Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 2012

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Consensual review[edit]

File:Dlieja_de_Sant_Antone.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church of St. Antony in de:St. Ulrich in Gröden --Moroder 09:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment It's unsharp in full view, but with that resolution, a 70-75% downscale certainly would be no problem for the overall quality, I think. - A.Savin 09:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for reviewing the picture. I don't see pictures much sharper than this on QIC and I don't agree to downsample on Wikimedia because one can always download pictures of smaller size --Moroder 10:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC) I strongly agree with Moroder on downsample. But the problem here is a wrong choice of aperture, why f/5? (you need a smaller aperture to get the whole church in focus. --ArildV 12:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Info At a distance of 15 m. a 31 mm/2.8 lens at f/5 is perfect for DOF (in traditional photography). I hope you don't tell me that the focus is not good for QI(we are not in FP). The image might have a minimal blur due to HDR without a tripod --Moroder 14:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC) D800 is an excellent camera. But Im sorry, this photo is not excellent. There are few details and blurred and part not in focus. Probably a combination of camera settings and post-processing.--ArildV 15:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    I believe that the picture should be considered as it is and not as it should be according to the quality of the camera and I believe that as long as you can count every shingle of the roof the picture is well in focus and that there is nothing lacking for it to be QI--Moroder 08:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC) I disagree. The roof may be good enough, but not the rest of the building.--ArildV 08:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support To me, it is a QI as it is. I don't understand the debate about the downsampling, I have personaly a non consensual opinion, but it is not the place for such an endless discussion...--Jebulon 10:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree, QI as is, though a little extra sharpening wouldn't have hurt the image. Biopics 12:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Parson Street railway station MMB 30 57303.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 57303 at Parson Street. Mattbuck 12:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment I think the technical quality is good. Concerning the file page I think a suitable variant of the {{Consent}} template could be of relevance here. --Slaunger 19:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • They're in public, there is no expectation of privacy. Already tagged with {{Personality rights}} anyway. Mattbuck 21:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, I know they are in public, and that photographs are allowed in public, but this is not always so, when it comes to publishing the photo and allowing commercial reuse, see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Unfortunately UK is not in the list where specifics are given, so you may be right it is not an problem here, but do you know for sure that you do not need consent (which is different from {{Personality rights}}), see also QIC talk. --Slaunger 05:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
      • For UK, see thr fourth column in this pdf, where it is adviced to get consent, even for people in public, especially when a photograph is published. --Slaunger 05:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
        • This has never ever been an issue with any other photo I've brought here. If you're so unhappy about the presence of people in the photo, start a damn deletion. Any consent issue is a non-copyright restriction so we frankly don't give a damn. You're in public, you're probably being photographed all the time. People do NOT need to consent to have their photo taken, or even published. It may be SUGGESTED, but it is NOT mandatory. Mattbuck 14:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
          • There is absolutely no reason to SHOUT or swear at me. Just because something has never ever been an issue does not mean it s not an issue. It is only very recently it was brought to my attention via the discussion about the consent template on the QIC talk page (have you read that?) and the implementation of the board resolution that it could be an issue. It would be more helpful if you gave a refernce to why consent is not an issue, or added UK to the list as a green entry with proper references. If you read Commons:Country specific consent requirements, UK is not listed, but the list is stated to be incomplete, so what applies for UK? It is not as much a matter of legal matters but more an isue of decency and by showing a good example at QIC by asking for consent. So I am just merely asking for clarification on this point. For me, it appears borderline regarding consent, but I am not sure. If the identifiable persons formed a larger group it would definately not be an issue. Here the group only consist of three people. They are (apparently) not doing anything "embarrasing" in public, which is in favor of not expecting consent. Lets discuss. --Slaunger 19:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support No possible expectation of privacy here, the subject is the train and nothing embarrassing. Image meets QI criteria for me. --PierreSelim 09:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 07:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Poznan Market Square II.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Old Market Square (Stary Rynek) in Poznań is surrounded by town houses with colourful façades. Scotch Mist 19:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeVery colorful and nice subject, but the statue in the front is overexposed, the colors appear oversaturated (especially the teal roof on the buildings, and the sky is noisy. --Slaunger 23:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC))
    • The statue seemingly emerging from the building behind adds further interest to this photo of colourful buildings shot in the natural light of the day (this is the actual colour of the tiles) - perhaps what appears to be noise in the sky is the thin wire running along the roof-top? --Scotch Mist 05:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC) 05:26 28 May 2012 (UTC)
      • No, it is not wires. Sky is not the main problem, but overexposure from harsh midtime day-light. Many aeras are blown. Sculpture would be OK if properly exposed. If possible try morning or evening light instead for softer light (may not be possible due to shadows from nearby buildings, I do not know). Difficult to get QI given the 2007 compact camera camera btw (not really your fault). --Slaunger 14:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Slaunger. --Kadellar 19:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Muay_Thai_Ao_Nang_11.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view from Aonang Krabi Muay Thai Stadium, Ao Nang, Krabi, Thailand. --kallerna 09:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Rare image, but quite noisy; it's a pity that one fighter is hidden by the corner of the ring. --Myrabella 22:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    I'm a bit ambivalent, but benefit of the doubt. Mattbuck 16:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeSorry, I dont like the image. Good resolution (or size), but poor detail. I don't like the white balance--Lmbuga 22:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Frankfurt-oder-sw-12.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Frankfurt/Oder, Bridge over River Oder --Ralf Roletschek 13:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  OpposeI'm afraid it's too noisy, should like to discuss --Moroder 20:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC) this is Film grain. --Ralf Roletschek 21:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
    it is still noise IMO -How many ASA/ISO? --Moroder 08:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC) It's in the Description: black/white Kodak T400CN analog Film --Ralf Roletschek 17:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:St Pancras railway station MMB D1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination St Pancras railway station. (Yes, as you can guess, yesterday I uploaded about 80 photos of St Pancras...) Mattbuck 15:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose bad brightness dynamics, confuse composition --Taxiarchos228 16:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • It was night, I thought it was pretty, I'd like a second opinion. Mattbuck 16:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I do not doubt it was pretty, but it is not so apparent in this photo. I have to agree with Taxiarchos regarding exposure dynamics. --Slaunger 21:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I have uploaded a new, brighter version. Mattbuck 12:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Wiesenbrücke_der_Zollfreien_Straße1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach: Zollfreie Straße (Duty-Free-Street) (Wiesen Bridge) --Taxiarchos228 08:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too bright. --Mattbuck 15:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    I don't think so . Taxiarchos228 16:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Wiesenbrücke_der_Zollfreien_Straße2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach: Zollfreie Straße (Duty-Free-Street) (Wiesen Bridge) --Taxiarchos228 08:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too bright. --Mattbuck 15:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    I don't think so . Taxiarchos228 16:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Souvenirs_shop_in_London.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A souvenir kiosk in fron of the Palace of Westminster in London, UK --Ralf Roletschek 11:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --JDP90 18:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA and OOF guy right disturb. Biopics 17:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The guy is blurry, distorted, and is disturbing. Strong CAs for me (see notes). The image seems a bit tilted or/and with perspective distortion.--Lmbuga 20:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Panurgus_sp._on_Glebionis_sp._19-12-2011.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Panurgus sp. on Glebionis sp. --JDP90 13:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support. --Cayambe 14:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough and not sufficiently id'ed. Biopics 17:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sufficiently id'ed. The flower is not sharp enough (f/2.8). --Lmbuga 20:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Margrethe_I_Nørresø_Viborg_2012-05-23.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Tour boat Margrethe I in front of Golfsalonen in Nørresø, Viborg, Denmark --Slaunger 21:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood quality. --NorbertNagel 06:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, but the sharpness is not better than the first attempt, this image is in addition too dark --Taxiarchos228 11:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Concerning darkness. I did decrease the brightness somewhat to avoid blown areas in the raw file prior to converting to jpg with the sun shining on the glossy white paint. I did lift the shadow regions at raw level as well. I agree it looks a bit dark in thumbnail, but in full, I think it looks good, and the reflection of the waves in the hull are seen with this exposure setting. That is not seen in a brighter version. I like that there is quite big brightness dynamics in the photo (without substantial noise in shadow areas). Personally, I find the sharpness and DOF improved and acceptable for QI. --Slaunger 12:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      • it's a quite funny argumentation to find a visible shadow on the letterbox picture distracting although all parts are visible clearly and to defend it on this picture. I think the shadow is distracting here because only the bow of the boat has a nice light. If you send me the RAW file am sure I would develop a version with a much better brightness dynamic. The sharpness and DOF is for a static object like this unacceptable for a QI and I am afraid this is also not correctable with the RAW. --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, almost as funny as seeing you pick on dynamic range issues here and defend your own nom with similar problems. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on what exactly is good light and bad light. I respect that other people have a different opinion than my own. That said, I think you are right that the exposure here is probably improvable, and you have already given me some further helpful advice about how I could do that in an email. Thank you. The raw is unfortunately too big (26 MB) to send via email for me. The wheather forecast here in Denmark is still promising for the next few days, and I am determined to finally take a shot and develop a raw of this subject which has very good quality (or as good as my glass and sensor can make it). --Slaunger 19:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed some sharpness issues. Biopics 17:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:2010-06-23-md-hundertwasser-by-RalfR-35.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination "Green Citadel" from Friedensreich Hundertwasser in Magdeburg --Ralf Roletschek 11:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 20:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, not QI for me: Unbalanced composition. A bit of CAs (see note). A bit of chromatic noise (see note) and noise. The image can be more sharp: Lack of fine detail on the head--Lmbuga 00:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not sure, lets discuss--Lmbuga 00:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In addition to the problems identified by Lmbuga, the framing favors a brackground disturbing: the upper part is overexposed. --Archaeodontosaurus 05:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Archaendontosaurus, disturbing background and too much chromatic noise in the dark areas, sorry Poco a poco 13:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Chronos Statue Detail.JPG[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 12:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:MS Azura (front).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The MS Azura entering the port of Zeebrugge. --Biopics 21:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Iifar 10:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose there is a dustsport in this image. please keep in mind: dustspots are not very compatible with QI. --Taxiarchos228 16:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Well-'spot'ted! Now it's mere figments and Larus argentatus remaining... Biopics 08:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I see two light spots, notes added. --Iifar 17:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done Fixed. --Iifar 07:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not a bad picture, but it is desirable to correct the white balance, tweak the contrast, you can still raise the sharpness of the well and clean the dirt and will be QI. --Aleks G 22:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Why are in the new versions gulls imported? If they aren't original this is a disproportionate manipulation and not compatible with QI. --Taxiarchos228 10:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Mice subject. --WhiteWriter 09:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Come on... Obvious QI.--Jebulon 15:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aleks G 09:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Aleks G 09:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

