Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 2010

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Clevedon MMB 10.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Twilight on the Severn Estuary at Clevedon. Mattbuck 12:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Great atmosphere - if it weren't for the noise. -- H005 16:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Noise imo acceptable, great atmosphere and colours --Mbdortmund 18:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per H005, sorry --Carschten 14:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, too much noise. Looks great at image page size though. --Avenue 00:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Avenue 00:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Luxembourg City Roost Népomucène 01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of John of Nepomuk in Luxembourg. --Cayambe 07:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I'm not keen on the composition here, especially the umbrella and the cut off lamp. Mattbuck 17:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The quality is good. The image of the statue is small, but the context is interesting and little frequent--Lmbuga 00:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info New version uploaded, tone-mapping improved, cut off lamp removed. --Cayambe 15:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support a bit noisy, but imo good enough for QI --Carschten 13:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 13:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Fama Kunstakademie Dresden.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pheme on roof of the University of Visual Arts in Dresden, Germany -- Der Wolf im Wald 23:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion

 Support Surely hard to make. Good result IMO.--Jebulon 23:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose Statue and sky are oversaturated. -- H005 15:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 Support Imo acceptable effects of the lighting situation. --Mbdortmund 11:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 Support - very good, diffocult motive. -- Felix Koenig 19:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 Support for me is good --Pudelek 23:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 Support I find it good. --High Contrast 08:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 09:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Preparations for burial of a whale washed ashore on Ocean Beach 1.jpg[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Carschten 13:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uplistsikhe34.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Old stone stairs in Uplistsikhe, Georgia. By EvgenyGenkin.--Vizu 19:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion

* Oppose very good topic, but too many artifacts in the sky. Can be improved --Archaeodontosaurus 12:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

  • As for me, normal.--Vizu 18:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment see the note --Archaeodontosaurus 14:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unless sky fixed. Good photo apart from that. --Avenue 23:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • See a new version, please.--Vizu 17:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version corrected, but i can't vote --Archaeodontosaurus 17:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support, much better. --Avenue 22:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support very good now. Good work, Archaeodontosaurus! --Carschten 17:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 17:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Dalahästen Åsbo.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: The World's largest Dalecarlian horse, Avesta, Sweden. --V-wolf 12:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support ok --Carschten 16:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, oversaturated to me. Bad details (Perhaps the plant leaves were red. What plants are they?). Too tight crop. To me it's not QI--Lmbuga 01:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the plant is a Euonymus sp. (there are about 175 species). --V-wolf 19:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not quite sure what it is, but something about this image just says "not QI", I just can't quite put my finger on what it is to give a valid decline reason. Mattbuck 03:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The composition somehow annoys me. I don't know what it is; it almost seems like the subject is trying to run away to the left. Maybe there should have been more space to the left? The head should probably have been centered in the image. ZooFari 00:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

 Info Voting period is over --Carschten 17:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Carschten 11:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

