Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 2011

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Peresecenie2011-expo-2083.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Exposition at the the «Crossing» festival. Costumes from Hypno Design. --PereslavlFoto 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline {{{2}}}

File:Peresecenie2011-expo-2085.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Exposition at the the «Crossing» festival. Costumes from Hypno Design. --PereslavlFoto 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline {{{2}}}

File:Peresecenie2011-expo-2088.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Exposition at the the «Crossing» festival. Costumes from Hypno Design. --PereslavlFoto 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline {{{2}}}

File:Florence_Duomo_-_main_gate.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Main gate of the Duomo in Florence. --Eusebius 14:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Kroton 14:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI am pretty much disappointed that QI is given to pictures of artwork where no attempt is even made to mention or research the name of the artist--Moroder 23:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    The author of the central gate of the portal is not mentionned in the Wikipedia articles linked from the image caption. However, the category of the portal makes a reference to some Italian artist. I guess somebody who knew better than me provided the information. I see no point in writing a full article in the image page when the architecture of the wiki gives better information than the one I could provide, and in a structured way. I will add some date information in the portal category, though. --Eusebius 21:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me, very goog quality--Lmbuga 03:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me, but the caption is a bit low. --Archaeodontosaurus 13:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I was there, it looks so. I've added two illustrated notes of details, please delete if inappropriate. Yes the caption could be better, but links are good. I agree that we should be in QI less lenient (in general, not regarding this picture) with the file names, the description pages and the categories...--Jebulon 15:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 13:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-10-22 23-11-57-belfort-in-night.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ramparts of Belfort, in night. --ComputerHotline 21:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support nicht so langweilig wie sonst immer I like that. difficult light, well-implemented --Ralf Roletschek 12:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very blurry in my opinion. + some technical issues annotated. Maybe a QI (after corrections), but I ask for a discussion, please. --Jebulon 18:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I've corrected the perspective of this picture with ShiftN before upload in WikiCommons. --ComputerHotline 18:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed it is really blury, for me it's not OK. Same as Jebulon, maybe it is a QI and I'm being too harsh, but please let's discuss about it. PierreSelim 12:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the blur is just ok, but the HDR errors have to be fixed. Maybe some denoising in the sky would be good, too. --Carschten 11:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sky is too noisy. Léna 23:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 12:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-09-05 10-44-16-PA00101134.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Inside of Église de Brasse of Belfort, France. --ComputerHotline 18:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Meets the criteria, imo.--MrPanyGoff 21:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    What is the subject ? The altar is totally out of focus + the color is very red (the next one looks a bit better) --PierreSelim 19:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    *  Oppose White balance is imo off --Mbdortmund 02:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Fontaine Saint-Sulpice Paris 6.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint-Sulpice Fountain in Paris --Moonik 05:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --Ximonic 10:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hey, what happened with the people's faces? Otherwise good quality indeed.--MrPanyGoff 10:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Hi, to protect the prived live, faces were a little bit noised --Moonik 10:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I can't accept these faces, the people look like monsters. --Quartl 05:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done The original version of file is upload now, without face noising. I hope it will be better --Moonik 12:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I removed my opposition. --Quartl 13:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand the framing...--Jebulon 15:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I sacrificed the bottom of the fountain to have the bigger top. It isn't good? --Moonik 15:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Canoe vézère.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Canoeists on the Vézère river, after a storm.--Jebulon 22:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 23:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad lighting conditions and poor dymanic --Taxiarchos228 12:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Poor review. I don't understand "poor dynamic", because it "moves" more than any ...skyline of a city, for instance. Yes the "lighting conditions" where not so good just after a storm, that's just why this picture was particularly difficult to take ! And ? btw, maybe could you decline (or discuss) sometimes other pictures than mine, then you may hide better that your negative reviews are a bit "personal"... Anyway, I'm not afraid by Consensual Review--Jebulon 14:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.Exposure, sharpness and DOF are good. The colours are natural for a river surrounded by trees under a grey sky.--Vassil 23:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see problems, QI IMHO. --T137 10:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please stop reviewing your pictures vice versa for a time to find back to better cooperation. You both are delivering important pictures for our project. --Mbdortmund 19:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 19:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Salacgrīva (Salismünde) - church.