==[edit]

  • Nomination Logo of the "Cultural Element/Kulturni Element" organisation, Serbia --WhiteWriter 22:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Oppose As is, the PNG and SVG version differ especially in the top left part about musical symbols. Also, small corrections may be needed to perfectly match the SVG as a replacement to the raster(unless of course the SVG can be sourced to another location and proven to be correct).--Gauravjuvekar 10:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • So? I dont have any, even slightest problem with that, as creator. --WhiteWriter 16:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • FixedWith the use of {{Retouched picture}}. Now I  Support--Gauravjuvekar 18:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Gauravjuvekar 18:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:1956 Monument II.jpg[edit]

File:Schliengen_-_Gasthaus_zur_Sonne.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schliengen: Restaurant "zur Sonne" --Taxiarchos228 07:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality, but please remove the dust spot I marked wit a note. --NorbertNagel 17:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Maybe should we promote pictures only after the removal of noticed issues ?--Jebulon 15:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    already done (yesterday), look at the history --Taxiarchos228 19:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still dust spot. Biopics 22:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Finally removed! Biopics 11:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

 Comment I don't see the dust spot any more. Maybe you need to delete/refresh your browser cache to see the new image version. --NorbertNagel 11:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

  • The dust spot is still there over the chimney slightly to the right --Moroder 20:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC).  SupportSorry my Imagenote gadged doesnt work btw you know how to fix it?
    • ich sehe ihn leider nicht, bitte markiere ihn doch --Taxiarchos228 09:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I finally found it and marked it with a note. It is an almost invisible second one. --NorbertNagel 12:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 14:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Poznan Market Square I.jpg[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rakowicki View.jpg[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cracow Square VII.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Sculpture in Main Market Square in Krakow. Scotch Mist 16:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn
  •  Oppose - Overexposed. --Mattbuck 16:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree as the subject of the photo is the sculpture (have revised title) --Scotch Mist 11:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont understad the composition and crop. Can you please explain the idea behind? The sculpture is not mentioned in the image description.--ArildV 11:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The picture is clearly posed to have the sculpture and the building, therefore the building being overexposed is an issue. Mattbuck 12:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Renaissance Sukiennice is the focus for many visitors to Krakow but the composition and crop clearly bring art (in this case a modern sculpture) in the Main Square to the fore (with obvious details of the Sukiennice faded into the background) hopefully provoking the question of the balance we would like to see of history and art (with an eye to the future from the past). Admittedly the description would benefit from some more information relevant to the sculpture, but am in the process of gradually working through my photos to remedy this. --SM1 (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It explains the idea. Good (nothing wrong). But the result? Both the sculpture and the upper part of the building are cropped. To me it doesn't work here (despite the good intentions). Regards--ArildV (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Accept that whether overall this works or not is a matter of individual opinion, which to me is a more important consideration than whether background features are overexposed or cropped, deliberately or otherwise. The cropping of the sculpture is deliberately provocative and appreciate that this will not work for many - thank you for your feedback.--Scotch Mist 06:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Some CA and imo composition is not good at all. --Iifar 11:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination--Scotch Mist 13:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cieszyn Court Sculptures.jpg[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Route cantonale Lausanne - Neuchâtel km 29.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Milestones in Switzerland -- Ludo29 21:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose - I somehow find the blur of the background trees disturbing. Am open to other opinions. Mattbuck 15:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Because of the overexposition and the CA on the round top of the milestone.--Jebulon 14:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --WhiteWriter 11:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Getreidefeld_bei_Günterberg_(Uckermark).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination corn field near Günterberg (Uckermark) by Jonas Rogowski --Ralf Roletschek 17:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Beautiful. Definately above average. --High Contrast 21:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Very nice colors and good light conditions, but lack of sharpness and fine detail. --Iifar 09:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Iifar. Biopics 12:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support details sufficient for a landscape image --Taxiarchos228 19:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks really good in preview, but dissapointing detail level in full resolution. Basically per Iifar. --Slaunger 20:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with lack of sharpness, and see chromatic noise in the grey cloud, apart from that a great picture in preview Poco a poco 13:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others and the rule of thirds.--Jebulon 14:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 14:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Schliengen_-_Transformator2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schliengen: electrical substation (detail) --Taxiarchos228 07:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support - Good quality. - A.Savin 08:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Not QI. Haloes on the cables, isolators not in focus. Biopics 18:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    I see no halos and the isolators are all sharp, maybe you look again or buy a new monitor --Taxiarchos228 19:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    No need to be rude. I agree, there are haloes, not sure about the insulators, but it's QI to me.  Support Mattbuck 21:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI, but I see a tiny dust spot in the sky between the wires :-) --NorbertNagel 21:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Dust spots are not very compatible with QI... Biopics 23:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I don' understand what happens in QI... We have haloes, we have a dust spots, but it will be promoted as QI ?--Jebulon 10:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Hmm, missed that one. The haloes are there, but they're quite hard to make out so didn't seem important.  Oppose then. Mattbuck 11:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
        • patience seems not to be your strong side, I have also to other things to do during a day then checking out QIC. the extremle minor dust spot is removed. The isolators are clearly sharp in focus and noteworthy halos are not visible for me, I am sorry --Taxiarchos228 16:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I cannot see the halos at 100%, but agree that the sharpness of the upper insulators could be better, overall though QI to me. Taxiarchos, if you dont't have enough time to correct all pictures you nominate, please, consider "changing to a lower gear", this is not a race and respect is basics here. Poco a poco 13:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I have enough time. But here I don't see s.th. to correct. Every serious question or remark is answered by me, s.th. also the not so serious :-) --Taxiarchos228 09:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Haloes are there (Jebulon, Mattbuck, Biopics) and sharpness is not optimal on the upper isolators (Poco at Poco, Biopics) and yet this image is deemed QI. what am I missing? Biopics 11:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    • seems very much you are looking at a different picture. Here is no lacking of sharpness and no halo. --Taxiarchos228 14:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support its good for QI. --Ralf Roletschek 11:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Wilanow Palace V.jpg[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 16:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tarnow VI.JPG[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 12:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poznan Market Square VI.jpg[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 12:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bank station MMB 04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Foot tunnel at Bank station. Mattbuck 12:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Nice composition but >part out of focus --Moroder 23:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  QuestionWhich bit is a problem? Mattbuck 14:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • To me only 10-20% of the image semm to be sharp --Moroder 15:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Biopics 21:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Petit_Champlain.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Petit Champlain district, Quebec City. --Óðinn 03:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Pretty, but I think the sky is too bright and overall there's too much contrast . --Mattbuck 11:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The sky is bright, yes, but not to the point of being overexposed. I'd like a second opinion. --Óðinn 15:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Biopics 21:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Schliengen_-_St._Leodegar20.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schliengen: Saint Leodegar Church --Taxiarchos228 05:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 07:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Stitching error on main window of church. Biopics 07:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It has imo good sharpness, but also stitching errors. --Iifar 07:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Sipapu_Bridge_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sipapu Bridge in Natural Bridges National Monument, Utah, USA --Dschwen 17:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Nice place, very nice light, but blurry (unsharp), CA in the clouds, and dust spot(s).--Jebulon 09:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    This is 25MP image, please take that into account when complaining about "blur". Where did you see the dustspots? --Dschwen 13:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Dustspot is removed. --Dschwen 05:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Jebulon on the CA and the blur (it is not complaining). Your other image (File:Sipapu Bridge 3.jpg) is much larger but void of CA and completely sharp! Biopics 13:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Why has my other picture any relevance in judging this picture? I could easily downsample this one and you would see neither blur nor CA and it would still be large enough for QI. But downsampling is just stupid. --Dschwen 17:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
      • The relevance is slight. Just to show the difference in focus and CA. Downsampling is of course just stupid. You just can't win them all, I guess ;-). Biopics 07:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
        • You just can't win them all. Ohhh, that's what this is about. You are worrying about me getting overconfident. Or do you think this is some kind of competition and you have to throw a stick between my legs? Don't worry, in the imaginary top ten of QI "winners" my name is not appearing. *shakes head* --Dschwen 19:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support hello???!!! unsharp at 25 Megapixels? Nonsense. --Ralf Roletschek 11:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon. --Carschten 13:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 09:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Obus-detail-rr-34.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Trolleybus overhead lines --Ralf Roletschek 13:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Excellent quality and encyclopedic value -- MJJR 21:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree about the value, but the quality needs a discussion IMO because of CA and lack of sharpness (but I understand it is difficult). I need other opinions, please.--Jebulon 09:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Jebulon. Biopics 07:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --WhiteWriter 11:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Spomenik_na_brdu_Cegar.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Monument on Čegar hill, Niš, Serbia --WhiteWriter 16:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think there are artifacts or lack of fine detail, let's discuss, sorry. --Kadellar 18:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
     Comment New updated and fixed file uploaded. Now is ok. --WhiteWriter 14:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeNope, sorry, it's even worse now. Overprocessing produced very strong haloes (look at stairs railing). Details are lacking or smeared and the building is leaning. I'm afraid it's beyond repair. Biopics 14:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, what are you talking about exactly? Behind stairs railing is bushes and tree branches, and not haloes. Also, beyond repair?? It can be just reverted. And it is not even worse, it looks very good, IMHO. --WhiteWriter 17:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Biopics 21:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Campus MMB Q5 Djanogly LRC.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Djanogly Library. Mattbuck 14:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose main object too dark --Taxiarchos228 14:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    While I accept that, I don't think it's quite the point. This way the sky is correctly exposed, and it gives an idea of the impending dark. It seemed to make a better photo like this than with the buildings brightened. Mattbuck 16:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --WhiteWriter 11:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Serbia_location_map.png[edit]

