Decline A trolley-bus and a wood pannel on pavement block the street perspective. Otherwise perfect. Move to consensual review? --Diligent 07:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Grand Canyon South Rim at Sunrise --Digon3 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Nice picture, very similar to another one of the same site, already QI - Alvesgaspar 10:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Village of Moustiers-Sainte-Marie --Diligent 18:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion No problems to point out, nice QI --Digon3 20:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Bananas --Pomakis 15:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline A bit overexposed on the right, take the picture when the sun is overhead --Digon3 21:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Town-hall tower in Prague. --Diligent 18:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion No problems, its a shame you can't get rid of the people on the street --Digon3 21:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Banana tree with fruits. --Diligent 12:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion No problems, good for QI --Digon3 21:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Lake Lucerne, Switzerland --MRB 08:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion A little oversaturated but otherwise good --Digon3 20:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Banksia prionotes Gnangarra 15:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Photo is too dark and frame is too tight Lestat 17:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Donkey Orchid Gnangarra 15:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline one of the petals is overexposed and washed out, picture should be cropped on the right --Digon3 20:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Ute Petroglyphs--Digon3 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline The picture is unsharp (out of focus?), not only the rocks in first plan but also the main subject, the drawings. - Alvesgaspar 22:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Bumpass Hell, Lassen NP, CA, USA (27 megapixel) --Dschwen 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Amazing resolution but too dark and bad composition, focus should be on the steam vents --Digon3 20:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Segmental reflection --Roger McLassus 08:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion I dont see anything wrong with this picture --Digon3 21:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Saint-Nicolas-of-Old-Town church in Prague. --Diligent 18:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline I would say the church is overexposed. Also, there seems to be some artifacts in first plan, on the ground. - Alvesgaspar 11:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomination unusual perspective of the pedestrian zone in Göttingen --Dschwen 14:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Bad perspective/angle and compisition --Digon3 18:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Banksia prionotes Gnangarra 15:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Nice picture with excellent DOF. Composition a little confusing though. - Alvesgaspar 07:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination 7train entering Vernon/Jackson NYC
Promotion This a nice and illustrative composition. But I would crop the picture a bit at left. - Alvesgaspar 00:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Famous Kapellbruecke in Lucerne/Switzerland --Simonizer 10:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Good composition and sharpness. Funny detail which i can't explain: swiss flag between the two spires in the middle of the picture is not sharp when all the rest is... how unswiss! --Diligent 15:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomination The Arnisee Lake in Uri, Switzerland --Simonizer 22:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Nothing to say. Correct, 'by the book' picture'. Alvesgaspar 23:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Juvenile Larus Ridibundus in flight with an adult --Thermos 13:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline There is a lot of noise and artifacts in the background. It's a pity, the composition is nice (although I would crop the image a little). - Alvesgaspar 11:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Two juvenile Larus Ridibundus in chase over a catch --Thermos 13:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline The same problems of previous picture: noise and artifacts. - Alvesgaspar 11:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Royal seal of Władysław Jagiełło (copy). --Lestat 20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Wonderful detail Gnangarra 13:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Coast near Portofino, Italy --MRB 08:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Weird bluish colour, overall unsharpness and visible purple artifacts - Alvesgaspar 15:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Domestic rabbit drinking from water bottle. --Adamantios 20:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Composition, too cluttered, not a good enough view of the rabbit. --Digon3 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Reelfoot Lake in northwestern Tennessee. --JeremyA 20:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Noisy and blurred, far below QI standards. Looks like a bad scan of a paper copy. - Alvesgaspar 22:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination White Cliff in Washington state, USA --Digon3 16:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline subject is lost 2/3 of the image has no feature Gnangarra 13:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Landscape near Arnisee, Uri, Switzerland -- Simonizer 06:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Nice picture, correct composition. Nothing wrong to point out. Alvesgaspar 09:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Very nice composition, no problems --Digon3 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Top of the Transamerica building --Dschwen
Promotion FP worthy --Wikimol 11:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Marketplace in Goettingen, Germany --Dschwen