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Salacgrīva (Salismünde) - evangelical church --Pudelek 12:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 16:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose What about the white lines around the roof of the tower?--MrPanyGoff 19:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't now whats this... mayby reflection of the sun? --Pudelek 10:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overall too soft in my opoinion, sorry. --Carschten 11:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 11:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Melitaea trivia syriaca 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Melitaea trivia --Gidip 21:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Melitaea trivia nana (Staudinger, 1871) is the correct name. Melitaea trivia syriaca is a synonym. --Archaeodontosaurus 08:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • But it is not a wrong name, or is it? --Gidip 16:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Naming, description and categorization is ok to me. The image could be more detailed but considering the small size of this butterfly the quality to me is good enough. --Quartl 14:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 14:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Larix decidua - cones - Kroton 001.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cones of European larch --Kroton 14:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice shot! Meets the criteria! --High Contrast 09:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In my opinion, very noisy and full of artefacts at high resolution, probably due to the camera. I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 15:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support -- 320td 12:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jordiferrer 12:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nothing really sharp. Blurry and noisy. White balance too green. --Carschten 20:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Carschten. Sorry. --T137 09:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Carschten. Sorry too. --Alchemist-hp 19:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Alchemist-hp 19:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Segway Champ-de-Mars.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A "Segway", Champ-de-Mars, Paris.--Jebulon 09:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose bad crop --Taxiarchos228 15:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Really ? I do not see any crop on the main subject...--Jebulon 15:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support we dont need the man to illustrate a segway. let us diskuss! --Ralf Roletschek 06:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support good --Carschten 12:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad crop --Jordiferrer 13:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    •  Question Revenge for the sagrada familia ? It is curious that the only review of this contributor is against this picture ! There are many other unassessed pictures in QIC... Stupid childlike behaviour...--Jebulon 15:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, the crop is not bad if you want to simply focus on the segway. However, in my modest opinion this spefic photo is not having anything special compared to other ones.--Jordiferrer 12:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Sorry, this argument is an irrelevant criterium in QIC page. Please have a look to our guidelines, it helps very much!--Jebulon 14:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose composition, tilt. --Quartl 14:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support the crop is ok. The main subject is the Segway itself and this one is shown completely. --High Contrast 15:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support per High Contrast. Cropping out a man's head is a classic composition to display equipment (a cop belt, paramedics, etc.) ; I'd go as far as saying that a wider drop would probably be less good, as the face would attract attention and distrct from the Segway which is the subject. -- Rama 06:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Airwolf 21:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Could be better, but there's nothing wrong with it. Crop is good, if you want to avoid personality rights :) --Specious 07:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Airwolf 21:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Den Haag - Wassenaarseweg 80 v2.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Main office from the Bataafsche Import Maatschappij in The Hague -- Basvb 10:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry but picture with perspective distorsion + tilt -- Focus finder 12:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support - the correct perspective do not disturb --Ralf Roletschek 11:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment image has a green cast --Carschten 13:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilt and perpective should be corrected and the crop to get a symmetric view. --Berthold Werner 17:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose aberration of perspective --Archaeodontosaurus 08:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose persepective correction would work very well here. --Elekhh 20:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support ✓ Done for perspective correction! --Alchemist-hp 20:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for demonstrating that Alchemist-hp. Tiny things: crop is slightly unsymmetrical and somebody lost of paper bag. --Elekhh 20:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Of course it would be better, if the crop would be symmetrical, but not so important for a QI. The paper bag is not the photographer's fault, but I agree here, that it's disturbing, but no need to retouch it out for QI status IMHO. But I insist on my green cast. --Carschten 22:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
        • ✓ Done again. symmetric cut + color correction. --Alchemist-hp 22:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support good and QI now --Archaeodontosaurus 06:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Berthold Werner 16:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 20:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