  • Nomination Provinces of Serbia (blank map) --WhiteWriter 22:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose should be svg. Biopics 11:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    why must be SVG? Its really good. --Ralf Roletschek 19:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Well, it should be SVG. It's a prime candidate. Mattbuck 13:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support SVG from me never take a pro. --Ralf Roletschek 13:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • It is a mere reduced copy of an original SVG, how can this then be QI? It's like promoting a GIF version with 256 colours of an 8-bit JPEG. Biopics 07:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
      • SVG is for me totaly unusuable. --Ralf Roletschek 12:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Are you sure we're talking about the same stuff? SVG's are rescalable vector drawings. Biopics 12:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
          • its a format, which i do'nt can use with professional software. --Ralf Roletschek 14:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose-Should be SVG. It ain't so complicated either. I'm sure someone at Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop would be able to vectorize it.--Gauravjuvekar 18:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Lörrach-Brombach_-_Villa_Rustica6.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach-Brombach: Villa rustica --Taxiarchos228 07:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Imo high-voltage masts should be vertical. --Iifar 09:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • correctet now --Taxiarchos228 20:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC). Better, but not straight yet. --Iifar 10:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Seems a bit overexposed to me. See the white bush on the right. Mattbuck 16:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Late assessments

  •  Support Looks good, neat photo SkywalkerPL 19:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support sharpness could be better. --Iifar 06:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

File:12-05-28-guenterberg-by-RalfR-16.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination village Günterberg in Germany- the Stone is a cultural monument ;) --Ralf Roletschek 08:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportNice. --ArildV 08:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeLacking details and quite noisy. Biopics 08:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support meets QI criteria --Taxiarchos228 09:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question I do not get the point with this photo? Is the idea that the stone is the main subject? And that is a cultural monument? And I can only see the back of it, partially hidden in grass? Are we turning into snapshots of Google Streetview? Enlighten me please. --Slaunger 20:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • the stone is the main object, which is a monument, it is a "milestone" on a street. The road and the surroundings are not unimportant for the monument. He joined the 18th Century on the road. --Ralf Roletschek 20:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks for your quick answer. Is there text painted or carved into the front surface? Why depict it from this angle? It is hard to see it is a mile stone from that angle in my opinion. --Slaunger 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Sorry for my bad English. On the stone is nothing, no inscription, it is not recognizable. See also the following picture: File:12-05-28-guenterberg-by-RalfR-15.jpg --Ralf Roletschek 21:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Kein Problem. Du kannst auch auf Deutsch schreiben. Wir sind eine internationale Projekt. But I understand better now. And here is my opinion
  •  Oppose I think the main subject - the mile stone is too diminutive in the image and too partially hidden by grass. The other image you linked to is better with regards to showing the subject. Sorry. --Slaunger 21:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Weak composition. File description says nothing about cultural monument and the monument himself is not enough exteriorized. --Iifar 06:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I find the composition not that bad. It shows the quite negligible position of this stone. But I also agree with Slaunger: the image description could be improved but this can easily be done by Ralf. Weak support. --High Contrast 10:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good. --Carschten 19:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

