07.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Yaiza, Lanzarote, Spain--Lmbuga 18:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment What street is this? Needs more precise description. --Elekhh 10:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Incredible, please "discuss"--Lmbuga 21:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I was at Lanzarote six days and I take 700 images, is your problem a problem to be a image QI?--Lmbuga 21:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
      by the way, the population of Yaiza (Yaiza town) does not have 5000 inhabitants, perhaps it have 500 or 1000--Lmbuga 21:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done I have been able, I'm sure at 95%: Cuesta de los Molinos (street) - 28° 57' 13.37" N, 13° 46' 29.07" W--Lmbuga 19:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  •  Info It is part of QI criteria for the image to have "have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms". The equivalent level of detail is to know the location of a street. Thanks for clarifying. --Elekhh 05:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
You're don't right--Lmbuga 21:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support clear QI - with or without streetname --Taxiarchos228 20:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support As Taxiarchos228 -- MJJR 22:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support as Taxiarchos228. -- Felix Koenig 13:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- Elekhh 12:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Sallertaine - Moulin de Raire (1).jpg

edit

  • Nomination Windmill in Sallertaine, France --Selbymay 19:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good. --kallerna 18:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distorsion --Marie-Claire 20:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice and good image, but perspective distortion and not QI to me--Lmbuga 00:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Alchemist-hp 14:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion --Archaeodontosaurus 17:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI because its not disortet --Ralf Roletschek 08:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted. --Iifar 12:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Please don't correct the perspective issues. Looks very good like it is. --Carschten 19:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    OK Before the controversy, distortion seemed slight to me but I did correct a little & upload the new version. --Selbymay 20:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
     Support It looks very good so. --Haeferl 00:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
     Support I didn't see the previous version. This one looks fine.--Jebulon 12:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 04:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Steinen_-_Evangelisch-lutherische_Kirche4.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Steinen: Lutheran Church --Taxiarchos228 07:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeLight coming from wrong direction - the main subject is dark. --kallerna 18:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Focus finder 00:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Focus finder.--Jebulon 14:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Either you have to chance your vote or your comment. Otherwise we have a disagreement. :-) --Taxiarchos228 11:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I meant "Kallerna", my mistake, sorry.--Jebulon 09:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --ELEKHHT 12:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Vespula germanica nest 1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Vespula germanica, workers at the nest entrance --Gidip 09:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me--Riotforlife 22:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not enough depth of field --Focus finder 00:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support at f/18 is the DOF enough and OK. --Alchemist-hp 14:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Sorry but we have a long tradiction of good macro shots and this one is not among them imo, due to unsharpness and unbalanced composition (besides shallow dof). Alvesgaspar 21:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Alves but you cann't take a focus stack photo from moving animals, for a better macro with more dof. --Alchemist-hp 22:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Dof is not the main problem of this image, unsharpness and composition are. Anyway a better use of the available dof seems possible in this case. Yes, I know it is not possible to carefully prepare the framing and everything else before taking the shot with a subject like this. That is why most people (like me) take a lot of photos in sequence and only use a few (if any) of them. Alvesgaspar 23:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 12:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Moscow-Bolshoi-Theare-1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination QI status challenged as I think it fails the quality criteria by a wide margin. The stitching errors around the fourth window from the right of the upper row are noticeable even in the preview on the file page. Opinions about this procedure were exchanged on the talk page. --Grand-Duc 03:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose the QI status. Grand-Duc (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose simple to many obvious visible stitching errors. The QI status isn't OK for me. --Alchemist-hp 13:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment firstly this CR is outside the QI process the image had already been reviewed and promoted, secondly the person who reviewed this image hasnt even be asked to participate in the discussion.
  •  Support the promotion as the reviewer was acting in good faith Gnangarra 10:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Iifar 17:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's good now . --PierreSelim 10:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now --Archaeodontosaurus 17:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good work --Haeferl 01:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image --Riotforlife 22:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not sure how to close this, as it was already promoted and the challenge failed. Simplest would be for the challenger/nominator to withdraw. --Elekhh 12:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 13:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Nikon_D80_Kamera_edit.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Nikon D80 with battery pack --Taxiarchos228 07:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion flat, noisy parts, lacking crispness --Carschten 18:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
    improved --Taxiarchos228 21:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now --Archaeodontosaurus 17:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me now -- Focus finder 16:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 19:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Truck_with_trailer_in_Toronto.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Truck with trailer at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport --Taxiarchos228 08:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Pole disturbing in foreground--Jebulon 00:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sign in front. Also needs id. --Quartl 16:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment sign disappeared :) --Taxiarchos228 10:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Good effort (now the truck is just a bit blurry at the back). If you provide manufacturer and model of the truck and put the image in the appropriate categories I'll remove my oppose. --Quartl 11:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support There is no more disturbing pole inforeground therefore there is no more reason for opposition. I think that ID should help, but is obviously not a mandatory, so I support now, and because the cloning out job was very well done.--Jebulon (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    •  Request...but please add the "retouched" template in the file description page.--Jebulon 15:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the cloning job isn't bad, but too obvious for a QI --Carschten 10:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I am sure you never would note if I had uploaded from beginning the retouched version. --Taxiarchos228 10:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I did some minor edits to make it less obvious (especially on the yellow concrete thing). I hope it helped. Jopparn 22:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose some trivial subjects should be re photographed rather than edited, while the edit is good I can see some issues the wheel tread patterns dont match, should have use the wheel in front instead, gap between the green cargo plates and the rear cargo shows daylight where it shouldnt be. Sorry IMHO with out a particular significance to the image the editing doesnt make it QI. Gnangarra 14:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Not every "trivial subject" is easy to get. I don't understand why you classify the editing as good but the picture not sufficient to be QI. --Taxiarchos228 14:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
      • A truck is easy to get a photo of, the editing is good but it has faults these issues combined make it not QI, but that said if there is some other particular factor of significant value to warrant the need to edit then I'll reconsider. Gnangarra 14:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
        • A parked truck may be a easy object, but a driving truck is not easy. But only a driving truck looks in photos better than a parking one that is often covered by surrounding stuff that is disturbing. And I am sure that you wouldn`t notice the editing if I would public it first. --Taxiarchos228 14:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
        • By the way doesn't mind of pictures are easy or difficult to make, there is no such criteria. --Taxiarchos228 14:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
        • + 1--Jebulon 15:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
          • I know there is no criteria about ease of taking the photograph, this was a poorly timed, poorly composed photograph thats tried to be improved to QI by editing. The editing is good yet it aint QI it has flaws when you look at the full size version of the image these are noticable whether its highlighted or not. Whether the vehicle is in motion or not is irrelevant, this is a case where the photographer was poorly positioned, the compostion was poorly chosen, but if there was some significance that gives value to the image beyond being a truck then I'll reconsider . Gnangarra 00:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support good job --Archaeodontosaurus 08:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