File:NemrutVolcano09.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lake inside the crater of Nemrut Volcano, Turkey. By EvgenyGenkin.--Vizu 19:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Artifact in the sky. Problem on the sensor or the lens to be cleaned --Archaeodontosaurus 12:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, the sky stops this from being a QI, but some editing might salvage this and the others. --Avenue 13:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New version with artifact corrected --Archaeodontosaurus 18:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
     Support, much better. --Avenue 01:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose The dark areas of the rocks are underexposed. The clear areas of the rocks are a bit overexposed. It is possible to be solved the clear areas, but (to me) it is impossible to fix the dark area--Lmbuga 00:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Columns in Palmyra, Syria.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Columns in Palmyra, Syria. --High Contrast 23:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment As I said the 17 july: I like the idea, but the sky is very noisy IMO. What is the opinions of others ?. Same question today.--Jebulon 23:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • then let's discuss --Carschten 18:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 Support Noise acceptable IMO. ZooFari 18:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose The noise was not acceptable some months ago.--Jebulon 22:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise might be on the edge of acceptable but the colours look slightly unnatural to me (white-balance/saturation) and also doubt the framing makes a quality composition. --Elekhh 23:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise might be acceptable (can be removed easily due to the single-colored background btw.) but the composition isn' really good. It doesn't show much of the subject nor is it geometrically meaningful. --BennyJ 12:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --BennyJ (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Vozovna Střešovice, 81-71 na návěsu.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Metro car 81-71 on trailer — Jagro 22:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment colourbalance is off --Mbdortmund 06:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info picture was reexported from raw file with edited colours — Jagro 23:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • the floor looks still too yellow --Mbdortmund 11:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support yellow comes from the light posts. Good night shot imo --Carschten 18:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I find it good, a good evening/night shot. --High Contrast 20:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not too sharp image, light flashes from the top (can be edited out), extra yellow colours.--PereslavlFoto 21:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The phoho was taken at 7 o'clock AM under street lamps which had two different colours, so it's impossible to set nice WB without working with layers and changing reality. — Jagro 23:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support That's correct --BennyJ (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --BennyJ (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 

File:Moscow_GUM_-_Red_Square.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow GUM gallery in red square --Vcarceler 11:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good Picture! --Kudak
  •  Oppose Sorry but sharpness ist not so good, especially on the left side. And the composition is also not satisfyingly, most of the picture shows roadstones. --Berthold Werner 15:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong crop. PereslavlFoto 22:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? PereslavlFoto 22:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Acer tataricum ginnala PfP.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Acer tataricum subsp. ginnala, Parc Floral de Paris. --Jebulon 23:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI--Mbz1 03:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Most leaves are very unshard unsharp and the whole picture has a kind of bad quality. -- Pro2 22:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
    //unsigned opposition. Who spoke ?--Jebulon 10:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
    I strike the vote out because votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted. --Carschten 14:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
    fixed -- Pro2 22:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
     Question Google finds an instance of the term "unshard", but I don't understand how it applies to this image.[1] Wsiegmund 18:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    Unsharp (I suppose). [[::meta:Don't be a dick|Don't quibble]]. --V-wolf 18:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    Just a careless mistake. -- Pro2 19:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The depth of field (f/5.6) is too shallow for this subject, in my opinion. Wsiegmund 17:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Elekhh 00:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

File:M-gorici-nikolskaya-3976.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Nicholas church at Goritsky monastery in Pereslavl--PereslavlFoto 12:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeThe white/grey sky just takes the eye away from the building. Mattbuck 12:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    Are there any problems with the photo?PereslavlFoto 21:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    That would be an issue with composition. Mattbuck 16:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    So the photo has enough technical quality, sharp, geocoded, described, categorized, — but you do not like the April weather?--PereslavlFoto 19:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support weather cannot be good all the time. And I don't find the sky disturbing in any way --Carschten 14:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 16:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 08:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Prison in Milan.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Jail house in Milan. --High Contrast 16:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose I really don't like the street light here. --Sfu 11:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    I had not the courage to remove it. --High Contrast 20:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    How about the courage to move few steps left? --Sfu 20:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    I was able to do this but the result did not convince me. You'd agree to me if you have had seen the other photographs. Anyway. --High Contrast 20:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    We can move it to discuss but still I don't like it - it's distacing - but maybe it's because I don't like street lights at all ;). Let's someone else give opinion. --Sfu 20:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    I hope you did not understand my comments above falsely. Of course I accept your opinion! It is your good right to classify an image as non-QI. --High Contrast 20:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • So close to a jail, maybe could we consider street lights as something metaphoric (stop-go, freedom-prison etc...). lol.--Jebulon 09:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You're laughing - this was little bit my intention. --High Contrast 15:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose Sorry, perhaps I don't understand the metaphoric idea. To me, the traffic light (street light?) is disturbing. If it's not disturbing, it's a bad composition to me--Lmbuga 22:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Lurzenbach-068.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lurzenbach, Germany. --Bartiebert 13:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Can you sharpen it please? Mattbuck 16:57, 26 October 2010
  • A little better now? If not, I do not know how to make better, sry. --Bartiebert 19:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC) (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 11:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - interesting and okay. -- Felix Koenig 20:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To me it's not QI. I don't know if it's unsharp or if it's blurred, but I do not like the detail--Lmbuga 23:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 08:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Halde Norddeutschland, Hinweisschild Himmelstreppe.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A sign about the Halde Norddeutschland --Carschten 15:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose possition of object is hal out of picture, not straight --LutzBruno 18:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
     Info I uploaded a new version with a changed perspective --Carschten 20:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    Schwer zu sagen, es ist sinnvoll, solche Infos mitzufotografieren und unter Versionen in das "Hauptbild" einzubauen, aber ob man hier sinnvoll von Qualität der Komposition sprechen kann, ist für mich fraglich. --Mbdortmund 12:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad framing. --kallerna 13:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Could you please get more exactly and show me e.g. a better framing with an image note. --Carschten 17:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad framing. Evident to me. Bad composition--Lmbuga 22:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose and declined. Mattbuck 02:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 03:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