File:IGP5480.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Distribution substation in Groningen, the Netherlands -- Basvb 10:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry but the composition is bad and too busy -- Focus finder 12:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Composition seems pretty much fine to me, the background has colours, but nothing disturbing. Mvg, Basvb 12:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose poor white balance, artifacts (noise) --Carschten 12:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sky overexposure, perspective distortion. Also the chosen 45 degree angle is ambiguous: if the heritage building is the subject than more of the facade with the gable would have been beneficial, if the "vandalising" of heritage through the billboards was the subject than more of the other facade. In both cases the strong red trash-bin is distracting. But not a bad picture overall. --Elekhh 20:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • One little thing: I think the 45 degree is just ok, it gives a good view on both sides of the small building. The building is showed in it's suroundings, the building is the subject in how it is. So with advertisement, but the vandalising is not the topic. This specific heritage is. Mvg, Basvb 16:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 20:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Hauptfriedhof8.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach: Main cementery, war memorial --Taxiarchos228 09:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Don't like that half is dark half is in full light. Mvg, Basvb 10:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • are personal leanings a criteria for QI? --Taxiarchos228 10:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • personal leanings? one part dark and one part not makes it hard to read. I think with other light quality would be good. Mvg, Basvb 10:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "I don't like" is a personal leaning. I am not convinced that QI have to be without shadows, especially when everything is visible clearly --Taxiarchos228 10:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I just expressed it with caution. Lighting is one of the criteria. Shadow is ok, but full shadow then, not half. Mvg, Basvb 10:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • let´s see what other user say --Taxiarchos228 10:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Basvb -- Focus finder 12:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support its nice with half-and-half. not as boring as it otherwise always --Ralf Roletschek 11:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Difficult to assess. The shadow is disturbing at thumbnail, but not at full size. I tend to agree with Ralf Roletschek--Jebulon 14:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose der Schatten stört doch zu sehr. --Alchemist-hp 19:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
fragt sich nur wobei --Taxiarchos228 19:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Ist doch klar: um das QI Baperl zu bekommen. Grüße, --Alchemist-hp 19:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
was für eine geistreich-unsachliche Antwort --Taxiarchos228 19:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Tricky one, I think is the tight crop in combination with the shadow which is the problem. If more trees were included than the image would be more about the place as a whole and the shadow relevant, with the very tight crop is perceived as disturbing. --Elekhh 20:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nervy shadow --A.Ceta 08:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 20:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Oisterwijk-KVL-5826-rm519948.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Factory from the Koninklijke Verenigde Leder B.V. in Oisterwijk, the Netherlands -- Basvb 20:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 22:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is looking like it was edited with an effect tool by photoshop. Also there is perspective distortion. --Pilettes 08:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment very nice, but I agree that it should be straightened and maybe the cut off pillar at left should be cropped, too. --Carschten 12:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
     Support --Carschten 22:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support now corrected: perspective distortion. --Alchemist-hp 19:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 20:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Toronto_-_ON_-_New_City_Hall11.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Toronto: City Hall --Taxiarchos228 06:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 09:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am not sure of the composition: the crop on the right seems really random, with a flag post hanging in and the base of the tower cropped. --Elekhh 09:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality. -- 320td 12:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy shadows, I'm not really convinced about the crop at right --Carschten 10:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Elekhh -- Focus finder 12:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition. Is this even a good location to take a picture of this building from? On a windy day, at least you could catch the flags unravelled. --Specious 05:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
No, but the intention of this picture wasn't to show the representative front view. Such pictures I have made too. The intention of the picture was to show the backside and windowless facade. May Quality images only show the "the sunny side"? --Taxiarchos228 07:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
You can shoot the boring side, but for QI it still needs to look good. The wall and tree subtract rather than add to the shot, and the flags are in their limp state. Maybe the best view would be possible if you climb on top of the wall (yeah right)? If you geocode it, I might take a closer look. --Specious 12:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