votes after regular time, seee QI-Guidelines --Taxiarchos228 12:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No consensus on removing already expressed votes, see comments below. --ELEKHHT 19:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
You changed the picture at 10 nov. So it's within 8 days after the new version was here (The old version was more acceptable then the new version to me). I would say a new period of 8 days started after you entered a new version. But well it doesn't matter anyhow. Mvg, Basvb 16:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Changing picture was at November 10, every voter had noticed this and has changed or affirmed his vote. After the vote of Archaeodontosaurus at November 13 the period was over at November 15. Please respect the rule book and don`t invent your own rules. Thank you. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
It's more that I just have some doubts. " the image will stay in Consensual Review for a maximum period of 8 days, counted from its entry." is stated. but what is the moment from entry? The moment it was put in review (quess we both agree thats not it), the moment that somebody disagreed with the first person? (then it would be 2 v 2 votes), the moment the image was added to the consensual review section? (I guess you say that happened on 7 nov?) Or is it the moment that the picture was REentered, as a new version? It's not that clear, so I'm asking how it works exactly. And btw, there's 2 opposes, but there's stated that it's 1 below. Mvg, Basvb 22:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 Info Indeed the wording is ambiguous. The latest discussion on this matter was here, but unfortunately no improvement of the wording in the rules followed. Both the status quo and the arguments were that comments/votes shouldn't be removed because of narrow interpretations of the rules. The aim is to establish consensus not to carry out some kind of bureaucracy. --Elekhh 11:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - the last plates are extended, but the cage was in that part not the plates, the plates are everywhere perfectly piled, exept for the last pile. Mvg, Basvb 08:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unnecessary and unappealing manipulation. For the next time: a shot some seconds later would have been better. --Alchemist-hp 16:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Gute Aufnahme des Trucks! Etwas Beschneiden von links und unten würde zwar nicht schaden, fällt aber nicht so ins Gewicht, dafür ist er schön im Sonnenlicht. --Haeferl 01:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC);
  • Abstimmungszeitraum abgelaufen --Taxiarchos228 07:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Wrong interpretation of rules and conflict of interest promotion. See talk page for further discussion. --Elekhh 08:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Revert strikeout of votes by nominator, as there is no consensus for this per talk page. I suggest that given the current debate, this to stay open for a while and be closed by an experienced and uninvolved editor. --Elekhh 19:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Meets the criteria. The pole and subsequent edit seems a rather trivial issue to form the basis of a decline. Saffron Blaze 10:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --ELEKHHT 19:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Templo_dorado-Amritsar-India048.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Golden Temple, Amritsar, India --Poco a poco 19:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Please correct the tilt as this is an amazing photo.Saffron Blaze 19:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
     CommentIs it better now? --Poco a poco 20:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes indeed. --Saffron Blaze 21:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeThere are 2 dustspots on the upper left. --Berthold Werner 07:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Sauber! --Berthold Werner 14:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually there are several. I missed those in my review. Easily corrected by the owner. Saffron Blaze 13:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Berthold Werner -- Focus finder 10:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done I have updated a new version without dust, --Poco a poco 19:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
...and one more, --Poco a poco 14:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok also for me now. -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 15:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Kadellar 15:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 00:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Porin ravirata 6.8.-11 - 41.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Start number 4 in Pori harness racing track 6.8.2011. --kallerna 07:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality, alough I would have liked a bit a room on the left. --Saffron Blaze 19:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The back of the third jockey is cut. -- Focus finder 10:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It looks too green to me. --Iifar 20:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Sahyadri Pano Scj.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Sahyadri range - Western Ghats or the Sahyadri is the mountain range along the western side of India --Cj.samson 13:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 08:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, too much noise, especially in the sky. High Iso value. --NorbertNagel 21:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support . -- Focus finder 10:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as NorbertNagel. --Iifar 15:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very noisy. --Makele-90 16:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The colour noise, particularly in the sky, is excessive. I doubt this level of noise can be corrected without spoiling such a lovely picture. Saffron Blaze 05:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Termessos_tomb_with-a-view.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Tomb with a view --Saffron Blaze 20:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Beautiful image and good quality. --Haeferl 00:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Though not being underexposed, the mountain on the right is quite dark. It's rather an aesthetic than a technical problem. Unbalanced light. --NorbertNagel 22:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting review. I always thought the shadowed area forced attention to the tomb, which is the actual subject of the image. To each his own. Saffron Blaze 13:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The quality of a picture does not depend on seeing each detail, the shadow does not affect the good view of the landscape. --Taxiarchos228 13:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose very harsh shadows having almost no details. The attention forcing does not work IMO. The crop at bottom is also too tight to me. --Carschten 14:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Carschten -- Focus finder 14:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Impatiens scapiflora.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Impatiens scapiflora is found in many parts of Southern India,this flower is often confused with Impatiens acaulis --Cj.samson 10:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Essential parts of the plant can not be seen. --Haeferl 18:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Your point might be valid for VI; however, this is QI and there is no requirement to show all the "essential elements" to meet QI criteria. I am not convinced this shot meets QI criteria but it should not be declined for this issue. --Saffron Blaze 19:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good --Gidip 20:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 05:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Having had a look at some other samples this is indeed QI. Saffron Blaze 19:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me -- Focus finder 09:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 00:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Abtei_Schweiklberg,_church_towers.jpg