File:KyotoTomb.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Japanese grave in the Kyoto cemetery. --Kirua 17:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good composition, interesting. Should be geo-tagged imho. --Vomirencostard 17:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose interesting topic but underexposed, possible correction --Archaeodontosaurus 07:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Possible correction: Underexposed, as Archaeodontosaurus--Lmbuga 22:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 09:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Xosé Manuel Martínez Oca 1.jpg[edit]

  •  Comment Why is that a problem? Mattbuck 12:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The images are very, very, very similar, just with another crop. And it makes no sense if everyone would nominate images which were (almost) the same, just with another remachining. --Carschten 14:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't withdraw my nomination because I want to know what the comunity thinks. This reason is not written (I think), but it seems to me well.--Lmbuga 19:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would promote this one as the original and QI in itself, the crop version is just a derivative, not essentially different. However some hair is hanging in in the right bottom corner which would need to be cropped out from this version. --Elekhh 00:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Elekhh. New image cropped--Lmbuga 11:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 Support --Elekhh 22:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Carschten 11:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - very good. -- Felix Koenig 14:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Bartiebert 16:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Taxodium distichum Fastigiatum 5.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Taxodium distichum 'Fastigiatum' in Park Skaryszewski, Warsaw, Poland. --Crusier 15:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Neutral Well lit, sharpish, minor CA in lower left is acceptable. QI to me. --Avenue 14:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Seems sharp to me at 50%, which is more than big enough for QI. But yes, the composition is questionable (probably too tight on the sides). Switching to neutral, sorry. --Avenue (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp. CA. Composition. Poor quality to me--Lmbuga 23:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unbalanced composition to me too. --Elekhh 00:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Strong support to promote this picture with the reason unsharp, but sharp enough at 2MP and then to oppose this is just unfair! Composition is nothing special, but not bad, the chromatic aberrations are keeping within reasonable limits imo, lightning is also nice. Clearly a QI to me. --Carschten 12:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good Topic but CA too heavy. Please shoot in RAW. --Archaeodontosaurus 17:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 20:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Vitrail Varennes Jarcy MNMA Cluny.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Early gothic stained glass, 1220.National Museum of the Middle Age --Jebulon 22:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion The picture is tilted (right side of the vitrail). --Daniel Baránek 09:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry no, it is not. It is so in real. It was a trap for the reviewers. One cannot expect that a such old piece (remember: 1220 !)should be as straight as a 19th century neo gothic one. Furthermore, the picture was taken in a museum, not in a church, so I was in front of it, horizontally if I may say so. PLease note that the base is horizontal. I'm afraid you are wrong, and disappointed if you think I'm able to upload such a "tilted" picture and submit it in QIC (and FPC)... I'm not so blind and feel respect to reviewers ! ;) .--Jebulon 11:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Lmbuga 22:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support good picture --George Chernilevsky 08:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Elekhh 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Flow of Merced River after Autumn's rain storm in Yosemite Valley .jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Flow of Merced River after Autumn's rain storm in Yosemite Valley--Mbz1 09:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I don't like the lack of a main subject. Sorry! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nothing to be sorry about, and let's put it for discussion.--Mbz1 23:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • May I notice that this nomination was anonymous ?