Decline Center of picture is overexposed, left part is too dark. - Alvesgaspar 20:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Tin Shui Wai Town, Hong Kong --Oden 16:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Very nice composition. Pity that sharpness is on the soft side and colours are a little pale. Alvesgaspar 20:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination The Peter der Grosse, biggest swinging bell in the world, in Koln dome. didn't qualified as FP, but I think it deserves a QP--Jollyroger 09:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Its a little overexposed, too bright in the center --Digon3 14:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Oil-paddle in the rain --Roger McLassus 13:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Not very illustrative. Difficult to say what is water and what is oil. Alvesgaspar 10:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Grand Canyon at Sunset--Digon3 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Nice composition but poor resolution and noise - Alvesgaspar 07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Grand Canyon at Sunrise--Digon3 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion I like the composition and the colour contrast between plans. Good picture! - Alvesgaspar 08:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination December Fog --Digon3 00:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Nice cloud/fog sea. --Wikimol 16:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Candle with colour-shift --Roger McLassus 08:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Better quality than the other nominated picture of the same subject. --Dschwen 07:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination The face of a Haematopus Ostralegus (Oyestercatcher) --Thermos 17:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Subject is dark, visible artifacts in full size - Alvesgaspar 08:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Old Zeiss pocket stereoscope with original test image -- Alvesgaspar 11:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Informative and good size. The test picture is good addition. --Thermos 16:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Tibetan spoon --Roger McLassus 08:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion with a 90deg rotation it'd be worth a run at FP Gnangarra 09:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Ceran surface --Roger McLassus 08:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Symitary is fine but the reflection hides the subject too much Gnangarra 09:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Sliderule --Roger McLassus 08:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Great documental value but straight lines are distorted. I still have one of these too! - Alvesgaspar 10:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination State Street bridge in Chicago, IL. --JeremyA 16:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Nice composition and I thought these bridges were just madeup for the Grand Theft Auto game Gnangarra 15:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Old oaks path in Rudy (Poland). --Lestat 18:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Beautiful photo, nice composition ... but horrible purple artifacts clearly visible at full resolution - Alvesgaspar 20:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Sterna Hirundo in Flight --Thermos 13:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Doesn't meet size guideline (crop from a larger image?) --Wikimol 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Juvenile Larus Ridibundus in flight --Thermos 13:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion The sky would be good case for some clever noise reduction algorithm --Wikimol
Nomination Larus Canus catching a fish --Thermos 13:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Colour is dull, subject is unsharp, some ugly artifacts in water - Alvesgaspar 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Pods on a seed -- SOADLuver 21:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline UNidentified plant, not linked to any categories or articles, also not a self published image Gnangarra 13:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination San Francisco at Sunset--Digon3 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Nice to see the light effects caused during sunset as oppose to the sun itself Gnangarra 13:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination drop-impact backjet --Roger McLassus 08:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Knew I'd seen this before, I was suprised it didnt get FP status in May, It meets all the QI criteria Gnangarra 09:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Fort Casey Disappearing gun--Digon3 18:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Tilted horizon, over exposed upper surfaces of gun Gnangarra 13:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination S. Peter church in Alzano Lombardo Italy --Luigi Chiesa 16:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Focus is a little soft though the composition is sufficiently strong enough to promote Gnangarra 13:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Head of Cane Corso Italiano -- Przykuta 11:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Only the background would prevent a FP nomination Gnangarra 13:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Spring in Prague --Diligent 14:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline I like the composition and colours, pity that buildings at left are tilted. You should try to correct it and submit picture again. - Alvesgaspar 16:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination a dirty old wash-basin --Roger McLassus 08:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion The subject is certainly not beautiful, but the quality is good. And this is QI. Hence, promotion. For the purposes of Wiki-projects, I think that this is what QI is all about. Contributors who contribute good quality material should be credited. After all, what is true is not always beautiful and what is beautiful, is not always true. --Thermos 14:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination combined symbols of love --Roger McLassus 08:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion This a wedding ring, right? -- Alvesgaspar 09:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Correct, good quality image. Nothing more to say. -- Alvesgaspar 09:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination magnifying and light collecting effects of a drop of oil on a glass plate held in a short distance above a text --Roger McLassus 08:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Amazing photo! Would like to see a macro of a bigger drop. -- Alvesgaspar 09:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Muskrat, Piper Point Regional Park, Burnaby, British Columbia -- SOADLuver 15:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Not a good composition: image is too cluttered with different objects, which distract from the main subject -- Alvesgaspar 10:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination The USS Gerorge Washington heading toward Norfolk Naval Yards -- SOADLuver 13:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline This composition is too cluttered for my taste, although other technical aspects are OK. I think there are better images of USS George Washington - Alvesgaspar 20:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination San Francisco Sunset--Digon3 16:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Nice composition and interesting colour contrast. But image is noisy and colours are dull. -- Alvesgaspar 10:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination bust of Leopold Biwald --MGo 06:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Low resolution and lighting --Digon3 18:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination subject catalogue --MGo 06:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion And if anybody promotes it to featured i'll vote for! Diligent 12:44, 18 October (UTC)