edit

  • Nomination The church towers of the Abtei Schweiklberg in Bavaria, Germany. --High Contrast 16:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Andrei Stroe 10:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A litte bit noisy and not very sharp. Foregound is distracting, however the sky is really great. --NorbertNagel 22:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No good sharpness and for me it looks like photographed in wet weather and then too much contrast knob make up. --Haeferl 15:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as NorbertNagel. --Iifar 19:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Westerwinkel-101010-18220-Schloss-cor-x.jpg

edit

  • Nomination right part of Schloss Westerwinkel --Mbdortmund 04:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 07:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is a noticable glow along the top of the trees and buildings. The colours are so oversaturated as to make this look rather cartoonish. A polarised sky is one thing but this is exessive. Moreover there are numerous dust spots across that sky. --Saffron Blaze 07:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment there are to much dust in the sky for me. See the annotations. May be, you need to clean your caption matrix? --Moonik 07:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
dust spots removed --Mbdortmund 09:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose Only seeing the sky: two zones, two colors, unnatural: halo.--Lmbuga 20:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Lmbuga. --NorbertNagel 20:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Lmbuga. --Iifar 19:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Ötlingen_-_Dorfstraße.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Buildings in Ötlingen --Taxiarchos228 09:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support I find it ok for QI.--MrPanyGoff 14:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeIn my opinion insufficient image composition and value. --NorbertNagel 21:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
please establish your argument --Taxiarchos228 07:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Carschten 20:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Image composition: In my opinion, all the more interesting objects in the background of the motif are at least partly hidden by less interesting objects in the foreground. Foreground is also a little bit dark. --NorbertNagel 20:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with NorbertNagel.--Jebulon 12:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Per MrPanyGoff and Carschten -- Focus finder 14:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 00:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Corylus avellana2.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Cross section of Corylus avellana (by User:Annukar1) --WooteleF 22 November 2011
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The whole thing (the trunk of a tree?) looks like out offocus to me. --Alvesgaspar 21:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support This image is of good quality and is very useful.--Archaeodontosaurus 07:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support--Good quality--Holleday 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Iifar 20:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 00:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:11-01-15-buchmesse-ffm-by-RalfR-14.jpg

edit

OK corrected --Ralf Roletschek 13:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Gute Belichtung, natürlich wirkende Farben und ansprechende Komposition mit interessanter Schärfeverteilung. --Haeferl 01:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If there is something to read it should be readable. And his face, the main motive, is too dark and too red in my point of view. -- Avda 21:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Avda. --Alchemist-hp 14:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Avda. --Iifar 15:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Avda. --Makele-90 16:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Porin ravirata 6.8.-11 - 3.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Kari Rosimo harnessing Mi Victor in Pori harness racing track. --kallerna 17:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeBad crop --Marie-Claire 20:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support perfect crop and QI for me. --Alchemist-hp 14:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I think so --Archaeodontosaurus 17:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight for me... Also, the lighting of the horse is not the best. -- Alvesgaspar 21:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alvesgaspar Focus finder 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Probable green cast ... as usual I would say...--Jebulon 14:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO the horse is too dark. I can't even see his eye. --Makele-90 16:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The horse is underexposed and image too green to me. --Iifar 20:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --ELEKHHT 00:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Harjavallan vesivoimalaitos 9.jpg

edit

  • Nomination View from hydroelectric plant of Harjavalta. --kallerna 19:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Wonderful view with good sharpness. --Haeferl 00:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the white area with the shadow in the foreground should be cropped. --NorbertNagel 21:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment And the black triangle above white area in the lower left --NorbertNagel 12:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info New crop uploaded. --kallerna 12:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Makele-90 16:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me now. --NorbertNagel 19:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Before it was already good, but the crop was a very good idea! --Haeferl 01:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Not a composition I would have considered but it works in this case quite well. Saffron Blaze 04:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 19:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Feral Domestic Goose.jpg