--Jebulon 00:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Nominator Mbz1. --Vizu 15:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is technically good. Subject is not that interesting but I don't mind. --BennyJ (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good movement, but I don't like the image: I don't like the composition: What is in focus? To me undefined focus--Lmbuga 22:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Everything is in focus. The rock in the upper middle is in focus, and the water is in focus too. A time exposure of a fast moving river, yes, but everything is in focus. --Mbz1 04:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Lmbuga may be using "focus" to discuss composition. What is it about this particular composition that makes it superior to a random photograph of the river under these conditions? For an image of this sort, that may be an easier question to ask, than to answer. Wsiegmund 05:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Walter, for explaining to me what the user meant. It makes sense.--Mbz1 13:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Mbz1; thanks, Wsiegmund--Lmbuga 16:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Mallard Lake in Golden Gate Park.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mallard Lake in Golden Gate Park--Mbz1 22:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportQI IMO. I like the contrast between the leaves in foreground, and the reflection in water. Obviously it is a choice, risky, but fine at the end (to me)--Jebulon 00:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This is tilted about 2° CW (see reflections), and not QI IMO until this is fixed. --Avenue 21:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I tried to fix it. Please take another look.Thanks.--Mbz1 17:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me now --Archaeodontosaurus 17:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support, much better. The crop on the left helps it too. --Avenue 20:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 23:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Xosé Manuel Martínez Oca 2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Xosé Manuel Martínez Oca, writer from Galicia (Spain) --Lmbuga 20:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good. --kallerna 11:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment small grey haze, and I like the crop of the other one more than this one --Carschten 11:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
     Comment New image with more contrast and clarity. This image it's not the same than File:Xosé Manuel Martínez Oca 1.jpg, but the two images are consecutive images--Lmbuga 20:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good portrait IMO.--Jebulon 17:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not essentially different from the above one. A variable number of crops can be generated from the larger version (why not a square format?) and see no reason to promote separately all derivatives. Also in Wiki-articles landscape format fits better for layout reasons. The image description could include in the "Other versions" line a link to the above image, together with the Quality images QI seal. --Elekhh 22:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Elekhh --Carschten 12:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Ливадийский дворец 030.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Chimera in Livadiya palace --Butko 11:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice for me.--Gaeser 17:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, Good detail, but I don't like the composition: Bad angle and too tight crop at right--Lmbuga 23:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Random framing with busy background. --Elekhh 23:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Halde Norddeutschland, Hallenhaus 6.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Hallenhaus on the Halde Norddeutschland --Carschten 15:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - Interesting.--Mbz1 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - bad vignetting, and strange concentric rings (roughly semicircles around the focus) in the sky. Mattbuck 15:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Mattbuck--Lmbuga 22:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Mattbuck 19:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Kornhamnstorg 51.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Von der Lindeska huset, Kornhamnstorg.--Ankara 16:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry I do not like the crop.--Mbz1 16:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Why not? --Ankara 16:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I do not like the crop, but, perhaps, I do not know the intention of the photo. The information is only in... (I don't know the language). But, to me, too tight crop--Lmbuga 22:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info Kornhamnstorg 51 is only the street address, in Swedish it means "Grain harbour square 51". --V-wolf (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question Is Von der Lindeska huset only the yellowish (peach?) buildning in the middle? --V-wolf 05:02, 9 November 2010

(UTC)