File:London MMB H8 High Speed 1 395001.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of 395001. Mattbuck 14:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Could be a bit sharper, but QI IMO --Taxiarchos228 14:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp indeed. Needs a discussion in my opinion.--Jebulon 15:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question Light conditions were difficult I understand, and I can see you both needed high ISO (800), a large aperture (f/4) and a reasonably long exposure time (1/30 s) to get enough light. I suppose it was (and had to be) handheld? If so, hard to get much better given the camera. But there is noise and a quite shallow depth as a result. light is good though, and so is the composition. --Slaunger 20:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    Quite correct. I don't take my tripod on trips usually, it's too cumbersome to cart around. Mattbuck 21:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
     Support OK, thanks. Just acceptable for QI given the conditions in my opinion. I also think people would find it odd to setup tripod in a train. I would be embarassed to do it myself. For an empty train wagon (not the case here) standing still it would perhaps have made sense with a tripod. --Slaunger 21:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose QI is a technical thing, so sorry, for me not sharp enough. Biopics 14:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Conditions were too adverse to get the needed DoF for this picture, resulting in noise and lack of sharpness Poco a poco 14:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Poco a poco 14:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-05-29 16-33-24-Cathédrale Saint-Pierre de Rennes.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Details of the pulpit of the Cathédrale Saint-Pierre, Rennes, France. --ComputerHotline 17:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeBroken colors. --Dschwen 19:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, good subject. This is Saint-Pierre, this church looks like this... --WhiteWriter 09:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not necessarily. This is a white balance problem. Biopics 11:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The colours seems wrong according to other photos of the categories on Saint-Pierre, an example is this organ. I know the color are really warm in this church but this series of pictures looks really orangish. --PierreSelim 12:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Biopics 21:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-05-29 16-29-26-Cathédrale Saint-Pierre de Rennes.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Details of the pipe organ of the Cathédrale Saint-Pierre, Rennes, France. --ComputerHotline 17:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeBroken colors. --Dschwen 19:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, good subject. This is Saint-Pierre, this church looks like this... --WhiteWriter 09:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The colours seems wrong according to other photos of the categories on Saint-Pierre, an example is this organ. I know the color are really warm in this church but this series of pictures looks really orangish. --PierreSelim 12:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Biopics 21:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-05-29 16-12-58-Cathédrale Saint-Pierre de Rennes.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The pulpit of the Cathédrale Saint-Pierre, Rennes, France. --ComputerHotline 17:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeBroken colors. --Dschwen 19:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, good subject. This is Saint-Pierre, this church looks like this... --WhiteWriter 09:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The colours seems wrong according to other photos of the categories on Saint-Pierre, an example is this organ. I know the color are really warm in this church but this series of pictures looks really orangish. --PierreSelim 12:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Biopics 21:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Kiental_entre_Herrsching_y_Andechs,_Alemania_2012-05-01,_DD_10.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination
  •  Support Kiental between Herrsching and Andechs, Germany --Poco a poco 21:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion very nice. --Ralf Roletschek 08:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong CA. Biopics 17:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I worked the CA and uploaded an improved version Poco a poco 20:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems acceptable to me. QI. --Jebulon 15:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Biopics 21:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Petit_Champlain1.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Petit Champlain district, Quebec City. --Óðinn 00:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Buildings on the right side lean to the left (geometry distortion). --Slaunger 22:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    New version uploaded.Óðinn 03:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    Better now. The St Laurent building is a little soft in focus, but maybe acceptable. Light dull, no structure in the sky, but maybe good enough. I am not sure, so I won't vote either pro or con. --Slaunger 22:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not convinced by the sky, but not enough to oppose. Mattbuck 16:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Haloes.--Jebulon 14:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Biopics 21:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Schallwelle 2012 Img53 - Sonderpreis Brainwork 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Musician & businessman Joerg Strawe at Schallwelle Award '12. - A.Savin 18:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion QI. Please add description in English. --Kadellar 21:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    Yellow until English desc. is writen. Please. --Kadellar 18:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Why hurry? I wanted to do it while adding a QI cat, if it's that urgent a message on my talk page would have been enough - A.Savin 19:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    Thank you. Sorry if it seemed rude, but I didn't want the image to be promoted without the description, and it is automatically promoted if it's in green. I didn't make everything so properly, I learn the little lesson for the next time. --Kadellar 18:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Kadellar 18:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Olympiaturm,_Múnich,_Alemania_2012-04-28,_DD_18.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Olympiaturm, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 11:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose strong bloom and obviously too dark, sadly most of your nominated pictures --Taxiarchos228 10:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I didn't understand what is the problem with this picture (apart from the darkness), can you precise?. I uploaded a brighter version Poco a poco 15:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The new version may be OK. --NorbertNagel 18:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree.--Jebulon 15:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Biopics 08:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Denkmal-Pulheim-I 107-Stommeler Mühle.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Windmill of Stommeln, Germany (by User:Superbass) -- Achim Raschka 09:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good for QI.--S. F. B. Morse 09:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As declined a few months ago: not really in focus, low sharpness. --Carschten 17:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Carschten. As for me, I'm a bit shocked about re-nomination of previously declined or unassessed pictures, without the relevant information and precision for the reviewers...--Jebulon 16:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Unassessed does not necessarily mean bad. - A.Savin 08:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Agree. Did I say that ? But I think it should be "clean" to precise that it is a re-nomination. Only my opinion.--Jebulon 15:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Unassessed could be regarded as overlooked so IMO needs no extra info. Previously declined and Drawn in CR however, need a rationale for the renomination. Biopics 21:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
          • I may understand. But as for my own pictures, I prefer to indicate that it is a "previously unassessed picture". I don't re nominate the declined. Anyway, no need of a rule.--Jebulon 23:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ---Biopics 08:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-05-29 16-18-45-Cathédrale Saint-Pierre de Rennes.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Inside the Cathédrale Saint-Pierre, Rennes, France. --ComputerHotline 17:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeBroken colors. --Dschwen 19:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Wrong ! It's the real colors. --ComputerHotline 06:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I think, so it will be slightly more interesting... (the file is updated) --Aleks G 20:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, good subject. This is Saint-Pierre, this church looks like this... --WhiteWriter 09:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The colours seems wrong according to other photos of the categories on Saint-Pierre, an example is this organ. I know the color are really warm in this church but this series of pictures looks really orangish. --PierreSelim 12:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment On the specified photo there is no sense to refer - EXIF misses, and as to orange tone it is quite normal, considering the bright rays of the sun getting through windows and reflected from brownish-yellow walls and columns. --Aleks G 09:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Biopics 08:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-05-21 00-28-59-orage-belfort.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lightnings over Belfort, France. --ComputerHotline 10:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Sky is good. Not fond of the buildings though. --Mattbuck 15:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate crop and also needs perspective correction. Biopics 07:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing spectacular, visible CA, huge lens distortion, poor noise reduction (watercolor effect) SkywalkerPL (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Biopics 08:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Mickiewicz Monument.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Monument to Adam Mickiewicz in Poznań, close by the 1956 Monument. Scotch Mist 17:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose - Overexposed. --Mattbuck 16:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • What relevant detail in this photo is overexposed? --Scotch Mist 11:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • You seem to misunderstand QI. We aren't especially interested in whether a photo has "relevant detail", we care about technical quality only. Your photo is overexposed - the clouds are pure white, the sky is cyan. A large part of your image is therefore overexposed. That detracts from whatever you feel may be "relevant details" because it draws the eye away. Mattbuck 12:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
        • With all due respect the QI guidelines are not all about technical perfection but about achieving an appropriate balance ... "...a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality" for a number of reasons, and as photography itself varies in its use from technical precision to artistic perspective it would be a pity if artistic photos were sacrificed in Wikimedia in pursuit of the former (by the way I'm not suggesting that this particular photo is a work of art!). Having said all that have uploaded another version of the image where the sky is bluer and the clouds have a little more detail! --Scotch Mist 14:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Let me quote: Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a “wow factor” and may or may not have been created by a Commoner. Given sufficient “wow factor” and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality. It says that about featured pictures, not quality images. QI is purely about quality: value and wow are not factors in our judgment. Your image is not quality, therefore it fails QI. Mattbuck 16:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Again with all due respect, "Featured pictures are images that the community has chosen to be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons." and by inference would generally be considered as 'Quality Images', but even if they were not, there is a clear inference overall in reading the relevant guidelines that a balance should be sought for both quality and featured images ... "For example, a technically compromised shot of an important event will often receive some support because of the importance of the event depicted and an equal quantity of opposition because of the technical quality." Perhaps some others might wish to express their views here, but in the meantime are you happy with the updated image? --Scotch Mist 17:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
              • Again, those are featured picture issues, not quality images ones. As for the updated image, it's better, but the cloud's overexposure is unfixable and that bit on its own, IMO, means it's not QI. Mattbuck 22:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
                • It still seems to me that you are reading the guidelines from a rather narrow technical perspective that would prevent many artistic photographs (such as those that might include deliberate overexposure in areas of a photograph to highlight detail elsewhere or create a more dramatic and interesting effect) being presented here but promote essentially simple photographs with good technical details though little artistic merit (and perhaps overly dark through underexposure in some areas of photographs). Do not think this is the intention of Wikimedia with QI and if you fully re-read the guidelines hopefully you will get a sense of that. In the meantime I have uploaded another version (less compressed) of this image with the focus of the photograph still correctly on two significant Polish monuments irrespective of the natural elements in the sky that day. [If I was taking a macro shot of an insect I would not be overly concerned that the background foliage was out of focus or underexposed and find it difficult to understand that at least to some extent the same rationale does not apparently apply for some when evaluating photographs of monuments, sculptures and other objects, where overexposure in the background is a concern.] ✓ Done--Scotch Mist 08:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
                  • Would the picture be worse with a well-exposed sky? If not, then the reasoning about artistic quality is totally irrelevant. Overexposure would normally be considered something bad and if we are to accept a overexposed image there must be a purpose (and you have to answer the question "why did you choice to have a overexposed sky? and "How does it improve the picture?"). IMO: this is not an artistic photo, it's an overexposed photo with a mediocre quality. --ArildV (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
                    • While I would not have posed the question the same way, you raise some interesting points and I thank you for your comments. I certainly accept that this is not an artistic photo, but the point I was making is that many of the 'declines' for QI state 'overexposure' as the reason even when this relates to background elements and the overexposure is not extreme, yet photos are regularly 'promoted' with significant areas of underexposure and lack of focus (and without requesting justification even when it is not a detailed macro shot of an insect). In other words there seems to be a lack of consistency here in applying QI standards as written and while fully understanding that there has to be a level of subjectivity, personally I would prefer to see more consistency or at least a little lighter application of the 'overexposure' comment and a few less 'dark' photos. Would the picture have been better with what you might have considered to have been a more interesting sky - I don't think so - especially as such background detail might have distracted from the stark symbolic silhouettes of the 1956 Cross and the Head and poignant Face of Adam Mickiewicz? In fact even the detail on the Poznan Palace I find a little distracting and I was tempted to crop this, but decided against this for the sake of overall balance of the composition of the photo. Agree this is not an exceptional photo but personally think it has merit for consideration as a QI. --Scotch Mist 14:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems acceptable as QI, in my opinion. But all the arguments developed by Mattbuck about the definition of Quality Images in the guidelines is right.--Jebulon 14:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks like it's not vertical - lamps and some other details seem to be \ (leaning left). Try to look more carefully into perspective control? But besides that it seems to be ok. (no idea why Mattbuck expects HDR) SkywalkerPL (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Understand your comment but think this impression mainly comes from the fact that the 1956 Monument has distinctly sloping sides (actually two vertical sections joined by one horizontal section) with one side masked by a tree - the tapered flag poles may add to this impression but perhaps these are not all truly vertical (refer building in background). --Scotch Mist 12:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I made an illustration :) http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/805/29636706.jpg/ - black square is pixel-perfect vertical. Red line is more-or-less an offset of few chosen elements - all of them are bit off towards left. SkywalkerPL 18:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you for going to the trouble of creating this example image and for providing this feedback. It would appear that the flag poles and building are offset by less than a degree so I would think on this basis, and your earlier comments, that in fact you support this photo for QI? --Scotch Mist 21:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
          • I should point out that your derivative work is a copyright violation, as it does not attribute Scotch Mist. And I don't expect HDR, but if large areas are overexposed that's a problem, the solution to which is to take a darker photo, so you get the highlight detail, and do some photoshopping to increase brightness of the lower levels - you lose a bit of highlight contrast, but that's the only real issue. Mattbuck 01:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
            • First I should point out that this is not a derivative work and there is no copyright issue here as both the 'Source' and 'Author' is 'Scotch Mist'. Second, while I agree with you that the sky\clouds in the original image presented were 'overexposed' I believe that this is not the case with the current image. Third, if the sky happens to be pale blue on the day and contains puffy white clouds tinged with grey (just as I am looking at now), then if I attempt to edit the image to bring out detail in the sky that is not there I will probably simply create a darker image overall and possibly lose some detail on the focal point of the image which is the face of Adam Mickiewicz. Appreciate though that photography, like art, can be quite subjective, and we undoubtedly have different views as to what we like and dislike, but perhaps if you look closely you will see the poetry for which he was famous in Adam's deeply reflective expression (while standing in the 'shadow' of the 1956 Monument). If you can, perhaps you might view the merit of QI for this photo a little differently? --Scotch Mist 06:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Biopics 08:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Panurgus_sp._on_Glebionis_sp._19-12-2011_(2).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Panurgus sp. on Glebionis sp. --JDP90 18:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good. --Mattbuck 15:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Missing sharpness and id. Biopics 19:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Biopics 08:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Triin Narva 20110107 by Ahsoous.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Triin Narva playing at Paul Keres memorial tournament. --Ahsoous 17:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too noisy (ISO 3200!), wrong WB --Poco a poco 19:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support in this light conditions ist 3200 normal, lets discuss! --Ralf Roletschek 20:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I have a priori no problem with the 3200. I just pointed it out because this is obviously the source of the noise problems Poco a poco 20:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC) In that room no windows at all, WB is correct, it's impossible to use flash etc. So the only possibility is to use high ISO-s. -- Ahsoous 22:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That is wrong. First, if the light is not natural the WB will not be correct, you need a gray card for these cases. Regarding the ISO, you can also increase the exposure time and keep a lower ISO, but that will not be possible as long as you use the camera in automatic mode. Poco a poco 22:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it's not good idea because of moving (hand, some person, whatever) -- Ahsoous 23:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    What about using a tripod? Poco a poco 09:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I mean player's hand motion. In rapid play it's completely possible that within 0,1 s after move player already push the clock, so within exposition 1/25 s hand moves already... something 20..30 cm... so it's really there is not any differnce to use tripod or not. -- Ahsoous 12:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The white balance is yellowish (the AWB of the Canon's body may fail indoor). Regarding the ISO, as the hand is overexposed, may be reducing a bit the shutter speed and shooting at ISO 1600 would have been ok. However there is no miracle for such low light conditions, what you need is a fast lens (such as the classical f2.8 lenses). --PierreSelim 06:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise, wrong color balance, motion blur, CA, ear distracting, overexposed parts.--Jebulon 17:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yellow color balance, a bit tilted (look at the pieces) and overexposed (hand, white sweater)... --Gzzz 20:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Gzzz 20:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Helix pomatia copulation 2012 G1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A pair of Burgundy snail (Helix pomatia) copulation -- George Chernilevsky 19:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JLPC 20:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Harsh light and flash reflections. You should us a diffuser on your flash (a bit of translucent plastic and some tape might do the trick). Biopics 21:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Biopics is right, but this picture anomalies remains minimal. I am amazed at the condition of the shell that looks very damaged. Is there a biological explanation? --Archaeodontosaurus 10:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me--Holleday 20:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The contrast is not too strong IMO. --NorbertNagel 15:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JDP90 18:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 19:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Helix pomatia 2012 G1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Burgundy snail (Helix pomatia) -- George Chernilevsky 19:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Harsh light and flash reflections. Biopics 21:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, but not so harsh, and not so bad, IMO. Please discuss.--Jebulon 09:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me also OK for QI. --Alchemist-hp 19:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me--Holleday 20:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI. --NorbertNagel 15:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JDP90 18:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 19:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Montpelier railway station MMB 10 143620.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 143620 at Montpelier. Mattbuck 13:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good.--ArildV 17:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose it's not horizontal, plus: could use a bit of cropping to get rid of painted post in background, plus: why is it in "Rail tunnels in Bristol" category without referring to any rail tunnel? SkywalkerPL 22:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I think I got the vertical from the edge of the tunnel buttress in the background. As for why not to crop, because then it would be too tight. Mattbuck 01:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its good for QI. --Ralf Roletschek 13:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me.--S. F. B. Morse 02:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think it's tilted. --NorbertNagel 15:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 19:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:BIC_blue_pen_cap.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Blue Bic Cristal pen cap. --Kadellar 21:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --JDP90 14:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blurry part see note. --Archaeodontosaurus 16:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Archaeodontosaurus. I like the idea, and this kind of unusual pictures. But as it is a very usual object, the picture must be perfect in proportion IMO.--Jebulon 20:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per Archaeodontosaurus and Jebulon. -- Aisano 18:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Orchis morio in natural monument Svaté Pole in spring 2012 (15).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Orchis morio in natural monument Svaté Pole, Czech Republic --Chmee2 22:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Anacamptis morio is a good name, Orchis morio is a synonym.--Archaeodontosaurus 08:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DOF seems a little tight and also a bit underexposed IMO. Let's discuss. Biopics 11:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose due to the chromatic aberration. Mattbuck 17:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA at top of flower. --Slaunger 22:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Slaunger 22:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Lörrach-Stetten_-_Haus_Steinenweg1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stetten: Building Steinenweg 1 --Taxiarchos228 05:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality , please remove the tiny dust spot in the sky.. --NorbertNagel 21:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not yet fixed. Biopics 11:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • this is a far away bird and not a dustspot --Taxiarchos228 14:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for QI.--S. F. B. Morse 08:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --S. F. B. Morse 08:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Nantes_-_Hotel_Montaudoin_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hôtel Montaudoin pediment, Maréchal-Foch town square - Nantes, France --Selbymay 20:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Don't like the crop, sorry --Moroder 23:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'll have to second that about the crop. --Carnildo 20:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - seems OK to me. Mattbuck 10:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - I don't mind the crop neither. -Gzzz 20:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Gzzz 20:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:12-05-22-potsdamer-platz-berlin-by-RalfR-12.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Potsdamer Platz Berlin --Ralf Roletschek 09:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Iste Praetor 15:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed sky and windows. --Art-top 18:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose due to overexposure. Mattbuck 10:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Mattbuck 10:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Rio di Santa Marta - Venezia.jpg[edit]