geotaged now --Taxiarchos228 13:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Step across the street and you have this view to work with. Get it with the flags dancing, and you'll be on the money. If you get on top of the wall (which, apparently, you can), a wide angle shot from here I bet would be beautiful as well. --Specious 12:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 10:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:W50L_Kipper.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination IFA W50L Dump truck --LutzBruno 18:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI IMO --Vassil 19:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blurry -- M 93 11:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per M 93 -- Focus finder 12:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The truck is blurry towards the back because the depth of field is too shallow. Try using f-stop 11 or so. --Specious 07:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 20:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Toronto_-_ON_-_CN_Tower.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Toronto: CN Tower from North --Taxiarchos228 06:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support good composition --Ralf Roletschek 16:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)  Oppose Not that I would be against perspective correction, but this one is overdone. Check out both edges, the image falls apart. --Elekhh 04:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Yann 18:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Alchemist-hp 14:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Åre, Läkarvillan.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Villa Jamtbol or The Doctor's Villa, built in 1911 (by Ulff. -- Achim Raschka 15:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose I know it is the winner of the WLM2011 in Sweden, but I find it a bit dark. Other opinions ? --Jebulon 14:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    Darkness doesn't really seems like an issue here to me. Mvg, Basvb 12:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    really, it is dark. for me QI. --Ralf Roletschek 16:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
     Strong oppose Sorry but NO, a very bad, noisy, dark and shadowed HDR image with visible CA or false HDR color artefacts and also bad grey shadow arround the chimneys. --Alchemist-hp 23:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Alchemist-hp. --T137 10:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Alchemist-hp 14:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Steinen_-_Evangelische_Kirche7.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Steinen: Protestant Church, epitaph --Taxiarchos228 07:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Right upper corner overexposed?--Lmbuga 22:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    Looks OK to me, but I think that the photograph would benefit from a perspective correction. -- Rama 06:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose right part overexposed, need also a perspective correction. --Alchemist-hp 23:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 15:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Buste Th. Rousseau.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Théodore Rousseau (1812-1867), french painter, bust by Henri Levasseur. Jardin du Luxembourg, Paris.--Jebulon 23:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Meets the criteria, imo.--MrPanyGoff 07:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad crop of the windows, let's discuss --Taxiarchos228 15:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Please notice that a comment by me was removed by the reviewer above, against the rules and civility, only because he thought that this comment was "out of place". I think he did not have the right to do so...--Jebulon 22:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Noted, but I don't think it needs to be reintroduced. There are other forums for discussing civility, and there are (supposed to be) other neutral reviewers here. --ELEKHHT 03:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the image is good, but a square crop would be also worth a try. --Elekhh 03:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    •  Question You mean: a crop left and right ?--Jebulon 09:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Yann 18:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Yann 18:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Hauingen_-_Fasnachtsbrunnen.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hauingen: carnival water well (new version) --Taxiarchos228 20:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Als Profi hättste eigentlich noch den Wagen abschleppen müssen --Carschten 21:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The main subject is nice and sharp (maybe tilted a little), but the cropped car makes the background confusing and disturbing, in my opinion. What think others in Consensual Review ?--Jebulon 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The car is a sign of the times, but it's not a bad part of the composition. The DOF is very good. I say QI. --Specious 10:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for me also QI. --Ralf Roletschek 12:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfortunate background. Good photography involves choosing the right moment as well. --Elekhh 03:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support As Specious. --T137 12:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 15:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

==[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of the church St. Christophorus in Ratingen --Carschten 14:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry but left part of the picture is underexposed and some windows are overexposed-- Focus finder 17:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support difficult lighting situation - for me its QI --Ralf Roletschek 16:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Focus finder, Maybe QI, but needs a discussion IMO.--Jebulon 09:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I understand there is difficult light condition and i understand that overexposure is inevitable, but the subject is too underexposed IMHO. Sorry. For this shot needs alternative natural light. --T137 15:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Alchemist-hp 14:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Anschlussbrücke_zur_BAB_98_5.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach: Bridge bearing --Taxiarchos228 10:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good. Althought main subject (the connection) is a bit dark to the left. Mvg, Basvb 10:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Sorry but there are some part also overexposed -- Focus finder 12:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support perfect bridge detail, nothing too dark. --Ralf Roletschek 14:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't see an exposure problem. I'd be more of a stickler about the noise, if anything. The composition is good, given the boring subject (to most people). It looks like it would require extra equipment to situate the camera where the entire subject (the bridge joint) would be visible unhindered. That's why I can't support it for QI. Thanks for taking this photo. --Specious 10:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll reduce the noise --Taxiarchos228 10:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support To be honest, I have to support this useful, interesting and good picture.