  • Kornhamnstorg 51 is the street address of the yellow house (also known as Von der Lindeska huset). And my intention is to show the building. It is a heritage listed building, sv:Von der Lindeska huset.--Ankara 09:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have improved the image description. --Ankara 09:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment the building on the left is too opulent in comparison and is distracting from the subject so much nobody can understand which one is the subject. I think it needs a tighter framing / left crop. Using a wide angle lens from a closer location would also eliminate some of the traffic sign clutter from the foreground. --Elekhh 23:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • To clarify:  Oppose this framing. --Elekhh 23:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm active on Wikipedia and Commons to create an encyclopedia, and will not spend more time discussing this photo. IMO it is good enough for QI. It is useful both to illustrate the building, and buildings around the square (both houses of the image is relevant to Wikipedia). Someone thinks I crop is too tight, others that it should be tighter, and we can continue discussing it for ages. Let's just finish this.--Ankara 13:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Rally Finland 2010 - EK 1 - Rui Wang.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rui Wang driving at Laajavuori special stage, Rally Finland 2010. --kallerna 08:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI IMO --Kirua 10:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too tight crop at the right imo --Carschten 12:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too tight crop at the right--Lmbuga 23:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too tight for me too. --Elekhh 03:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the crop is fine and the picture looks good to me. /Dcastor 16:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -Dcastor 16:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Coburg Island in Jones Sound .jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Seabirds nesting at Coburg Island--Mbz1 17:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Review hard shadows in the corner left, unfavorabled framing. Sorry Mila :-( --Carschten 20:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    There's nothing to be sorry about :). This image was taken from a very shaky zodiac. The birds were nesting on the vertical cliff. This was the only framing I could use to show the nests and the cliff. The image is quite unique. It was taken in a very, very remote place.--Mbz1 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 SupportNothing to say for me about the framing. Sharp enough. The shadow in the left corner is not too hard IMO.--Jebulon 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

  •  Support per Jebulon --George Chernilevsky 08:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dark areas cleary underexposed. Little areas overexposed. I don't like the composition, I can't understand it--Lmbuga 23:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes? George Chernilevsky 08:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Halde Norddeutschland, Hinweisschild.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A sign about the Halde Norddeutschland --Carschten 15:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI--Mbz1 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the object is in bad possition, shadow of photographer in, sorry not nice --LutzBruno 18:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
     Comment best position which was possible. Rechts störende Gräser, nach links wäre mein Schatten noch mehr drauf gewesen und alles andere wäre mit Gegenlicht noch schlechter geworden. --Carschten 19:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad framing. --kallerna 13:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Could you please get more exactly and show me e.g. a better framing with an image note. --Carschten 17:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The main subject is just too small. --kallerna 13:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -Elekhh 03:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Liriodendron tulipifera PAN.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Liriodendron tulipifera in autumn, PAN Botanical Garden in Warsaw. --Crusier 06:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support CA on top leaves, but otherwise good.--Jebulon 16:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed; nearly half a million pixels are saturated in the red channel. The view of the subject is obstructed by a shrub.Wsiegmund 00:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, neighbouring tree makes left edge messy. --Avenue 21:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Avenue 21:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Great Sphinx of Giza and Pyramid of Cheops.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Great Sphinx of Giza and Pyramid of Cheops. --kallerna 13:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion * Oppose heavy gray haze --Carschten 15:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Mbz1 18:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - QI to me. -- Felix Koenig 18:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - QI at me. ----Jebulon 16:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - QI by me. ZooFari 17:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - QI from me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The color of the sky is due to pollution of Cairo. Why not put it in the caption. Take care of your captions, please. --Archaeodontosaurus 07:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Merci !--Archaeodontosaurus 16:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support picture is technically correct and is a great composition. --Murdockcrc 05:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 01:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Bronze ornament Pantheon Paris.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A bronze ornament, with a plaque, square of the Pantheon of Paris --Jebulon 16:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very sharp, otherwise also good, and useful. --Cayambe 11:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tilted ccw, lots of underexposed parts on the statue --Carschten 11:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Supportunderexposed parts are minimal --Archaeodontosaurus 13:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Terrakottaarmén-11.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination High rank terracotta officer --dcastor 15:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good. A geocode would be useful. --Cayambe 15:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good image but excesive sharp: See the upper side --Lmbuga 22:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose excesive sharp and default lighting of the upper part --Archaeodontosaurus 18:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Shipwreck_of_The_King_Philip_at_Ocean_Beach.jpg[edit]