File:Palais Walderdorff Trier 2011.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Palais Walderdorff, Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate. -- Felix Koenig 16:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 16:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't know if it's possible from the location but a picture taken from in front of the center of the building might be more impressive. -- Aisano 21:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this would be more impresive (others would disagree) but nevertheless this is QI. ;-) --Berthold Werner 12:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: The picture may have been manipulated, at least the perspective is heavily distorted. I would replace it with an unmanipulated version. --Misburg3014 17:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me.--Jebulon 16:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Perhaps could have cropped a touch tighter on either side but overall quality good for QI.--Scotch Mist 09:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - possibly a bit of a halo around the building, but it's probably just my eyes. Good enough for me. Mattbuck 15:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality is sufficient. Nice work. --High Contrast 19:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Berthold Werner 06:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-05 Lippstadt Wasserturm 06.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Water tower in Lippstadt, Germany -- Achim Raschka 14:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Slight CW tilt, but otherwise good -- MJJR 18:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Visible CW tilt, blown blue channel (>4%) and focus problems. Biopics 17:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support meets QI criteria --Taxiarchos228 14:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good for QI --Ralf Roletschek 21:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info I uploaded a new version with several corrections. I hope It's okay for Achim (and for the voters). --Carschten 17:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 12:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me.--Jebulon 16:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 16:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Olympiaturm,_Múnich,_Alemania_2012-04-28,_DD_08.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Olympiaturm, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 19:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose supersaturated and wrong colours --Taxiarchos228 20:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    I uploaded a new version, hopefully better balanced Poco a poco 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    • sorry, but the colours are awfully artificial and the tower is not straight. This picture I can't support. --Taxiarchos228 14:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support looks good to me, needs a discussion IMO--Jebulon 15:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral - tilted and too dark, but good once those are fixed. Mattbuck 15:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    I made some adjustments including crop, tilt and brightness, Poco a poco 19:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    And now it seems a bit dull. Curiously it still feels tilted, even though it isn't. Mattbuck 13:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    Agree that it was a bit dull, new version uploaded, now or never :) promised! Poco a poco 14:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    Looks better.  Support Mattbuck 00:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me--Lmbuga 13:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 16:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-06-07 15-31-43-Lestes-sp.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lestes sp. --ComputerHotline 15:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportSome noise in the background, but still OK for QI. --NorbertNagel 17:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    QI requires id. Biopics 06:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC) thank you Norbert. Biopics 06:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It is categorized as Lestes sponsa. What else is required? --NorbertNagel 05:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That's fine, I didn't notice as the nominator in general refuses to do a basic lookup of his species. Biopics 06:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You're probably right, I changed the category before promotion: :-) --NorbertNagel 18:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 16:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Luma_grand_prix_2012.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Junior bicycle racer from Fredrikshofs cycling team during Luma GP 2012. Stockholm, Sweden. --ArildV 16:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, but cannot approve for QI with that crop Poco a poco 18:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the image composition incl. (unusual) crop and DoF. Let's discuss, if someone disagrees. --NorbertNagel 15:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness and focus are great, but I don't like the crop either. IMO it's a pity. --Kadellar 21:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For the crop too... is it a picture of a bicycle racer or of a wet road ? -Gzzz 20:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Just to explain my position: Cutting the main object can be a style element to escape from a boring image composition and the empty space on the near right is the road area, which the bicycle racer passes in a half second. I thought the dynamic of the moment is nicely catched with this image composition. --NorbertNagel 17:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its good crop, dynamic, QI --Ralf Roletschek 21:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Per other supporters.--Jebulon 21:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Per other supporters.-- Jkadavoor 06:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kadellar. --Carschten 11:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the unfavorable crop. --Alchemist-hp 14:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perhaps good to FP as an artistic work, but not QI IMO with this crop--Lmbuga 13:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --Alchemist-hp 14:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Abbaretz_-_Chataignier_Nonneries_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Nonneries chestnut - Abbaretz - Loire-Atlantique, France --Selbymay 18:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - Good--Jebulon 17:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not for me - cyan sky, the twigs have turned blue... Mattbuck 10:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lots of purple chromatic aberrations in the branches and twigs. -Gzzz 20:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 16:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Bristol Temple Meads railway station MMB 55 57309.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 57309 at temple Meads. Mattbuck 12:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Just below the driver in the cab is a chromatic aberration which appears to be caused by the light in the lower left hand corner of the train, probably caused by a lens filter reflecting the light. --Mifter Public 14:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 Support the corrected version. The image easily meets QI standard now ;). Best, Mifter 20:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportI disagree - Insufficient quality? I think, its good for QI. --Ralf Roletschek 20:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
As I said above, the chromatic aberration just below the driver for me causes it to fail the color part of COM:IG. Best, Mifter 13:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support sufficient for QI, nice picture --Taxiarchos228 18:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality for QI. Even if ignoring CAs in background cannot ignore significant distortion at centre of photo and agree with MP. --Scotch Mist 06:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Background CA's still present but not sufficient to oppose QI. --Scotch Mist 09:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I fail to see how the ghost light could have been caused by chromatic aberration; looks like lens reflexion to me. But since it is not on a vital part of the image it can be corrected without going to too much trouble. I do not know whether this would change anyone's mind about the discussion. -- Aisano 18:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    It's probably due to the UV filter on the lens. I'll try and fix it once Photoshop finishes creating an 80 photo panorama. Could be a while. Mattbuck 22:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    OK, I've fixed it, but am unable to upload because my connection won't allow direct uploads and flickr2commons keeps timing out. The flickr version is fixed, can someone upload please? Mattbuck 10:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    I just uploaded it and purged the cache. -- Aisano 18:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI now, IMO. -- JLPC 10:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 12:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Normal Lenses 7253.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 50mm lenses --SkywalkerPL 19:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Ok. --Kallerna 09:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree shallow DOF two lenses are totally out of focus --PierreSelim 21:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As PierreSelim--Lmbuga 13:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Lazise-Piazza Vittorio Emanuele.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lazise: Vittorio Emanuele square ----Massimo Telò 07:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose It needs a tilt and perspective correction, see left side Poco a poco 09:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilt maybe, but the perspective enhances the photo. I'd like to see it sharpened. Mattbuck 18:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Poco a poco--Lmbuga 13:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Innsbruck_-_Triumphpforte5.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Innsbruck: triumph gate, upper detail --Taxiarchos228 06:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Blown highlights, needs perspective correction. Biopics 07:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    no blown highlights --Taxiarchos228 09:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support no blown highlights, no distortion needed. --Ralf Roletschek 10:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distortion--Lmbuga 13:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Innsbruck_-_Bergiselschanze6.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Innsbruck: Ski Jumping hill Bergisel --Taxiarchos228 15:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Seems rather bright to me. Plus, blueish. Mattbuck 21:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    don't think so, let's see other opinions --Taxiarchos228 16:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the main problem seems to be the direction of the sun: causes that flare on left hand side and overexposure. But very nice sharpness. --Kallerna 15:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info I have uploaded a new version and improved the dynamic. I guess the first version was not overexposed but it may appear so. The new version tries to avoid this impression and darker. --Taxiarchos228 20:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong halo. Biopics 20:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    In 100 % view there is no halo, the effect is from the inexpressibly bad thumb software in the thumb view. This is not the fault of the picture. --Taxiarchos228 20:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    I looked at 100%, there's a halo. Mattbuck 13:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Frauenkirche_Pano.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination The Frauenkirche in Dresden --AleXXw 10:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Really great job ! Needs a perspective correction, IMO, and there is small stitching errors (I found only here) in the pinnacle -annotated- --Jebulon 12:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    Thx for the hint, I corrected the stitching error. I think I don't want to do a 'perspective correction'. The bottom of the church is around 40m away, the top of the cross around 110m, so it should be narrow on top :) --AleXXw 15:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose due to overexposure. Mattbuck 21:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Exposure is ok with me, but I don't like half cropped people and perspective distortion. --Iifar 06:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Kirche Strauch 2b.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The village church of Strauch in Saxony.--
    S. F. B. Morse 07:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Good light and composition. Maybe a bit oversaturated to me. Could be QI, in my opinion, if perspective corrected, and strong CA removed.--Jebulon 15:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
     Info Thank you for your comment. The file is updated.--S. F. B. Morse 19:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - chromatic aberrations, and the birds make it look messy. Mattbuck 21:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective not corrected. --Bgag 20:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective not corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 10:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Dear Ralf... I'm not sure it is the good way to do...You use your vote to make a point... Please try to change the rules (or recommendations) by a vote if you disagree with them...--Jebulon 17:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Castle Square ViewB.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bell Tower of Church of Saint Anne, and Old Town Square, Warsaw, Poland--Scotch Mist 15:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very tight crop and notable perspective distortion. Next time leave more space to the main subject. --Iifar 16:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
     Comment Thank you for your feedback - have adjusted perspective, re-cropped and uploaded the edited image, plus extended description. --Scotch Mist 06:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC) As background of Zamkowy Square is an important component of the photo would appreciate another opinion on this. Thanks. --Scotch Mist 08:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The Bell tower is leaning to the left. --Slaunger 20:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Adjusted perspective as far as possible without giving the building unnatural visual proportions, or further cropping the building - is this now OK? --Scotch Mist 07:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Uploaded new file with CAs corrected. --Scotch Mist 18:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose main object is cut off --Taxiarchos228 21:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Rauma_panorama.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A panoramic image of Rauma. --kallerna 15:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline I'm sorry, I like the panorama but there are a couple of small things which mean I don't think this is QI really. First off, there's the overexposure, or at least excess brightness on the left. Then there is a noticable blue tint, especially in the shadows. The tint is fixable, but the overexposure... I don't know,  Weak oppose I guess. Mattbuck 10:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Ants cultivating afids on Rubus - Blackberry - Brombeere - Hesse - Germany - 01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ants cultivating/milking afids on Blackberry (Rubus). --NorbertNagel 16:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very good. --Selbymay 17:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs ID. Biopics 12:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --NorbertNagel 17:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the attempt, but Aphis fabae feeds mainly on Fabaceae and is very dark. Maybe this publication may help. The ant is most likely correctly identified. Biopics 12:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the literature. I will have a look tomorrow. --NorbertNagel 18:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think, the aphis species is one of the three species mentioned in the publication above: Macrosiphum funestum, Amphorophora rubi or Sitobion fragariae).
I still believe, the aphis species is most likely Aphis fabae. Please compare the photo in this hyperlink with my other images of this plant: 2, 3 and other plants nearby at the same day: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Same ant and aphis species on rubus and Digitalis purpurea in my opinion. What do you think? -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. --Florstein 21:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It is not Aphis fabae, but I do not yet know the species. Better to contact a specialist and then resubmit. Biopics 06:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for informing me, I actually thought you now agree with my categorization. I agree that we should follow up on that and contacted Prof. Loxdale, one of the authors in the publication you recommended above. However the image could probalbly also be QI with only two out of three species determined precisely. I leave the decision to the community. --NorbertNagel 18:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