--Jebulon 14:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Makros-Schach-DSC_0834-093-cor.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination GARDE chess clock --Mbdortmund 07:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 08:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the right side is out of focus, I'd like to see some more opinions. Mvg, Basvb 11:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DOF too short --Carschten 13:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment The photo is like I wanted to have it, but I will take another picture just exactly symmetric and everything sharp... --Mbdortmund 02:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 13:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Ratingen, Schloss Linnep, 2011-10 CN-01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Linnep Castle --Carschten 14:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry but underexposed foreground and leaves of shrubs out of focus. -- Focus finder 17:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment of course the leaves are out of focus - it's f/6,3?! The the sun didn't shine, it was dark and I think the pic illustrates the mood very well, but I lighten it a bit. Better now? --Carschten 17:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support For me it`s a QI. It`s sharp and has nice colours (next time take a garden clippers with you to cut those leaves ;) --Pilettes 09:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support of course, it leave out of focus, its better so. --Ralf Roletschek 12:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 11:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Iris vartanii 1.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Iris vartanii --Gidip 21:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Could be a slope, but nevertheless looks quite tilted to me. --Quartl 15:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a slope. The flower is horizontal. --Gidip 21:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose background is too distracting to me --Carschten 11:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support For me it's ok. The backgrount is not a problem. Also the subject is the plant and not only the flower. --T137 16:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  SupportPer T137.--Jebulon 15:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 11:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:11-09-10-kartoffel-DSC 5412.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination red potatoes --Ralf Roletschek 12:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Not sure about the white balance (a bit "pink", see the other colored potatoes picture), but QI nevertheless --Jebulon 15:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but you can see some dust spots on the picture -- Focus finder 13:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support now, dust cleaned. --Alchemist-hp 22:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Wieso hast du den Dreck denn von der Originalversion entfernt und nicht von der mit dem korrigierten Farbton? --Carschten 11:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Daran ist Commons schuld: der Cache :-( Und ich habe es zu spät, bereits nach getaner Arbeit gemerkt. Mal sehen, ich ändere den Farbton noch einmal etwas später. --Alchemist-hp 16:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Das wäre schön, weil dann gibt's auch ein Pro von mir. --Carschten 16:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 22:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Halictus resurgens male 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Halictus resurgens, male --Gidip 21:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not bad, but the central spike is too distracting to me. --Quartl 15:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment For me the spike is part of a nice "crown" of spikes around the flower and bee, and anyway it hardly conceals the bee. What do others think? --Gidip 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  SupportI understand Quartl's comment, but I agree with Gidip's argument.--Jebulon 15:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Quartl--Lmbuga 21:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 11:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Wehr_-_St._Martin17.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wehr: Saint Martin Church, fresco --Taxiarchos228 09:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Vassil 12:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs a discussion about the composition, IMO. The "tilt" may be disturbing (and useless if not random, IMO), and the crop of the frame of the fresco (the node) is unfortunate. It is a shame, because of the overall good quality of the light and sharpness--Jebulon 17:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Either too tilted or not enough ! --TwoWings 20:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sharpness and balance of the lighting is good, and the nonstandard tilt actually goes well with this subject. But the view could be shifted up just a tad, as per Jebulon's criticism of the crop. It is really unfortunate. --Specious 23:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 10:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Hillman_Imp_BW_2011-09-03_14-10-18.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Hillman Imp --Berthold Werner 09:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support I find it ok for QI.--MrPanyGoff 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Are the other cars part of the design? Then why not move the view a bit up and to the left? Otherwise, step back and zoom in to isolate the subject. The whole view is at a slight clockwise tilt. The front of the car is in the shadow. --Specious 14:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • 1. Yes, you are right for the slight tilt. 2. The shadow is not prohibited by the rules as far as it doesn't have influence on the technical quality. Here it is OK. 3. Yes, the perfect shot would be without the background cars but this project doesn't require the best possible composition. It requires well presented main object and that's all. Stop confusing it with the FP.