File:Burrow Mump ruins from West.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Burrow Mump ruins from the west.--Harrias 13:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support I like it. --Bartiebert 13:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Perspective really needs to be correted. --Sfu 15:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, it does -- Alvesgaspar 16:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually this is my version. I forgot to notice it here. --Sfu 14:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
You correct images and I gain the laurels - sounds good to me ;-) --Carschten 15:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
OK for me --Archaeodontosaurus 17:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Carschten 15:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 15:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Icebreaker Kapitan Khlebnikov in Arctic.jpg[edit]

  • The ship could have been tilted in real life. The reflections in the water would be vertically aligned if the water was horizontal, but they are not. To me, it seems more likely that the ship had a tilt than that the water was sloping over such a distance. --Avenue 23:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm.. I fail to see the tilt and I also like the crop that allows to get a glimpse of the landscape and the surroundings. However, I agree with Ankara that there were traces of noice in the mountains (in particular right from the ship, close to the sky). I've uploaded a new version of this photograph with the noise removed and would support its QI status. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, AFBorchert, great job on the image!--Mbz1 14:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

File:Loveparade 2010 Duisburg, 10 Tage danach, CN-01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Plaque of the Loveparade 2010, ten days after the catastrophe --Carschten 12:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Vielleicht gut, aber sicher unverständlich für non german speakers... Needs a translation in the file page IMO.--Jebulon 12:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Basic explanation in English and Swedish added. --V-wolf 13:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info added detailed description and a translation of the text on the plaque, see Image Note. Thanks @ V-wolf :-) --Carschten 13:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done in French too.--Jebulon 14:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done In Swedish. What a "Multikulti" collaboration :-) --V-wolf 14:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Multilingual", as "Commons" has to be ;)...--Jebulon 17:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • thanks to you two! :-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The upper part of the sign is very bright (overexposed?), but the composition as a whole I think would do, what do you others think? --V-wolf 18:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, seems a bit overexposed. But no details are missing, and the light conditions are intricate... You can see it in Google Earth for example, that there was a long tunnel with some vents at the top. Maybe it was overmuch for my camera, but please see my first part of the second sentence: no details are missing. --Carschten 12:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support With explanation good enough for me. --V-wolf 13:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --V-wolf 13:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Kirrinsannan uusin tuulivoimala.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wind turbine in Kirrinsanta. --kallerna 12:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment so, do you sent the RAW file to Mbdortmund? --Carschten 12:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
     Comment Couldn't. IMO it could still be QI. --kallerna 12:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC) agree with author. QI--Jebulon 00:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    not before the CW tilt is corrected --Carschten 19:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info Fixed. --kallerna 14:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Paris - Mondial de l'automobile 2010 - Mercedes 300SL - 001.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination: Paris - Mondial de l'automobile 2010 - Mercedes 300SL. --Thesupermat 08:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support J'ai retouché l'image. --Thesupermat 20:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition but some noise and CA. --Mbdortmund 13:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong color temperature --Archaeodontosaurus 18:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
     Info new version --Archaeodontosaurus 08:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Even if I dislike the ceiling.--Jebulon 16:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unshap, tilted, bad framing --Carschten 11:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  •  Support Je trouve que ça passe, mais ça se prêterait bien à de la retouche : suppression du plafond comme dit Jebulon, ainsi que des reflets qui donnent l'impression que la voiture a déteint sur le fond blanc, les quelques reflets de spots, et peut-être ajuster les contrastes et la luminosité. Rama 13:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info voted under the line are given too late (In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the image will stay in Consensual Review for a maximum period of 8 days, counted from its entry.) --Carschten 22:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Carschten 11:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Nationalpark Krka Kroatien 03.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination: Krka National Park --Böhringer 22:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Quality is excellent, but I don't like the trees in the way. I think this needs a discussion. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - I like the composition with the trees. -- Felix Koenig 14:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice subject, good quality, but the trees are just obstruct the waterfall and are unfortunately nasty... Would be cleary a QI and maybe FP without them... --Carschten 14:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The tree trunks spoil it for me too. --Avenue 08:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The quality of the fall is amazing. There was nothing a photographer could have done to remove the trees from the frame.--Mbz1 02:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The trees are part of the environment that contribute feeling to the image, and is what makes this image unique from other waterfall images. ZooFari 03:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with User:ZooFari. It is kind of special. Different. --Bartiebert 20:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the trees get in between the main subject (waterfall) and the viewer. To me, it does not meet the composition requirements of a QI. --Murdockcrc 05:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The trees disturb the composition and are not in any relation with the waterfalls as the main subject. -- Simisa 10:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Vote period of max. 8 day are over --Carschten 09:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Mbz1 02:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Memphis BW 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Sphinx of Memphis --Berthold Werner 18:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 08:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very good, but tight crop left and right IMO. Let's discuss.--Jebulon 09:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    Depends on whether you consider the socle to be part of the subject or not. There might be a way to make it clearer that it is not and attenuate the impression of an unfortunate crop. Rama 13:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have the impression that the socle is a part of the picture here and should therefore not have been cropped. Otherwise a landscape formated picture of the upper part would have served the purpose much better. -- Simisa 10:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Vote period of max. 8 day are over --Carschten 09:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