edit

  • Nomination A feral Domestic Goose near Lago di Toblino --Mystère Martin 10:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline * Oppose too small --Mbdortmund 18:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment Not too small, more than 2 megapixels (2.080.000 pixels). Another criterion is necessary--Lmbuga 21:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment The tool says: "Size 1300 1600px 1.98MP at 0.43MB, Below minimum size requirement" Seems to count like Megabyte = 1.048.576 Byte, what is wrong. Interesting... --Mbdortmund 03:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Sorry (sorry and sorry). Perhaps I don't know how many pixels have 1 megapixel. I was thinking that exactly 1 million (1300 x 1600 = 2.080.000). Can you aid me: how many pixels?, please--Lmbuga 02:22, 11 December 2011
           Oppose Now I understand your words, 1.048.576 pixels is 1 megapixel, I think. Thanks and sorry--Lmbuga 02:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
          • No, not size but resolution is megapixels. See COM:IG "Images should have at least 2 real megapixels of information, for example, 1600x1250". Size depends on JPG compression. --Elekhh 12:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
            • Thanks Elekhh. In Spanish I say "tamaño" (size) to resolution and "peso" (weight) to size. Too small size--Lmbuga 07:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the composition. The eye of the first goose is also sharp enough. Only the iron plate over the head of the first goose is a little bit disturbing for me. The picture has 1,300 × 1,600 pixels = 2.080.000 pixels which is greater than 2 real megapixels = 2.000.000 pixels = 1600x1250 pixels named in the example of the QI criteria COM:IG. --Elektroschreiber 08:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elektroschreiber (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination --Aleks G 23:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Jebulon 15:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Folie Saint-James Fabrique.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Ornamental grottoe in the parc of Folie Saint-James near Paris --Moonik 08:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Sorry, perspective distortion and the branches of the trees are disturbing--Lmbuga 22:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    I don't like the crop--Lmbuga 22:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
     Comment The place is not accessible and it's all that we can make with it --Moonik 03:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
    Ok, it's necessary that others think--Lmbuga 19:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO the crop is too tight. But the monument looks so in real. So I don't oppose.--Jebulon 12:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness, colors and exposure are good. I know the problem about inaccessible places and I always like it, when leaves hang in the picture. --Haeferl 23:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral--Lmbuga 20:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support it's ok with me. --Iifar 18:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 18:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Podgora-0909.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Podgornaya sloboda in Pereslavl --PereslavlFoto 10:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline The horizen seems to be misaligned. Can you correct? --NorbertNagel 20:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC) This is special case, the road has to run diagonally.--PereslavlFoto 22:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC) I agree with the road, but do also the street lights, power poles and vertical house edges need to be bend to the upper right? Some of the street lights and power poles are indeed not vertical in this village, but if you rotate the photo by about 2 degrees anticlockwise, at least all the vertical house edges will be aligned vertically. --NorbertNagel 21:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted. --Iifar 19:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 19:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-12-07 12-49-02-plume-paon-57f.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Peacock feather --ComputerHotline 16:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood quality. --Mbdortmund 23:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Multiple errors with halos around bright spots. To focus Stacking 3-4 pictures are enough for a subject of this type. --Archaeodontosaurus 06:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Wrong, it's not enough. It's because why I have used focus stacking. --ComputerHotline 17:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Closes a little more, your depth of field increases, the number of photos needed decreases. essai!--Archaeodontosaurus 08:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeSome bright points look overexposed.--Jebulon 01:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 01:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Pazo de Hermida - Lugar en que escribiu Rosalía de Castro - Dodro - Galiza - f 7.1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Garden of Hermida Palace. Place in which Rosalía de Castro wrote. Lestrobe, Dodro, Galicia, Spain--Lmbuga 16:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)  Info. f/7.1 and 1/160s.--Lmbuga 18:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Boring greenfield with almost invisible subject. --NorbertNagel 20:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    The subject is (or can be) "Garden of Hermida Palace" and "boring" it's not a QI criteria. Please, discuss--Lmbuga 22:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Careful work. good caption --Archaeodontosaurus 07:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Norbert's argument isn't a valid reason to oppose here at QIC (IMHO). This image is much better, thanks! Clear QI to me --Carschten 19:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment In my understanding, on top of this page the value with respect to wiki projects is also mentioned as a selection criterion. I understand, that for QI, value has not the same high relevance as for valued and featured pictures, but a minimum value of the motif is appreciated. Please correct me, if this is a missunderstanding. Frankly speaking, I don't see a palace garden on this photo, just an uncultivated green field with country lane and uncultivated wood in the background. This motif abounds around the world and is totally unspecific. Maybe I'm wrong even with this argumentation and the value of the image is, to show, that the "Garden of Hermida Palace" just looks like one out of a billion uncultivated greenfields around the world. --Norbert Nagel 20:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Norbert, the composition (part of the criteria) is not QI. Also in terms of value, is not a quality capture of the identity of the place. -Elekhh 12:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Elekhh -- Focus finder 16:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 Comment Sorry, but the garden of the palace is thus. Is the critic on the photo or on the garden?--Lmbuga 20:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

To me, the critic is on the garden, sorry--Lmbuga 20:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry is still not clear enough. The criticism is on the photo. A better composition would have been if you catch at least one distinctive element in the foreground, such as the path, or a particular tree. --Elekhh 21:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, but I don't want it (I did not want to do what you say). Rosalía de Castro wrote here (see note). I just wanted to show the inhospitable and poor context where Rosalía wrote many of the poems of "Follas Novas". I think that is literarily interesting. Thanks--Lmbuga 05:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC). Two examples: (sorry, I can not say this in english. Spanish) (1) No debe extrañar la continua presencia de la antítesis entre lo luminoso y lo sombrío en los poemas de Rosalía, o lo inhóspito de muchas de sus composiciones, sabiendo donde se recluía para escribir. (2) El poema "Negra sombra" puede releerse desde este espacio. Rosalía dice en los cuatro primeros versos que, cuando piensa que la sombra se ha ido, la sombra vuelve a ella estando estando Rosalíaóen la cama. Solamente sabemos que vuelve, pero no de donde vuelve, dónde estaba la sombra. No sería de extrañar que la primera sombra fuese la que, fisicamente real, oscurecía el ambiente en el duro momento de la creación literaria. --Lmbuga 06:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC). Thank you. If you had not said what you said, I would have not recognized the reason why this image seemed important to me--Lmbuga 06:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I see, well then you have to try harder to catch the inhospitality. -Elekhh 08:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to think of me so good things: Is it the best possible thought?--Lmbuga 21:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Do you need a certificate to prove that I am Professor of Galician Literature with 26 years of labor experience?--Lmbuga 21:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Or do you want that I speak of Rosalía and your question in Galician language.--Lmbuga 22:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, there appears to be some misunderstanding here. I wasn't questioning your understanding of Rosalía in any way. Sorry I do not speak Galician. --Elekhh 23:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry ¿Can someone translate to spamish or portuguesh "I see, well then you have to try harder to catch the inhospitality.". I'm sure that I can understand, but...--Lmbuga 00:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Español: Por favor, cinismos, no
--Lmbuga 00:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support a technical good picture, comprehensible composition, that's the point here at QI --Taxiarchos228 09:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Iifar 20:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Per supporters.--Jebulon 01:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   ----Jebulon 01:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:0 Haltinne - Château.jpg