File:12-06-09-warnemuende-by-ralfr-85.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Warnemünde, Baltic Sea, Germany, Jan Maat (ship) --Ralf Roletschek 19:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Somebody annotated a possible dust spot, but it is a QI for my --Jebulon 17:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
     Support QI to me. I have done the note and, after doing (or making) the note, I made a comment to the user (in the talk page) to ask his opinion. Now I'm going to delete the note--Lmbuga 19:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    still has a dust spot. Biopics 06:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • OK removed. --Ralf Roletschek 13:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • ok, thanks --Lmbuga 22:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes.--Jebulon 09:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 11:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 11:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Vyborg June2012 View from Olaf Tower 06.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Vyborg, Russia. View of the town. - A.Savin 09:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Perfettamente! --Florstein 11:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose looks too strong denoised to me --Carschten 11:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • You mean unsharp? - A.Savin 12:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Denoising (in-camera or postprocessing) can introduce a watercolour-like effect. It is a borderline case here. Also the horizon looks tilted. Biopics 11:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
        • With that lovely weather and ISO 100, no need for denoising. - A.Savin 11:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Check out the new version. - A.Savin 13:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Better. Colours are nice. But this is not a pano isn't it? The right two thirds look very good but the left side looks somewhat distorted (horizon dips and clouds raise) while it is also not very sharp. Could it be due to the wide-angle lens? Biopics 16:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes. - A.Savin 16:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Better now - not perfect (still some low-detail-areas), but I'd accept a QI promotion. --Carschten 19:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice and QI worthy IMO -- MJJR 09:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. --Selbymay 11:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Florstein 19:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

File:General_Charles_George_Gordon_statue,_Embankment,_London.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The memorial to General Gordon on the Victoria Embankment, East of the Ministry of Defence --Eluveitie 07:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Below 2MP minimum. - A.Savin 09:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    •  Info I've uploaded it again with higher resolution. --Eluveitie 10:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
      •  Support Imo good now. - A.Savin 10:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yellow cast. --Carschten 11:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I hope now is better. --Eluveitie 13:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is, thank you. --Carschten 12:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I dislike the "Murphy" fences I find disturbing, but good for QI nevertheless.--Jebulon 16:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support, I like this picture. --Florstein 19:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 12:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Vulpen inkt.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ink well--1Veertje 14:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Een mooi beeld maar -- assuming the bottle is aligned with the box, perspective and angle should be corrected. Bottle cap and bottom seem to be slightly out of focus. -- Aisano 18:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    as you can see here, the box (a book shelf) itself wasn't straight. I've tilted the top a bit --1Veertje 17:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I am still not really convinced; the edges near the top and bottom of the bottle seem unsharp to me. But cropping the picture seems to have improved the problem with the shelf compartment. So I am changing my "oppose" (I recall I had put an "oppose" here) to "weak support". -- Aisano 17:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I'm not very happy with the sharpness. --Iifar 06:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lifar.--Jebulon 07:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Orthodox Cathedral, Fira 04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bell tower of the Cathedral of Candlemas of the Lord, Santorini, Greece --Bgag 16:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 09:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of contrast, wrong white balance IMO. The white looks not white enough, I wish a discussion please.--Jebulon 16:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I see no issues with this picture Poco a poco 17:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon + fuzzy corners and details. --Carschten 16:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose as above. --Iifar 06:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Parish_church_Atzwang_front_view.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Parish church Saint Josef in Atzwang --Moroder 07:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Blue undertone, aberance --Jagro 11:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review. I uploaded a corrected version for colour tone, I don't see chromatic aberration at size 100%!?--Moroder 19:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It seems good to me now, I do not see any chromatic aberration. -- Aisano 21:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 12:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment It seems that the sky has been obscured. Halo (halo of light) on the edges of the sky--Lmbuga 13:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, there is a halo around the steeple and it is the sun behind, with a narrow stripe of light on the left. The other halo of roughly 4-5 pixels (0,1%) of the image seem to be negligible at size 100% --Moroder 15:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I find this picture too unsharp (all the clock tower is out of focus, IMO), and there is really something strange (some stripes and pixellisation) in the sky, especially at left.--Jebulon 16:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    : Its your opinion about sharpness (I don't like to resharpen with such high resolutions), but can you be more specific about the "pixellation" or marc it with a note? --Moroder 18:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree, please don't re-sharpen the picture, too strong sharpening is always visible, and does not make a picture better, in any way. I've annotated the stripes in the sky (as example) along the roof of the bell tower. In my opinion, the light came from a wrong way (back light): bad time of the day for such a picture.--Jebulon 07:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Next time I'll wait until the sun shines from the north... (the chapel faces north) if the light from other cardinal directions is not good enough. The stripe is a reflection from the sun.--Moroder 17:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
        • OK, be patient in waiting (Clin). More seriously, in this case, maybe a more cloudy-day-light could be better (less sunny) ? IMO, the contrast is too strong between the facade, in shadow, and the rest of the picture, in "full light".--Jebulon 08:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose as Jebulon. --Iifar 06:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-06-04 14-34-01-volucelle.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Volucella sp. (maybe Volucella bombylans) on flowers. --ComputerHotline 18:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion :
  •  Support - Nice--Holleday 20:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Image not properly id'ed, nor categorized. Biopics 08:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - seems ok to me, I'm perfectly willing to accept the "unidentified X" thing - we're not all experts in biology. Mattbuck 15:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    • QI requires proper categorization and an ID to species level when possible. ComputerHotline categorically refuses to do this even when given this information. Promotion of this incomplete nominations will reinforce that behaviour. Especially for common organisms it is a must that they are correctly identified. Nobody knows all the species, that is very true, but everybody here knows how to look something up on the internet or contact a specialist when the search does not deliver. Biopics 10:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Per the QIC rules 3.Quality images must .... have a meaningful ... description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms. Nominators do not have to be biologists. When in doubt I either ask other users here, which I know are knowledgable about the subject, or I ask over at en:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science prior to nomination. It works very well and it is part of the homework. --Slaunger 10:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality image. Biopics: instead of making a speech about your perception specify the category if you can, if not: don't get on our nerves. --Taxiarchos228 21:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    • It is not Biopics or other reviewers responsibility to do their homework prior to nomination. QI is not just about high quality pictures. They shall also have informational and/or educational content to be realistically useful in Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. It has not when we do not know what we see. --Slaunger 10:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
      • There is nowhere written how deep a description has to be done. For me the present description is enough, for a biologist for sure not. Biopics profession has to do with arthropods. If he is able to specify it better he can do it. But just complaining about s.th. without helping is not my understanding of this project. And once again: there is not written how deep a description has to be and it's not reasonable to claim someone to make a thesis out of this. --Taxiarchos228 12:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
        • It is common sense that a taxon level corresponding to some big hoverfly on some flower resembling carrot/parshly is inadequate. And at least it is clear that people should be entitled to express the opinion that it is not good enough without being claimed to "get on our nerves". Thereafter reporting to COM:ANU - shakes head. --Slaunger 12:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Image quality is very good. In the meantime a valid description and categories have been added. --High Contrast 11:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The identification is not sufficiently good. Volucella sp. on Apiaceae sp. is more or less equivalent to "Some huge hoverfly on some flower resembling carrot or parsley". I am not an expert, but it is evident from looking at the Wikiepdia pages for the genus, that different species of Volucella look very distinct. The same applies for Apiaceae. --Slaunger 10:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    •  Neutral Striking my oppose. Hoverfly seems to be adequately identified now. Ideally, the Apiaceae (which is just a very general family of plants) could have been better identified, but this is not as important af the hoverfly. The categories were a mess as Biopics points out below. I believe I have now fixed the overcategorization and missing categorization. Concerning the image quality i think it is so, so, not good enough for me to support, not bad enough for me to oppose either. --Slaunger 07:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Slaunger. --Avenue 11:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    •  Support ID now good enough, considering the hoverfly is the main subject. Image quality also just good enough IMO. --Avenue 11:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Biopics, Slaunger and Avenue. For unknown plants, we have a very good "workshop" here [[4]] in the french Wikipedia. I use it frequently, as I'm far to be a specialist. I find this very interesting, funny and useful, and there, the specialists answer very kindly and very quickly. I guess the same thing exists for insects or other animals. In my opinion, the "meaningful description" must be the deeper as possible, because (only one reason among others) some other users here are spending a lot of time to do a very great identification job for living species, and they need to be helped and supported. Moreover I think that what is identifiable must be identified for "Commons", and more for the QI label (like coats of arms, for instance, because every CoA has an unique identification and cannot be confused with another). The great wealth and richness of "Commons" are that there exists always somebody somewhere, to be asked for an useful advice or a precious information. Never forget that we are very lucky: it works !! Furthermore, QI label rules are clear: it is not only "visual". According to the guidelines, a visually good picture can be declined because of a bad file name, a wrong description in the file page, a bad categorization etc. For what I understand, it is the same for identification. --Jebulon 16:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support
    Deutsch: Nicht an der Beschreibung rummaulen. Wir sind ein Wiki - jeder ist aufgerufen, das zu verbessern. Was hat das mit der Qualität des Bildes zu tun?
    --Steschke 20:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • What use is a nice image which cannot be found by those who could potentially use it, because there is not accurate information to search for? That is why an accurate file description is important. Facebook, flickr and other image sites are excellent alternatives for those who only worry about that the photo looks good, but not what it depicts. Here, we have a COM:SCOPE. Hope that explains why. --Slaunger 20:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Hast du schon die Beschreibung ergänzt oder meckerst du nur rum? --Steschke 21:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
          • I am sorry, but I do not know what "meckerst" means. --Slaunger 12:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
          • + 1 (seems that Google translate does not know this word)--Jebulon 15:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Believe me, you don't want to know... Biopics 18:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
        • As this is your first post ever on QI (in the 7 years you are around!), you may want to read about the rules we use on QI before commenting. Biopics 22:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
          • ...Before voting, I may say. But you are welcome in QIC page, of course.--Jebulon 22:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support its a wiki! for description can help biologists, if they want. --Ralf Roletschek 06:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
          • This is against the QI rules !--Jebulon 15:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    •  Paraphrasing "Hast du schon alles hier gelesen oder meckerst du nur rum?". Biopics 08:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • There is no hurry with a QI stamp. Why not wait until others have filled in the missing information before you nominate. In wikipedia you do not get an article to featured article status under the premises that "oh, well, this and that is not OK, but it is a wiki, so over time it will become an FA, so let's promote now."
  •  Support now because of the following reasons:
  • We have a few QIs (including mine and Gidips; last week we promote a mushroom by JJH) which are identified up to the genus level. We can't be different stands in different cases.
  • It is difficult to identify True flies and bugs by just viewing a photo or the subject itself than subjects like butterflies because they are very small and the visible properties are common to the genus; not to the species. So we have to collect the specimen and send it to an expert for detailed microscopic examination to get the real ID. Or we can simply guess; no one can prove it wrong by looking on the photo. :)
  • I saw the complaint of Biopics that this user is neglecting the suggestion; but is this the space to handle that issue?