==[edit]

  • Nomination Nur-Astana Mosque in Astana, Kazakhstan. DIMMIS 09:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose perspective, poor lighting --Pudelek 11:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
     Comment The perspective does need to be massively corrected, but I think the photographer has to right to try and correct it before declining. The exposure looks good to me, the histogram looks good and the colors are beautiful. --Murdockcrc 21:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    ✓ Done The perspective is corrected (as it possible). New file version is loaded. Is it ok now? DIMMIS 05:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
     Comment Still I don't like this perspective. And I think the picture is too dark --Pudelek 10:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support the lateral perspective could definitively be better but in general terms this is a great image. --Murdockcrc 15:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose everywhere color artifacts (looks like there was an heavy color noise before, and then the author made a denoising), underexposed, imo a bit oversaturated --Carschten 15:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Carschten - --Archaeodontosaurus 17:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 22:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Rock pool with sea shells (mainly Zethalia zelandica).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sea shells in rock pool. --Avenue 00:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support I wish I visited this place--Mbz1 04:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It is a beautiful place. I've added a couple more shots from there. --Avenue 08:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I'm wrong, but I see too many overexposed areas. Please accept a discussion about.--Jebulon 18:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
More discussion can't hurt. --Avenue 23:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded a somewhat darker version over the top. At least the two white shell fragments look okay to me now. --Avenue 13:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you.  Support now--Jebulon 10:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --George Chernilevsky 21:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Lawhitton church.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lawhitton church in Cornwall, UK.--Nilfanion 01:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    Edit by Carschten --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