edit

  • Nomination The front of the castle in Haltinne, Belgium. -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 19:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks cw tilted to me (and I personally would like to see a perspective correction) --Berthold Werner 07:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC) ✓ Done -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 09:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    I also made an edit, so someone should make the review. --Berthold Werner 18:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
     OpposeIMO needs a crop (too much empty sky). --Iifar 13:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    Send to cr now. --Berthold Werner 14:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer 21:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful picture. I can see a very small problem, but once it is up to now no one noticed, I press one eye and will forever remain silent about it. ;-) --Haeferl 01:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Berthold Werner 07:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-11-09 14-47-15-sun-in-h-alpha.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Sun in h-alpha light. --ComputerHotline 15:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality: blurry and all the reds are noisy --PierreSelim 15:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Noisy or surface structure? I think, it's the surface. Let's discuss --Llez 16:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC) The surface of the sun is not regular. --ComputerHotline 17:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
     Comment camera's resolution is 3,648 × 2,736 image resolution is 2,433 × 2,253 according to metadata it says focal length is 18mm. Ignoring the journey requirments, it'd be kinda warm to get close enough with that focal length can you explain what software and pp editing you used to magnify the image. Gnangarra 12:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

 Comment The picture you cited show way more details, thoses details can only be guessed with the small variations of red, hence the feeling of the image being noisy and unsharp. If the reason behind this is purely technical, then for me the process is not OK. I might be too harsh, and but the result feels wrong to me. PierreSelim 00:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
* Please decide for support or oppose. --Mbdortmund 01:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
**please questions need answers before deciding, if pushed I'd oppose because theres a lack of information Gnangarra 03:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Per PierreSelim--Jebulon 01:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 01:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-11-09 14-43-52-sun-in-h-alpha.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Solar prominences. --ComputerHotline 15:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality: blurry and all the reds are noisy --PierreSelim 15:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Noisy or surface structure? I think, it's the surface. Let's discuss --Llez 16:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC) The surface of the sun is not regular. --ComputerHotline 17:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please decide for support or oppose. --Mbdortmund 01:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  SupportNoisy, but the noise seems to be acceptable here.--Jebulon 01:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   ----Jebulon 01:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-11-09 14-38-07-sun-in-h-alpha.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Sun in h-alpha light. --ComputerHotline 15:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality: blurry and all the reds are noisy --PierreSelim 15:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Noisy or surface structure? I think, it's the surface. Let's discuss --Llez 16:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC) The surface of the sun is not regular. 17:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please decide for support or oppose. --Mbdortmund 01:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeLooks noisy--Jebulon 01:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ----Jebulon 01:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:11-01-15-buchmesse-ffm-by-RalfR-09.jpg

edit

  • Nomination german Journalist de:Stefan Lichter --Ralf Roletschek 13:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
    *  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 14:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment zu rot --Mbdortmund 01:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC) - ich habs korrigiert, schwierige Sache, von links Tageslicht, rechts orangene Glühlampen. Noch mehr und sein Kinn wird blau. --Ralf Roletschek 09:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support ganz klare Angelegenheit --Carschten 14:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Etwas Putzen in den Zahnzwischenräumen wäre vielleicht noch ganz nett, besonders links das schwarze Körndl. ;-) --Haeferl 00:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Não entendo nada do que está a ser dito! Parece-me que o equilíbrio dos brancos não está bem: tudo parece avermelhado. Alvesgaspar 21:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Moi je comprends. Zu rot - trop rouge - muito vermelho. Ils disent que la couleur a été corrigée, mais que l'éclairage était lumière du jour à gauche, lampes orange à droite. Ils conseillent aussi au sujet de... se brosser les dents ! Je suis contre l'impérialisme de la langue anglaise, mais là, ça va être quand même compliqué si on continue comme ça...--Jebulon 14:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Jebulon, that has nothing to do with the imperialism of the English language. Much is difficult for me to say in English, and when the photographer speaks German, it is easyer for me so. ;-)
    • Yes I agree. I just made a french translation for Alves (He speaks very well french). And I wrote that: I'm against the english language imperialism, BUT I have to admit that using english is better for universal understanding. --Jebulon 12:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I would promote the picture, because it has a very good sharpness. The light disturbs me less, orange is even a pleasant effect. But I do not know, if Stefan Lichter knew that he comes into the picture so big, so I would find a few small corrections already nice. Maybe he was just eating before ... ;-) --Haeferl 00:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not shure, it's difficult to get it better. What do you think about my proposal? --Mbdortmund 23:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Alvergaspar. The another version is to me better--Lmbuga 20:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support the 683 variant, the one less red.--PereslavlFoto 18:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Alvergaspar. --Archaeodontosaurus 11:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Because "zu rot" and we must decide--Jebulon 01:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   ----Jebulon 01:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:ST_vs_Gloucester_-_Match_-_03.JPG