Nomination Latin plaque --MGo 06:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Sorry, I don't think this is really a QI: first for technical reasons (glare on the plaque - caused by flash?), and second, because the plaque was taken out of its context. -- Alvesgaspar 22:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Part of an exhibit --Wikimol 19:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion In aesthetical sense the picture is not remarkable. However, in quality it is sufficent to be Qi. After all, this is about quality, not aesthetics. --Thermos 17:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Wilson Arch in Utah--Digon3 17:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Good enough. Not great in aesthetics, but for purposes of QI, OK. --Thermos 17:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Good enough, although clinging on the vicinity of too much overexposure. If I were the photographer, I would probaply consider of forcing the camera to underexpose 1-2/3 stops. --Thermos 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination White flowers (nerium oleander) with fly --Alvesgaspar 11:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline I am affraid that there are too many burnt highlights for this to be QI. Sorry. The fly in the foregound would have been interesting. --Thermos 17:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Fir cones (Abies sp) -- Alvesgaspar 23:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline the close flash has caused white lines to appear on the upper surfaces of the leaves where none exist. Gnangarra 11:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Latin dictionary --MGo 06:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline I really like this composition. But the central object, the dictionary, is out of focus!. -- Alvesgaspar 07:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Cemetery entrance figures. --Wikimol 19:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Composition is a little messy (could the picture be cropped?). Also, I don't like the non-parallel vertical lines. -- Alvesgaspar 15:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Church Rock in Utah--Digon3 17:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Nice composition. Colours in first plan could be a bit more saturated. -- Alvesgaspar 10:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Statue of Winrich von Kniprode in castle of Malbork. --Lestat 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Distracting background (inadequate DOF), shadows on face too hard. -- Alvesgaspar 10:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Bryce Canyon Hoodoos --Digon3 17:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Composition is not very interesting and first plan is out of focus -- Alvesgaspar 20:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Bryce Canyon Hoodoos Amphitheater in Utah--Digon3 17:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Overall lack of sharpness and colours too dim -- Alvesgaspar 20:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Panorama of the grand canyon --Digon3 16:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Flat ligt, and stitching - look at the bottom cca at 60% of the width. --Wikimol 13:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Most part of flower is out of focus -- Alvesgaspar 19:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Seagul. --Lestat 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Good picture! -- Alvesgaspar 00:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Purity - white bud of an oleander -- Alvesgaspar 09:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion Nice. But please include links to images in articles, such as nerium oleander. --Wikimol 09:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination View on some German villages. --Wikimol 19:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion OK, although image is not very sharp and horizon is curved (due to wide angle lens) and not levelled. -- Alvesgaspar 20:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Nomination Onsenji --Wikimol 19:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Promotion nice & sharp details, symetric composition ok, encyclopedic value Diligent 08:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC
Nomination: Fickowa Pokusa band. The 43rd Beskidy Highlanders' Week of Culture. --Lestat 18:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Review moved to CR
I moved this image here as the subject(person) is identifiable and one criteria is that the image has appropriate copyright, I assume this to also include a release from the subject. I know if this is a public performance in Australia performers, and crew photos can be taken and released for use without gaining permissions first, but I have also seen discussion here about European contries where that isnt necessarily the case.
Nomination Bread crust --Roger McLassus 08:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline We are too close to the trees to see the forest. I think that the macro-structure of the bread's crust would be better appreciated with a lesser amplification - Alvesgaspar 17:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the judgement is based on artistic criteria, only. IMO the image meets all Commons:Quality images guidelines, so it should be promoted. Apart from that, for me the point of the image is to work as a visual puzzle, not to show bread structure as clearly as possible. --Wikimol
The only beef I have with it would be the dark shadows in the canyon. I'd prefer a softer lighting, this looks a bit random to me. --Dschwen11:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination: My local church. Want to see if this is "enough" for QI. JonHaraldSøby 14:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Review Maybe it is if you upload a higher resolution image - Alvesgaspar 19:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Another difficult case. I really don't think guidelines should be blindly applied, after all they are only guidelines. Techical requirements are intended to help and support our judgement, not to substitute it. I support promotion inspite of resolution. - Alvesgaspar08:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decline QI standards where aimed at improving/identify the quality images available on Commons according to a set of guidelines. Were an image doesnt meet the guidelines in this case resolution there needs to be other compelling factors to promote the image, this one doesnt indicate any reasons Gnangarra16:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following excerpt was taken from Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?. Why should the crireria for QI be more strict than for featured pictures?