--MrPanyGoff 10:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I'd say the difference is that FP must be breathtaking on top of good quality. QI is not a license to slack off on quality. The shadow wasn't unavoidable, the sun makes a full rotation every day. --Specious 10:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Schatten und Hintergrund stören sehr. Außerdem hätte eine etwas längere Brennweite gewählt werden sollen. -- Spurzem 13:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 10:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Akoopal-wlm-da-tejn-postmill-1.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Cow with windmill in background. -- Basvb 10:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, the top of the picture is completely out of focus -- Focus finder 12:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support - the main object (cow) is in focus. --Ralf Roletschek 11:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too much empty sky at top and grass at bottom. If the cow is the main motive (than of course the mill is oof at top!), it needs an identification; it's also underexposed. Tourist at right is cut off. --Carschten 13:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Carschten Especially the cow is underexposed --Archaeodontosaurus 08:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Carschten. Sorry. --T137 16:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the sky is blown out --A.Ceta 08:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The whole picture is unsharp, even the cow is somewhat blurry. The slight bokeh on the windmill is awkward. The composition is so-so, though the margins look good. The person on the very right is actually distracting. The cow is too dark. On the whole... this is how to take a picture of a cow. --Specious 13:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Alchemist-hp 14:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Elisabethenkrankenhaus4.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lörrach: Saint Elisabeth Hospital --Taxiarchos228 07:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline

 Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 08:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose I'm sorry, to me the light is bad. The dark parts (shadow in foreground) looks too dark, the children area seems overexposed to me, and the building needs a perspective correction at right in my opinion. Please let's discuss about that.--Jebulon 09:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

subject of this picture are not the children but the building --Taxiarchos228 06:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Then, the composition is wrong !--Jebulon 14:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
your opinion, not mine --Taxiarchos228 14:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes indeed, my opinion, but if you submit your pictures here, that's because you think they are QI (your opinion), but also because you ask for opinions of others, isn't it ? If not, What is the purpose of all your candidacies ? Why not regard all your pictures as QI because of your opinion ? --Jebulon 08:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I only commend or question arguments that are not comprehensible and did not persuade me. I guess this is my right to do so. Thank you for your attention. --Taxiarchos228 08:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jebulon -- Focus finder 12:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • is it possible that you are not looking at the picture but about who photographs the pictures? smells like pitiful socket puppeting --Taxiarchos228 12:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Is it an accusation ? Please prove what it "smells", it is very easy. And what about canvassing ? Pitiful, indeed...--Jebulon 17:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Very interesting Jebulon that you feel concerned although I didn`t accused you. --Taxiarchos228 19:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Sorry, do you (Taxiarchos228 aka Wladyslaw) take me for a fool ?--Jebulon 21:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support good, QI for me --Carschten 14:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support per Focus finder ;) --Ralf Roletschek 15:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe the lighting could be better, but no one here will bother to go there and do it better. I see quality in it. --Specious 09:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The light couldn't be better because the other building parts are throwing shadows. The view point was the inner courtyard of the hospital. --Taxiarchos228 10:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeDontworry 09:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC) ???
Dontworry, what is your objection? --Specious 12:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion and as Jebulon--Lmbuga 22:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Jebulon. --Elekhh 20:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Jebulon too. --Alchemist-hp 01:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --Alchemist-hp 01:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Barred Owl (Strix varia) perched.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Barred owl (Strix varia). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment The image has already been nominated and declined in the past. If you disagree with the reviewer, go for a discussion, but don't nominate the image a second time, it's really inappropriate. --Gidip 20:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No improvement over previous version. --Quartl 16:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No improvement over previous nomination, which was already declined. Also agree with the position expressed by Gidip. --Elekhh 20:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The subject is blurry, and even if it weren't, the bokeh is extremely distracting. --Specious 22:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  I withdraw my nomination --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

File:CHOGM_2011_protest_gnangarra-110.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Jo Vallentine --Gnangarra 13:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too averexposed, also on the subject IMHO. --T137 11:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose to overexposed for me too. --Alchemist-hp 14:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposure and composition. --Elekhh 20:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 01:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Toronto_-_ON_-_New_City_Hall4.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Toronto: New City Hall, plenary hall --Taxiarchos228 10:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)  Oppose Too tight crop right and left.--Jebulon 00:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Yann 18:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Maybe too noise? --T137 10:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