edit

  • Nomination Rugby union offload (pass after a contact) --PierreSelim 22:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • I've some doubts on many background elements, the hand on the left the soundman on the right who is just behind a player. Mvg, Basvb 22:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment true the hand is very disturbing, I'll have a look at it tomorrow (may be), for the soundman it's problematic I admit, but there is a lot of folks near the touch line during a match (ball catcher, photographers, soundman, etc.) PierreSelim 23:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Good DOF, sharpness, and composition (except for the soundman but thanks to good DOF not too bad). Overall a good action shot, and higher quality than required for QI IMO.--ArildV 22:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The requirement #3 here says: 'no advertisement', but we have the advertise on the T-shirts here.--Ahonc 12:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It's under the heading Image page requirements and about signatures and advertisements from the photographer. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the Image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents. (Why else prohibit signatures in photo?)--ArildV 12:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC).
  • Seriously, "no advertisement" ? How are you supposed to take a picture of profesionnal sport without adverstisement on sport uniforms and the field ? I by the way think that the soundman adds value to the picture : showing both the action and some context. He's as much a part of modern profesionnal sport as coachs or referees.Léna 15:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good action shot IMO. Mais à mon avis, y'a en-avant.--Jebulon 01:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 18:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Straßenwalze_Kemna_Breslau_im_Dorf_Veitsch.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Road roller Kemna Breslau Nr. 2305 in the village Veitsch --Haeferl 02:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nr. 2305, eh! --Coyau 09:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose a better camera angle would have avoided to include the lamp pole --Focus finder 12:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Please tell me, what you mean about "avoided to include the lamp pole", in other words. I can not understand it and google-translation gives no meanful translation. --Haeferl 12:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Focus finder meint, dass wenn Du einen anderen Winkel zum Fotografieren gewählt hättest, der störende Lichtmast auf dem Bild hätte vermieden werden können. --Taxiarchos228 12:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Danke Wladyslaw. :-) Ich hätte den Lichtmast auch wegschneiden können - allerdings gefällt es mir so besser, wenn der Mast quasi eine Art Rahmen abgibt und dadurch das Haus nicht einfach so abgeschnitten ist. Den Winkel hab ich wegen der Ortstafel gewählt. --Haeferl 14:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Focus finder: Haeferl has chosen this angle because he wanted to display the city limit sign, besides he like the lamp pole which he could crop, giving the picture a kind of framing. --Taxiarchos228 14:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Very fine QI, yes!--PereslavlFoto 18:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I have to agree with Pereslav. This is a fine photo. Saffron Blaze 04:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 19:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Euston railway station MMB 03 390048 390036.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Trains at Euston station. Mattbuck 11:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Tight crop and light a little bit dull. --NorbertNagel 20:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The crop was intentional and the light is simply the way the light is there. Mattbuck 23:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as NorbertNagel. --Iifar 06:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 20:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Aspendos_Amphitheatre.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Aspendos Theatre, Antalya --Saffron Blaze 19:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. Please note that the shades are not underexposed! --NorbertNagel 20:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too tight crop -- Focus finder 10:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Not going to get any wider, as that was the limit of my lens and the cliff I was on. Regardless, not sure what a wide view would achieve given the whole theatre is in view. Saffron Blaze 13:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The squeezed edges distract attention from the centre. Definitely would have been better to have a bit more space on the sides. Really a pity because is an interesting subject and good angle providing excellent overview. --Elekhh 20:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it is good enough for QI, not at last it is one of the two best in its category. --Haeferl 14:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Iifar 15:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 20:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Porin ravirata 6.8.-11 - 12.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Start number 5 in Pori harness racing track 6.8.2011. --kallerna 15:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Saffron Blaze 19:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree --Focus finder 11:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
    •  Question Why ?--Jebulon 17:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbdortmund 08:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Iifar 19:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 20:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Füssen_-_Klosterkirche_St._Mang30.jpg

edit

  • Nomination St. Mang Basilica Füssen, cross of altar --Taxiarchos228 07:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Window areas are overexposed and disturbing. Cross area is slightly underexposed. If you crop the window areas, the photo is probably OK. --NorbertNagel 21:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
    sorry, but your arguments are not conclusive, the extreme high difference of bright and dark parts are managed very well for a QI, beside the window in the background is not main object --Taxiarchos228 21:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photo as is has insufficient quality IMO, due to high overexposure of the window areas. --NorbertNagel 21:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Carschten 21:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. The main subject is very nice, and the slight overexposure is not too distracting IMO.--Jebulon 00:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed, also on the subject (reflection light). Sorry, but IMHO no QI. --T137 11:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 20:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Lindau_-_Hafen8.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Bavarian Lion at the harborentrance of Lindau --Taxiarchos228 07:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Some areas underexposed, others overexposed. Sky is noisy (iso value??). Image composition (camera position) appears to be arbitrary. --NorbertNagel 21:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
arguments can not convince --Taxiarchos228 21:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Focus finder 11:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition: the angle appears random, making it look tilted and not providing a good view of the subject. --Elekhh 21:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
    • It has nothing to do with random: this sculpture is the normal view you obtain when you are looking upward to the monument. For sure you get an other view of the lion from the light house File:Lindau Löwe-edit.jpg, but both views are legitimate. Not very random is also the cumulative fact that you are opposing my pictures with flimsy arguments. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I noted this new instance of incivility. Would appreciate if you would refrain from it in the future. Thanks. --Elekhh 00:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Wanting arguments is no reason for rude impudence. --Taxiarchos228 13:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 20:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:St Sedmochislenitsi Church - Sofia.jpg