    Edit by Carschten
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI--Mbz1 04:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The tower is falling down (and in the true, most of the image). Sorry --Chmee2 09:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Fixed now --Chmee2 20:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    I've rotated slightly think its better now.--Nilfanion 11:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support, looks good enough IMO. Rehman 15:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  SupportIMO pretty good now. --DKrieger 19:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 23:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Turm Burg Wildeck.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Tower of Wildeck castle, Baden-Württemberg. -- Felix Koenig 16:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion Maybe I am missing on something, but I cannot understand why the front of the roof and the front of the building seem much less sharp than the right hand side.--Mbz1 18:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    I took it with 200mm, the focus was on the center of the tower... -- Felix Koenig 14:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Probably not featureable, but good enough for QI IMO. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 05:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Memorial ground Hedemora graveyard.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Memorial ground, Hedemora cemetery, Sweden.--V-wolf 13:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too dark. --kallerna 09:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 Comment New version uploaded. Better? --V-wolf 11:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately, due to the contrast between bright and dark, the lamps are overexposed and the rest under. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 22:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Dünen von Maspalomas.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination The dunes of Maspalomas. A lake in the foreground, the beach and the sea on the right side. -- Felix Koenig 17:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Decent quality; cropping some of the sky might help the composition. Please geocode. --Avenue 12:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose Don't like the composition, should be panorama (too much sky & water). Bit soft. --kallerna 13:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
     Comment Is that a joke? The picture shows a lake, so why do you think there's too much water?! -- Felix Koenig 14:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, composition and sharpness aren't perfect, but it's still good enough IMO. The birds in the foreground add interest, so I see no need to crop the water. --Avenue 04:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
    "no need to crop the water" - of course there's no need to crop the water of a picture with a motive of lake and dunes... -- Felix Koenig 17:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The weakness of the composition is the 1:1 sky:earth/lake ratio (1:2 would have been a better), but this is not FP, and there is no way to fix this with a crop without loosing other interesting parts. --Elekhh 23:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 23:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Rana temporaria-070.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rana temporaria. --Bartiebert 13:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Much of the animal is not in focus (f/11 or f/16 may be better than f/7.1). Most of the substrate is out of focus and adds little, IMO. I could support a fairly close crop of the subject since the eye and nostril are in focus and well-exposed.--Wsiegmund 01:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree with the above judgement and thus moved this nomination to a discussion. True, the body is partly out of focus, but don't forget this can be considered macro photography, and shallow depths of field are mandatory. The photographer could have stopped-down the aperture, but at the cost of what? Underexposed image, blur or noise for having to crank up the ISO. The most important for macro is, the eyes are pin-sharp, the exposure is good, the bokeh is excellent, I think this is technically a great image and of great value for Wikimedia. --Murdockcrc 21:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC
  •  Oppose Technical poor, poor framing --Archaeodontosaurus 17:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support, I think the framing is good enough for QI. Rehman 13:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support, technically good image (as per Murdockcrc and Rehman), and visually striking. --Skeezix1000 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 21:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Piece of coffin isis mourning pleurant Louvre AF258.jpg[edit]

 Oppose There is a lower resolution limit of 2 MP for QI. The subject here has less than 1.2 MP. Obviously surrounding the subject with lots of black space will bring the file above 2 MP, but not the actual image. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Johannes Robalotoff 17:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Johannes Robalotoff, I didn't notice that. It should bypass the rules and it was not my intention.  I withdraw my nomination--Jebulon 17:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lenticular Cloud South Georgia.jpg[edit]

Butterfly austral (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 I withdraw my nomination--Butterfly austral 17:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Elekhh 21:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portal Iglesia de San Juan Bautista.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Portal of Iglesia de San Juan Bautista in Telde, Gran Canaria. -- Felix Koenig 12:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose tilted ccw IMO.--Jebulon 22:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Difficult. You may be right, but it isn't clear. The portal was a bit tilted itself, so I don't know what is originally tilted and what is only tilted on the photo. -- Felix Koenig 19:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 02:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Marble Rocks, Madhya Pradesh, India.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Marble Rocks, Madhya Pradesh, India. Yann 11:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good.--Mbz1 18:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing blue and white objects in foreground, bad crop left, bad light right. Let's discuss.--Jebulon 21:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I cropped the image to remove the plastic baskets. I can't do much about the other issues you mentioned. Yann 02:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Cayambe 09:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 02:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Tafel Gemeindehaus Helfenberg.JPG[edit]

Why do you think so? I don't see any underexposed parts, and the colours are realistic. -- Felix Koenig 14:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not underexpose, but a little dark, and there are blue in the stele in small quantities. --Archaeodontosaurus 16:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried this--Jebulon 21:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 19:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]