now denoised moderately --Taxiarchos228 09:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Now OK for me. --T137 12:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 18:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Bentley Continental GTC (II) – Heckansicht (2), 25. Oktober 2011, Düsseldorf.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bentley Continental GTC (2nd generation) M 93 20:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 11:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am sure car fans like it, but if you look to the background is really not convincing, and than there is a lot of reflection on the car as well. --Elekhh 10:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The reflections are not really disturbing because of the dark color. Furthermore: Good Quality. -- 320td (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose picture is good, but tha background dont mach, sorry --LutzBruno 10:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
    "the picture is good" is normally the exact criteria for a QI. --Taxiarchos228 11:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
    well then it is not good, I even agree with Elekhh, the reflections are very noisy... sorry--LutzBruno 12:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support No technical problem, this image is QI. If you do not like the background had to tell me... I'll move the car. --Archaeodontosaurus 13:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
    •  Info composition is part of the QI criteria even if is stronger related to human perception and art and therefore not purely technical. There is no reason to assume that any properly exposured image taken with a good camera is Quality photography. I am not saying this is a bad image, but I would not use it in a Wiki article. --Elekhh 02:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Elekkhh -- Focus finder 12:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment for the next time please carry the car to a hall with no windows and soft white light to take a Quality image, lol. Zwei Kritikpunkte hätte aber auch ich aufzuführen: 1. wurde offensichtlich beim Nachbearbeiten übertrieben, da ein Halo erzeugt wurde (gut sichtbar an der Schrift links oben. 2. könnte man den Hintergrund etwas unschärfer maskieren, denn auch ich finde ihn etwas zu aufdringlich und scharf. --Carschten 13:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Elekhh. And "Düsseldorf" is distracting.--Jebulon 11:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   ----Jebulon 11:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Lincoln_Towncar_in_Toronto.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lincoln Town Car in Toronto--Taxiarchos228 08:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose to harsh light. --Alchemist-hp 07:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    I don't think so, but it would be easy to correct --Taxiarchos228 07:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose reflections are disturbing -- M 93 19:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 19:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Serre Jardin des Plantes.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination One of the most ancient greenhouses in the world, 1834-1836, restoration 2010, Jardin des Plantes, Paris.--Jebulon 14:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    problems with symmetrie and distortion on the bottom, otherwise nice --Taxiarchos228 19:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)✓ Done Hope it is better now.--Jebulon 22:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion And done. -- Rama 15:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    sorry, but this picture is obviously still not symmetric, look at the annotation. I guess the angle of view was not straight so it's impossible to correct this picture --Taxiarchos228 18:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Sorry but this review is obviously still harassing. Yes the angle of view was not straight and then ? Please notice the stairs balcony (Don't know how to call this) is not straight, but slightly round. I've uploaded a new version, the perspective will look maybe good enough for fair reviewers.--Jebulon 18:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
    be careful with viciously assumptions. to criticise a inclined plane that has to be in real horizontal is not harassing but the truth, maybe a truth you can not endure but still truth. --Taxiarchos228 18:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 Support Perhaps the image needs a very little perspective correction (I can do this correction), but QI to me--Lmbuga 01:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

 Comment (es) Si la página Category:Quality images by user solamente sirve para que se realicen guerras o guerrillas personales, quizas debería de ser borrada--Lmbuga 01:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Translation with automatic translator: If the page is only good for personal wars are made, perhaps should be deleted--Lmbuga 02:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI IHMO --Moonik (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 19:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:La Liberté éclairant le Monde Jardin du Luxembourg blanc.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination La Liberté éclairant le monde (sans flamme...), version with no disturbing background. Please see explanations on the file description page.--Jebulon 01:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support It's not New York...but very good ;-) --Llez 12:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I did not agree with this type of processing, deleting the background of a statue that is placed in a natural environmental is less encyclopaedic worth. this sort of pictures are only acceptable for exhibits in museums. --Taxiarchos228 13:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • -1) Please explain "why" you think it is "less encyclopaedic" ?-2) If you like the "natural environment", why did'nt you support (or decline, or assess !!) this version of the same picture ? when it was candidate ?...Please notice that the Jardin du Luxembourg is completely "unnatural", and is an open air museum. The "decline" arguments are wrong, and not following the guidelines, furthermore, sorry.