edit

  • Nomination St. Sedmochislenitsi Church in Sofia. --MrPanyGoff 07:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 10:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Main subject obscured. Same image in winter could work, or a different framing. --Elekhh 05:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Elekhh is mixing FPC with QIC. The object and especially the dome is visible clearly, no need for having the whole church. --Taxiarchos228 15:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
      • There is a tree in the middle of the image. You can disagree, but I confirm that it was in consideration of QI criteria. Elekhh 19:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
        • The tree belongs to the surrounding of this church. That's destiny. --Taxiarchos228 13:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
          • There are many possible angles, framings and times (i.e. light conditions, foliage) a photographer can choose, that's not destiny. --ELEKHHT 21:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Elekhh--Jebulon 22:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Schönau_-_Mariä_Himmelfahrt21.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Schönau: Churches of the Assumption, crossroad (station 1 and 2) --Taxiarchos228 07:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline It is part of QI criteria for the image to "have a meaningful title and description". Not the case here. Please correct.--Jebulon 09:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
    The picture is showing a part of the Churches of the Assumption and so the file title is meaningful, Mister inch pincher. --Taxiarchos228 08:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)  Comment for what it's worth, it's a part of the via crucis a.k.a. Way of Sorrows a.k.a. Stations of the Cross, etc. --PierreSelim 10:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Please don't call me Mister inch pincher. It is a personal attack, and i just tell the rule we all have to follow. Btw the file description you changed is better now. Thank you. --Jebulon 12:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
    It is not an insult but a fact: you are rejecting stuff that you not reject months ago or at other pictures. I have already perceived your negative attitude against me, no need to deny. The nomenclature for my picture titles I use since over years. There is no such rule how specified the title has to be, this is your interpretation; actually a very idiosyncratic. --Taxiarchos228 12:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
     Comment Gentlemen, often it is more about how you get your point across not the point itself. The very nature of this process means there will be conflicting opinions. In this case I think the change requested was not excessive and it was requested in a polite manner. In the last instance earlier using a word like "bad" in such a curt manner will be interpreted personally, in any language, as is using phrases like "inch pincher". Choose your words more carefully and compromise a bit here. IMO the file name and categories were fine but the descriptions could be more informative in both cases. Something we probably all could do a better job of doing. Saffron Blaze 13:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Non-uniform illumination as well as perspective distortion (right part is in smaller scale). --NorbertNagel 20:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
object is visible well, non-uniform illumination are not relevant for QI IMO --Taxiarchos228 13:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Aber wenn Du die Möglichkeiten dazu hast, Wlady, warum machst Du Deine Bilder nicht grundsätzlich so schön wie möglich? Warum wehrst Du Dich gegen die perspektivische Korrektur? Ich finde auch, daß manche Bilder kaputtkorrigiert werden, aber in dem Fall wäre es doch wirklich eine Verbesserung. Man schaut es dann viel lieber an, und ist das nicht etwas, was wir alle wollen, daß andere unsere Bilder gern anschauen? ;-) --Haeferl 01:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposePer NorbertNagel.--Jebulon 00:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 20:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Colchicum hierosolymitanum 1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Colchicum hierosolymitanum --Gidip 15:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Second proposal. Not sharp or not dof enough to QI IMO--Lmbuga 18:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The low sharpness claim seems to repeat itself in my recent images. My D7000 is by default set to generate images with lots of pixels. If the images were resized with less pixels (still way above 2 mpx), they would appear very sharp. --Gidip 03:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 20:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Lanzarote_Ermita_de_las_Nieves_R01.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Ermita de las Nieves (Lanzarote, Canary Islands) -- MJJR 22:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline To me the colour of the sky looks a bit strange (perhaps tto much red?) --Berthold Werner 07:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Color corrected -- MJJR 17:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
    IMHO: yes. --Berthold Werner 16:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose Too many reasons: Rule of thirds (too much sky), the sky is noisy to me, the greens colors are dark, the color of the land of the first plane is unnatural, poor detail... Can be QI, but I don't know why, sorry--Lmbuga 23:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure, sorry, but I think that it's not QI --Lmbuga 23:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image appears over saturated and the white balance must be off given that the clouds are that grey on a sunny day. -- Saffron Blaze 11:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Colors look unnatural to me. --Iifar 12:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 20:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Candles_in_Trieste_S.Giusto_Cathedral.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Votive candles in S.Giusto Cathedral, Trieste, Italy. --Andou 05:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment In my humble opinion too much dead space, should need a cropping. V-wolf 11:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC) --
    ✓ Done Uploaded new cropped version of the photo, I think is better now, thanks for the suggestion! --Andou 12:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC).
  •  Weak support I like the composition and light, but I'm a bit concerned about the leading line created by the rim of the iron plate, leading into nowhere. I'm also not the right person to judge technical stuff. Let's discuss. --V-wolf 06:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the rim of the iron plate is a distraction point, attention is captured by candles and the rim itself is part of a shallow depth of field serving a purpose. Obviously, this is only my opinion and here we are for the discussion. --Andou 08:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too blurry areas --Archaeodontosaurus 11:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too blurry areas and I don't understand the crop (right side)--Lmbuga 22:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-12-19 11-37-38-microfossiles-39f.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Microfossils. --ComputerHotline 17:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Microfossil the term is reserved for specimens of millimeter. These fragments, crinoid, are centimeter. Too much area are not included in the reconstrution. 4 images have sufficed for the entire subject. --Archaeodontosaurus 15:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
     Comment The files (all three) are incorrectly named, as indicated, but I fail to see how the area is insufficient or how the use of 4 or 39 images is relevant. I can clearly see the fossils and the detail and sharpness is excellent. Saffron Blaze 04:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    Bad light, too many gray areas. The number of pictures has nothing to do. --Archaeodontosaurus 09:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
     Comment If the number of images used is not relevant perhaps it would be appropriate to refrain from commenting on focus stacks when someone presents a subject using more than 4 images in the stack? Each time you have done that I thought you were making it part of your rationale for the decline. Saffron Blaze 04:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes it's true. There is too much blurring and the contrast is too strong. --Archaeodontosaurus 19:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Montreal_-_QC_-_St.-Josephs-Oratorium8.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Montréal: Saint Joseph's Oratory of Mount-Royal, statues --Taxiarchos228 09:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline hat vllt einen leichten Farbstich in Richtung Magenta --Mbdortmund 07:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
    kann ich nicht erkennen --Taxiarchos228 21:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Vielleicht ist die Kirchenwand rechts im Bild in einem zarten Rosa-Ton gestrichen? Eher unwahrscheinlich --NorbertNagel 15:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Ist es nicht. Warst Du vor Ort, um das beurteilen zu können? --Taxiarchos228 15:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Too unbalanced lightning IMO for QI. --NorbertNagel 18:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agreed with NorbertNagel. --Iifar 08:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Füssen_-_Klosterkirche_St._Mang35.jpg