A featured picture should:
[…]
Be of a high resolution. The picture should be of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions. While larger images are generally prefered, images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported, unless they are of historical significance or animated. Information on image size can be found here.
QI is more specific in its source material in that it is for self published works, these images are in general going to be from a digital camera which all provided images greater than 1600 px on one dimension. Basic scanners are also capable of scanning images in resolutions large enough to meet the criteria. QI isnt asking for something that cant normally be provided, also remember if there are compelling reasons to set aside a specific criteria then the image can still be promoted. Gnangarra10:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A side issue maybe you like to start a discussion on the talk page to further explore possibilities. Gnangarra
I agree with Gnangarra. QI criteria should IMO be interpreted much more stricly than FP criteria. One point of QI is to promote creating and uploading quality images in full resolution. 1600x1200 is barely 2Mpx. From the other side - the "user side" - QI mark should be guaranty the image has enough resolution, is not too much noisy, etc... so you can use it not only as a 400x300 jpeg image on the web, but also in print, for example. --Wikimol09:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand and accept the point, although I feel free to break the rules again whenever a good pretext comes up... I don't understand why the author of this picture didn't upload a better version yet. - Alvesgaspar17:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result >> not promoted
Nomination: Mammoth Hot Springs in Yellowstone National Park -- SOADLuver 17:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Review Very nice picture but poor resolution. I'm moving this image to Consensual Review to get other opinions -- Alvesgaspar 10:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
IMHO I'd decline on resolution criteria, Qi is about improving quality of images including resolution this image doent have any other factors that would make a good case to challenge this criteria Gnangarra03:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
As an image, I like it. However, as per Gnangarra, rules are rules. This image does not meet the 1600 pix minumum requirement, wherefore it should be declined. If the project starts to bend rules, I am affraid that we are soon on a very slippery slope (I would also like to see the upper left corner in bigger size). Hence, decline. Sorry. --Thermos14:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination: Przemysław Olbryt from polish metal band Asgaard. --Lestat 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Review This is a hard one. As a photo, I like it. Quite simply, it is good. However, I am not too certain about the quality in technical sense, which I think QI is alla about. Perhaps, insufficent DOF. Might be a a candidate for consensual review. --Thermos 17:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I dont think the image is QI as the eyes are red(if it was colour), theres too much light across the face and focus problems Gnangarra15:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the eyes are weird, it is all part of the frightning (gothic?) look of the rocker! I'm not sure the face has too much light: look at his left hand. Also, sometimes we have to forgive little sins to let the essential be recognized...and promoted (it seems we need a new referee to decide this issue...) - Alvesgaspar20:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two things:
This photo was made during concert, not in a studio, so better light is nearly impossible :)
Guy on photo has special, diabolic contact lenses (look at different images)
Agree 100% with WarX I would not feel the same if this was in a studio ,but it's is during a concert and passes all of the QI criteria guidelines SOADLuver21:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
theres no need for a "new referee" consensual review as about get a consensus while I still disagree that the image passes QI criteria, all others are of the opposite opinion, the eyes have been explained, its something that should be included in the image description. Gnangarra23:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result >>> promoted to QI
Nomination WAFB appliance bucket...Gnangarra 14:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline With a person working on it: "yes" but this is empty. Diligent
However, I think that a quality image should be a little more than "usable". In my opinion, they aim to illustrate positive examples of various parameters contributing to image quality: composition, colour, documental interest, etc. -- Alvesgaspar17:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'll see in the image below that the tower was empty, the person operating the lift was under instruction and that to climb the tower to take photos the person who would normally ride the lift had to escort me. under the subject of "useable" the majority of fire appliance images are of vehicles parked in station houses, those that are of appliances in use are from ground level. Gnangarra23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
result -- declined
Nomination WAFB appliance training ..Gnangarra 14:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Personally, I want more of tech/daily life pics but the truck is "cropped" on the bottom right. Diligent