--Jebulon 14:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info New version uploaded.--Jebulon 14:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • nonsense, (1) Monuments live with their environment even if the parc is an museum, apart from that every parc and every building is "unnatural", so I see no logic in your argument. The combination of statue in open air and its position is important, this combination is not as important in a museum. (2) Don't think that I have to account for s.th., a fortiori as your question has nothing to do with this candidate. --Taxiarchos228 14:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Please stop wright "nonsense" everytime I have another opinion than yours. It is a personal attack, and I'm not sure the nonsense is mine, in this case.--Jebulon 15:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • it is no personal attack but evaluates an opinion, an opinion I bring arguments, you not. EOD --Taxiarchos228 15:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • " you not. EOD. "...lol...--Jebulon 18:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for me QI. I think you are both right. Commons isn't only an image galery for an encyclopedia. Commons is an image library for a lot of a different uses. --Alchemist-hp 15:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI IMO--Lmbuga 01:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me, (I like also with a natural background) --Moonik 13:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Alchemist-hp 15:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Père-Lachaise_-_François_Bazin_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination François Bazin's tombstone in Père Lachaise Cemetery, in Paris. --~Pyb 21:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Sharpness of head not perfect, but good for QI.--Jebulon 22:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose The head is fundamental in the image. Out of focus--Lmbuga 22:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose How Lmbuga said, the head out of focus is not acceptable for QI --Haneburger 14:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 19:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Schachspringer-Horn-Hochformat.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination chess knight --Mbdortmund 14:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Crop too tight on the right, and the whole image is a little too dark. The shadow on the piece itself isn't the best (use two light sources?). The DoF is ok. --Specious 15:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think this must be discussed, it looks QI to my taste. --Jebulon 17:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The crop is much better in the original version, in which I also adjusted the light levels. Nominate that one? --Specious 23:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 Comment Changed to oppose, since the better version has been nominated. --Specious 23:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Indee the original seems better to me. But I don't hate this one either (at least I have nothing bad to say about the crop, maybe just the light levels) --TwoWings 20:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 19:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Wehr_-_St._Martin13.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wehr: Saint Martin Church, interior --Taxiarchos228 10:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion QI to me. To me the image can be very good, but the left vertical lines aren't stright, otherwise good--Lmbuga 21:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

*Too strong horizontal distortion, easy to fix, but can be QI only after correction, IMO. I'll remove my opposition when done.--Jebulon 23:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
* Oppose per Jebulon. I think ist is simple to correct it. Otherwise nice. Ich würde es selbst tun, aber am Original sollte es doch besser ausfallen. --Alchemist-hp 12:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I've uploaded an edit, I hope it may help. The capitals are on the same line now. --Vassil 20:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
    Now  Support I upload a better correction. I hope it. --Alchemist-hp 20:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks Alchemist-hp. Opposition removed, as promised. Can be a QI now.--Jebulon 21:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support With the objection removed this should automatically be promoted but I offer my support. Saffron Blaze 12:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Alchemist-hp 12:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Infiniti Etherea IAA 2011.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Concept Car Infiniti Etherea on Frankfurt Motor Show 2011. -- Felix Koenig 09:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Reflecting lights. Mvg, Basvb 10:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support This is a live photo, not a photo studio work. For me QI. --Alchemist-hp 11:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Alchemist-hp --Archaeodontosaurus 08:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose What's with the angle? One door right over the other? It hides as much as it shows. The subject is not situated well within its surroundings. Nice car, nice camera, but the photo is very mediocre. --Specious 07:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The picture shows how the car was presented at International Automobile Exhibition, and it was presented this way and not with a closed door and not with other surroundings. Felix Koenig 17:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
      • That's not what I meant. The doors are open, so why not show a more oblique angle (more like this), so more is visible, and less is hidden. The image would be less confusing. I know there are two doors, but they are visually not obvious. What I meant about the surroundings is you can make a better composition out of them by slightly shifting your viewpoint until the surroundings make a good two-dimensional design on the final image, which is flat. At the very least, if you raise the camera a little, the railing wouldn't so brutally cut through the tires. You could really do something cool with the floor reflection. --Specious 04:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support per Alchemist --Ralf Roletschek 17:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Specious. --Elekhh 20:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose angle -- M 93 19:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   -- M 93 19:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)