Anyway I prefer to find the ID to the lowermost level as much as possible but it must not be the species in all cases. I have photos of Owl-flies; not any expert even at tamu.edu can resolve the ID so far.

Any help on IDs are always appreciated. Regards, Jee. Jkadavoor 09:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • There are many cases where the genus level is OK, like for many mushrooms, as there really are no easily or only very subtle visual distinct features at the species level. The same applies for many types of other "critters". The point in this case is that there is a significant difference in how different species of the hover fly and the plant look like. this would be apparent for you if you looked at the articles for Volucella and Apiaceae. --Slaunger 13:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image is of medium photographic quality. There are too many blurred areas and the contrast is too hard. The failure to identify the plant does not bother me, because this is not the subject of the image. We do not see the whole of the abdomen: the species can not be identified. This image has a right to exist in COMMONS and, perhaps, she will have a utility. But this work to propose a label is a fault. The public for whom we work, we do not judge the quality of our images, but the rigor of our work. If together we will raise the level of our realizations so our project will have a long life. --Archaeodontosaurus 16:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Disagree with respect. If we make species level identification as a must for FP/QI/VI, it will force people to make wild guess without proper reference that degrade the integrity of Commons, I afraid. Jkadavoor 09:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It is very difficult to make photos of insects with a complete DOF. To reach this we must photograph butterflies lateral (the we have a flat object), or we must kill, mount an stack. So a complete DOF is not necessary here. To determine the species is often not possible in the living species (some insect species can only be determined by investigating their genitalia!). Shall we kill every specimen after photographing and make a section to get the correct species? I think in this case the genus and DOF is sufficient. PS: I think it could be Volucella bombylans (compare [5], [6]) --Llez 17:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Archaeodontosaurus and as others--Lmbuga 22:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above. --Iifar 06:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with Llez; I don't want to kill them. Edited the description, added to category; included other views in other versions. Hope these helps. Jkadavoor 08:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support It is categorized and overall a quality image to me. --Niabot 14:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    • The categories are a mess, as I'm sure you are aware: missing categories at the one hand and over-categorization at the other. Categories are part and parcel of a QI. B.p. 19:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There is clearly two groups of voters here: those that attempt to apply the rules and those that flaunt them. Maybe the flaunters will be consistent now and decline the image? Biopics 19:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Could you please show me the RULE (Any organism should be identified to the species level to qualify as a QI/VI/FP) anywhere in the guidelines? And I didn't understand the current issue with the categories. Jkadavoor 06:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Per above. I know it is a lot, but please read it again. Biopics 13:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment When I look another time to this picture and file page, without the current comments, I think, as a non specialist, that the description is now sufficient enough, due to the cooperative work here in "Commons", but nevertheless I don't remove my "oppose", because of the overall quality of the picture. I think it is not possible for me (again, as a non specialist) to support a picture of a flying insect with one of the two wings totally out of focus...--Jebulon 15:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment But as for the general discussion about the need of a prior correct identification of species (or anything in "Commons") at a "good/relevant/meaningful/correct/sufficient level", I continue to agree with Biopics and others, of course.--Jebulon 15:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • See; we took only a few seconds to add the description and categories because Biopics already given the hint. Then why all these mess? I remember how Archaeodontosaurus helped me to correct my first VI set nomination. We need people like him (and you too). "Together we can make a difference". Regards, Jee Jkadavoor 06:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
        • "All these mess" is due to the fact that some of us "do the job" here, trying to improve the general quality of "Commons" as a good quality media deposit (including the description), and some others absolutely don't care. Why ? Clin--Jebulon 07:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Agree; but nobody compel us to do so. I think we have to do it with pleasure. Clin -- Jkadavoor 08:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 9 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 10:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Familjebostäder_2012.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination HQ of Familjebostäder. Södra Hammarbyhamnen, Stockholm.--ArildV 00:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI for me. --Makele-90 18:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice colour, but extremely distorted. The other one is better. --Misburg3014 18:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Distorted?? Worm's-eye view isnt distortion.--ArildV 18:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support No problem with distortion IMO. --JDP90 18:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too strong distorted --Ralf Roletschek 20:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good.--Jebulon 16:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me.--S. F. B. Morse 02:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose strong distorted (looks wider on top) --AleXXw 07:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Neutral The three green-and-white neon signs at the ground floor level are overexposed. Perhaps try a bracketed exposure if you get another chance and do some exposure fusion from raws with, e.g., tufuse. Otherwise very good dusk light, atmosphere, and overall quality. Do not mind the perspective distortion. At this proximity correcting more for it would give weird side effects. --Slaunger 22:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Slaunger: In my opinion, you have raised the quality requirements of QI to an extreme level. It is not enough anymore that the images have very good dusk light, atmosphere, and overall quality. From now on must be QI was absolutely perfect and flawless (I would have to decline 99 percent of all the pictures here with your requirements). The sign is an extremely small part of the image.--ArildV 22:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Point taken. I was too pedantic there to decline due to that alone given the very good qualities of other aspects of the photo. Changed to neutral. I will try to stick to the higher expectations for FPC. --Slaunger 07:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - This is the problem with perspective correction: perspective is natural. When you correct it, a lot of the time things just look wrong. Mattbuck 15:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Mattbuck. Sorry, but this strong distortion makes this building look unnatural. --High Contrast 18:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Carschten 11:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Imo meets the criteria. --Iifar 06:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 10:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