The "cropped" section is a support leg its inclusion would have added spectators. additionally horizontal depth would reduce vertical detail and its a verticle subject. Gnangarra23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think this picture qualifies as a QI. The most obvious drawback is the composition which seems cluttered and confusing. For example, I can't figure out if those spiral stairs are inside or outside the truck... -- Alvesgaspar22:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
obviously they are inside the truck the fire brigade carries them every where. never know when a duel spiral 96 step stair case maybe needed ;-) .Gnangarra15:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
result -- decline
NominationBombus spec --Alvesgaspar 22:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline I am affraid that this image is far too small to be QI. As per the rules above, the minumum resolution should be 1600 px, which is much more than in this picture is. Sorry. --Thermos 17:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You are certainly right if the guidelines are strictky applied. However it is common practice to crop macro pictures in order to enlarge the subject. Please note that many of the excellent photos of little animals in Commons:Featured pictures, and also on Wikipedia Featured pictures, have less than 1600 px. In the present case the original picture was cropped from 2560px x 1920py. Sorry, I certainly need a second opinion because I like the picture and this is an unsual posture catch of a bumblebee. -- Alvesgaspar20:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
QI has previously promoted images where the size has been cropped but the resolution hasnt been altered. This image has too many over exposed surfaces and subject isnt sufficiently displayed to allow both size and exposure issues to be ihnored. Gnangarra15:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination West Australian Ecology centre.. Gnangarra 14:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Ordinary snapshot with no special documental interest or technical quality. Sharpness is poor -- Alvesgaspar 15:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Quality Images (as contrasted to Featured Pictures) do not have to be exceptionaly interesting or have some special technical quality. As for topic... anything which may be useful for Wikimedia projects goes. Technical criteria are set by Commons:Quality image guidelines.
I'm still not sure wheter it should be promoted or not - as the in-camera processing of the file looks quite heavy (particluary the grass looks more like demosaic-sharpen-jpeg pattern than grass). --Wikimol16:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Main portal of Frombork Catherdral --Lestat 20:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline Overexposed parts. Pko 17:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there are a few overexposed parts but it is unavoidable under these conditions (if you want the indoor parts to be visible). I don't think that is relevant to the overall good quality of the picture -- Alvesgaspar14:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see a small tilt right to left exagerated by the brickwork, verticles on the entrance are ok. This is a case of what the subject is since its the "portal" slight over exposure outside to gain interior detail is acceptable, though maybe cropping the foreground path which is the most noticable overexposed area could help. Gnangarra15:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Way into the sea--Alvesgaspar 18:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline I've declined as it more just an ordinary family photo, Gnangarra 12:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
My review of this image at QI is a little brief in my reasonings and probably a poor choice of wording. As an artistic image I like the composition with the way the person appears to be approaching the path into the sea. I spent a long time pondering the image before relucantly declining the reason was to do with the purpose of media uploaded to Commons from this perspective the image was more a classical/ordinary famliy type image and from there I wondered how the image could be utilised, I even spent time over on en.wikipedia looking for an article to which it would enhance the page. The only conclusion was that it would be a wonderful cover to a book/record album etc this to didnt fit within the commons purposes. Gnangarra12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is not a family photo. It is a snapshot of a completely unknown person. I was caught by an intense feeling that the woman was going to explore a path just opened in the sea. To reinforce the theme, I’ve cropped a little bit the original and adjusted the contrast. I wonder why there are so few photographs of ordinary people in Commons QI and FP… -- Alvesgaspar13:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commons purpose is to serve as a media library for Wikimedia projects. Anything suitable for commercial image library is IMO suitable for Commons, so based on contents, I would support the image. Roger McLassus is right with the objections, but I think sharpness and scope of overexposed are are within QI limits. --Wikimol08:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick reaction and decision. In the meantime, I have followed Roger McLassus suggestions and improved the image a little. Please consider the new version I'm putting here. -- Alvesgaspar10:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Info This is not a family photo. It is a snapshot of a completely unknown person. I was caught by an intense feeling that the woman was going to explore a path just opened in the sea. To reinforce the theme, I’ve cropped a little bit the original and adjusted the contrast. I wonder why there are so few photographs of ordinary people in Commons QI and FP… -- Alvesgaspar 13:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)