edit

  • Nomination St. Mang Basilica Füssen, fresco --Taxiarchos228 07:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeComposition and lightning below QI standards IMO. --NorbertNagel 18:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    • why? --Alabasterstein 11:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Wilkommen in "Commons" (?), Alabasterstein (?)--Jebulon 15:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Lamarck et Larus ridibundus.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Lamarck and the gull. Jardin des Plantes de Paris.--Jebulon 18:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportGood quality. --Smial 12:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeSorry but artifacts are visible in the upper right part of the sky --Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 10:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Could you please be more precise ? As I don't see anything wrong, I need to have more information about these "artifacts", thanks in advance.--Jebulon 20:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose artifacts (I don't know the technical term, but I made annotations), halo, so-so lighting (I don't like the playing with shadows and highlights) --Carschten 13:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for review. I've uploaded another version, without artifacts nor halo, handmade correction, now we have a nice flat blue sky with no personality, but without flaws. I've destroyed the branches too (they were disturbing !). Better now ?--Jebulon 13:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
The blue sky looks a bit unrealistic IMHO (because the sky should look darker at the top (in contrast to the bottom)), but maybe it's ok like this. There's a retouching problem, too. --Carschten 13:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
If you really want an artificial gradient in the sky, I can do that too... But...--Jebulon (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. --Iifar 08:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support No technical problem. --Archaeodontosaurus 08:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Zell-Atzenbach_-_Mariä_Himmelfahrt5.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Zell im Wiesental: Church of the Assumption in Atzenbach --Taxiarchos228 09:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 11:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some overexposed lights and some underexposed shades. --NorbertNagel 20:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support No technical problem --Archaeodontosaurus 08:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Nürnberg_-_Verkehrsmuseum.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Nuremberg Transport Museum --Taxiarchos228 09:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI to me--Lmbuga 15:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is a strong distortion, and the shadow in foreground is disturbing (to me). Please see annotations and let's discuss.--Jebulon 13:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Question Is the left facade curved in reality?--MrPanyGoff 15:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
yes, it is (google map shows it).--Iifar 08:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't understand why my annotation disappeared before the end of the review, but yes, the façade is curved in real...--Jebulon 15:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. --Iifar 08:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Big Ben - 01.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Big Ben, London, England. --Kadellar 19:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support This photo is better travel photo. I really loved it! --Katarighe 19:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The light is very good, but that is about it. The crop is not balanced, The subject is neither centered nor at a rule of third line. The crop is assymetric vertically, some details cut off above. Lets discuss. --Slaunger 22:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC).
     Comment I didn't want to strictly follow the thirds rule to leave more space at the right side, otherwise the crop would be too tight. About assymmetry, I preferred the tower facing somewhere, not to the front; and about the crop up, I don't see it as a problem since it is a detail picture of the tower, which has itself many small details, so something must be finally missing, it's not the whole tower what I depicted. --Kadellar 23:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not very happy with the crop. --Iifar 12:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For the same reason, weird crop. Selbymay (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Hauingen_-_St._Nikolaus3.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Hauingen: Church of Saint Nicolaus --Taxiarchos228 12:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Seems to be quite some noise on the lower left and some on the church windows. Mvg, Basvb 22:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me now -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 19:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much disturbing shadow. Let's discuss, please.--Jebulon 01:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, but the shadows at the main object are disturbing. --Alchemist-hp 14:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support For me it is not too much shadow, the picture is good. --Haeferl 18:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Iifar 18:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine QI, cannot see any problem. --PereslavlFoto 18:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, per Jebulon. --kallerna 13:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Jebulon. Sorry. --T137 11:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Albi Cathedral Nave Wikimedia Commons.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Nave of Albi Cathedral, and its organ, Albi, Tarn, France (by User:Benh). --kallerna 17:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Aleks G 23:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose very good sharpness, but not symmetric --Taxiarchos228 20:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
The qualitative photo not always can be "on a ruler" ;-). --Aleks G 11:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong distortion --Berthold Werner 15:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As we "oppose" in cases of distortion and lens flares, I don't see any reason to make an exception for this one, even if the distortion here is obviously "self-willed". It looks artificial to my taste, maybe good for the WLM contest (alas...), but not for QIC in my opinion...The dis-symmetry is due to the position of the photographer, which was not central (see the arch)--Jebulon 15:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Persepctive distortion hurts. --NorbertNagel 23:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 09:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

File:0 Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris.JPG

edit

  • Nomination The Notre Dame de Paris - Île de la Cité island in Paris, France.-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 17:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood quality. --Taxiarchos228 19:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeMaybe the sharpness "so-so" and the strong CA at right needs a discussion, sorry.--Jebulon 17:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To me unsharp, and CAs--Lmbuga 22:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tigth crop, unsharp. --PetarM 08:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 09:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)