File:12-06-09-warnemuende-by-ralfr-45.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Warnemünde, Baltic Sea, Germany, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (ship, 1996) --Ralf Roletschek 19:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality for me--Lmbuga 22:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please remove dust spots. Biopics 06:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • OK removed. --Ralf Roletschek 13:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good.--Jebulon 09:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment one or two light spots still on the sky.--Iifar 10:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
also eliminated --Ralf Roletschek 14:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to go npw. --Iifar 11:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Hallwylska_Palatset_2012-kitchen_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kitchen, Hallwylska Palatset. --ArildV 06:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Neutral I'm not sure about the inclination, the guidelines tell me it's straight, but I still think it leans. Have you used perspective correction? V-wolf 08:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 Comment Yes I have (strong disortion at 24mm). But I uploaded a new version using GIMP instead of Lightroom. Does it look better?--ArildV 08:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC) I can't see any difference, but maybe I'm tricked by the perspective or something like that. I mark the picture for discussion. --V-wolf 05:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me.--Jebulon 09:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 11:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Monasterio_de_Andechs,_Alemania_2012-05-01,_DD_33.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Monastery of Andechs, Germany --Poco a poco 21:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline perspective distortion --1Veertje 21:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    Correcting it is easy but the result terrible, that's why I wouldn't touch it. Poco a poco 21:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Good sharpness and quality otherwise, but strange looking colours IMO.--ArildV 19:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    I really tried my best with a newer version Poco a poco 20:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you for the new version. Still 2 problem IMO; wrong colourbalance (to red) and too much saturation. If you still have raw file it could be fixed withPhotoshop (or simillar program)?. If you want you can email the RAW file to me, and I can give it a try.--ArildV 20:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    I like your version, but we need a third opinion, Poco a poco 20:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too strong distorted. --Ralf Roletschek 19:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Marek Janowski 04-2012.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Berlin conductor Marek Janowski. - A.Savin 12:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 20:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Should be better without the finger in the mouth. Not a good tribute to this great maestro, IMO. I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 00:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This pose shows Janowski as a thinker. I can't find s.th. inappropriate in this picture. In fact thinking people often hide their mouth like in this example. --Taxiarchos228 21:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. No need to explain why I did not vote "contra", abstained, and censored my opinion, but for me, the given example is indeed not a QI for the same reason as Janowski. But there is actually nothing "inappropriate" in any of the two pictures, only an opinion. The other one promoted picture of Blokhin was very good.--Jebulon 22:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Contemplative physiognomies are valuable pictures as well as (boring) friendly smiling faces. In press commentatorship such picture are often used to express e.g. a critical situation in which the person is involved. Your arguments are not comprehensible, indeed they are sadly not really established. --Taxiarchos228 09:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 Weak oppose Guys, please, focus on arguments. Actually, I agree with both of you but my position would be a weak oppose. I will try to explain why. Pictures like that from Blochin or many others are fine when the thinking pose is natural or, let's say, conventional. I specially like those with the hand at the chin. In this case I don't feel that having a finger in the mouth is a favorable picture of Janowski. That is not an elegant thinking pose to me. Poco a poco 10:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my simple opinion.--Jebulon 15:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
If you would read carefully you would recognize that he is not exactly the same opinion like you, Jebulon.
For the second time, I'd prefer in occasions a not ad personam talk. Furthermore may I please ask some reviewers stop removing my comments ? Thanks.--Jebulon 00:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Poco: I would follow this argument for VIC or FPC. For QIC this argument is really disproportionate. Because QI should NOT be a matter of taste. But I guess we can end the dialogue here. --Taxiarchos228 18:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
It is just my opinion, if it is not aligned with that of most of the reviewers here, then it will be overruled. I have no problem with that and invite other to express their point of view Poco a poco 21:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support excellent portrait. Wenn das Bild kein QI wird, weiß ich es auch nicht mehr. --Carschten 13:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI is granted, no matter what he does --Moroder 14:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support What the object/person looks like should not influence our judgement on quality, except if the person displayed is presented very poorly or is caught in a situation we all would object to be caught in. This does not seem to be the case here. -- Aisano 22:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Salvia_pratensis_006.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Flower of a Meadow Clary, Salvia pratensis --Llez 05:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 08:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Compositionally, it has huge wow. FPC? --Slaunger 09:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Don't agree. Not good lighting with the pale background and especially disturbing haloes. Biopics 10:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Albeit it is unusual for this type of shot to have a darker subject on a bright background I think it works very well in this case. It helps very much in illustrating the curves of the outlines of the flower. The main subject is not so dark that vital details are lost. For me it makes it very eye-catching as well. Good bokeh as well. I have not managed to identify the reported halos. Is there a particular place in the image, where this is visible? --Slaunger (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    • The problem is that the real colour of the flower doesn't show. Biopics 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment If you observe the flower development of this plant you may realize, that young flowers are usually brighter, more blue, the older they get, the darker and more dark-violet they get. This is an older flower and therefore much more darker than a young one. --Llez 06:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral for now. I've annotated the "haloes" (not really "haloes", but "something like an echo") I see. Correctible IMO. For the rest, high quality picture, nothing against this (unusual) background I find interesting.--Jebulon 16:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Thanks for the hint. I removed all "halos" I found. --Llez 17:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Honestly, my incompetence is so high that I cannot have the insolence to decline such a beautiful picture, when the little flaws I saw are now removed... I think it is a QI.--Jebulon 16:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Allée vase Château Champs sur Marne.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Park of Château de Champs-sur-Marne, alley between light and shadow. Seine-et-Marne, France.--Jebulon 14:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good. QI. --JLPC 16:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think so - very harsh shadow at the right - bad timing? - A.Savin 16:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Another timing, and no more such a symmetry, shadow right in the middle... But I understand your point of view, let others discuss--Jebulon 17:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Request @Jebulon: do you tested to make an HDR/Tonemapping image from a multiple exposures? I can help you if you have three or more different exposure images. --Alchemist-hp 18:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry no. Thank you very much for kind proposition.--Jebulon 15:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose shadows too harsh (no details in black areas), unreal looking sky. Nice combination of composition and light, but because of the technical issues not a QI to me. --Carschten 12:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • The sky is real, no manipulation.--Jebulon 09:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

File:LampelehofSankt_Michael_Kastelruth_Nordseite.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The farmhouse Lampele in Saint Michael in Kastelruth --Moroder 21:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Splendid. --Florstein 16:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - overexposed sky. Mattbuck 13:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
     Info I uploaded a new version --Moroder 18:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Sky is not the subject. Good. --Selbymay 19:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Mattbuck. Biopics 12:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO, a picture is a whole, the sky belongs to the picture we have to judge. And the main subject looks underexposed to me. Sorry.--Jebulon 15:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good!, Important: Sky is not the subject. Verry Good. --Steinsplitter 13:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info I uploaded a brighter version with reduced proportion of the sky --Moroder 12:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    •  Neutral Opposition removed, looks acceptable to me now. But I still disagree with the dangerous argument (IMO) "sky is not important etc..."--Jebulon 09:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Straubing, Stadtturm von Westen 3.jpeg[edit]

File:Actress_Anna_Unterberger.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Actress Anna Unterberger --Moroder 17:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very good! --Kallerna 19:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Potential FP IMO. --Slaunger 09:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO the skin looks partially green --Berthold Werner 13:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I wonder, if the green tone in the face maybe is caused by ambient light or makeup? If so, there should be a hint in description, if not, it is no QI in my opinion --J. Lunau 14:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
     Info It is the ambience light of the green in the garden, like the yellow at sunset - nothing wrong with it --Moroder 11:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose simply bad light. The face + neck are too green. Otherwise nice. --Alchemist-hp 12:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose First impression was very nice, but... as above. --Iifar 06:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Very nice apart from the green tone. The edited version doesn't seem quite right to me either - it makes her look too flushed, more angry than distant, and there's a relatively unaltered stripe visible running across her face. --Avenue 13:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Rade de Genève 2012.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The roadstead of Geneva and the Jet d'Eau, seen from Mount Salève. -Gzzz 11:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Good, but needs to have some blue removed IMO. Mattbuck 21:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review. -Gzzz 19:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Still seems quite blue to me. Other opinions? Mattbuck 21:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Blue to me too.--Jebulon 09:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment a new version is uploaded. --Alchemist-hp 13:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • now  Support --Alchemist-hp 13:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Orthetrum albistylum Opekarna.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Common Skimmer male at ponds near Vrhnika, Slovenia. Yerpo 16:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 08:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Neutral Only carapace and wing bases in focus --V-wolf 10:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I understand that the DOF is borderline here, but most of the abdomen and the left pair of wings are also sharp. Note also that the picture shows almost every morphological character important for determination of the species in this part of the range. — Yerpo Eh? 18:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Maybe you have a point, I switch foot to neutral. Others' opinions? V-wolf (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The circle over the head is to me disturbing--Lmbuga 22:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose as Lmbuga. --Iifar 05:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Conglomerado_BMW,_Múnich,_Alemania_2012-04-28,_DD_02.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination BMW plant, Welt and Tower, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 19:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose dull impression, the colours seem to be wrong --Taxiarchos228 20:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    I uploaded a new version, hopefully better balanced Poco a poco 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    I am sorry, but it is not, now it is reddish --Taxiarchos228 20:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    Agree, colors were a bit too warm, I uploaded a new version Poco a poco 19:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Colors look good, even if I'm not sure about the straightness of the horizon. Let's discuss in CR.--Jebulon 16:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support colors are fine. Tomer T 11:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-06-07 16-00-52-Lestes-sp.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lestes sp. --ComputerHotline 15:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I think, the DoF is a bit small here. --NorbertNagel 17:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, but QI enough; I think. --Jkadavoor 06:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. Tomer T 11:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Sunset - Kumburumoolai, Batticaloa.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sunset seen a place in Batticaloa, Sri Lanka. --Anton 17 15:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose CCW tilt: the reflections should be aligned with the reflecting objects. Otherwise looking fine. Biopics 13:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree; because tilt is not a strong reason to decline. So let the user give enough time to fix it. --Jkadavoor 06:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. --Iifar 06:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me too. --Ralf Roletschek 12:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Bréhat_granit_près_Paon.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The pink granite coast, pointe du Paon, Île de Bréhat, France. --JLPC 21:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Excellent--Jebulon 14:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose to me, poor image quality. --Carschten 15:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment - the rock does have poor image quality, rest is ok. Mattbuck 13:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice colours --Moroder 14:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Tomer T 11:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 09:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)