Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 2010

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Winter in Kharkiv. 2010 year.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Winter. Small green car. --Vizu 14:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Size image. --JDavid 15:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support much over 2 MP. No valid oppose reason here. Discuss --Carschten 16:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment And noissy shadow below the engine? --JDavid 16:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor composition. Noise. --Kae 08:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Johannes Robalotoff 16:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Picris echioides in Pacifica.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Picris echioides--Mbz1 20:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Wrong id. Lycaon 20:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Lycaon 15:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I will try to get the right ID, but lycaon should not have declined my nomination.--Mbz1 22:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • ID is made.--Mbz1 23:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Id corrected, good quality. --Quartl 07:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 20:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Zentsu-ji in Zentsu-ji City Kagawa pref16s5s4020.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Zentsu-ji --663highland 15:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Same again: very good! --A.Ceta 15:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perhaps blurry, but I don't like the crop: left & upper side: Composition--Lmbuga 23:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Random composition, poor image quality. -- Alvesgaspar 23:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 13:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Zentsu-ji in Zentsu-ji City Kagawa pref32n4592.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Goeido of Zentsu-ji --663highland 15:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support same again: very good! --A.Ceta 15:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong perspective distorsion--Jebulon 22:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- As above plus poor image quality. -- Alvesgaspar 08:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 11:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Shops in Kilkenny.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Two shops in Kilkenny, Ireland. --High Contrast 23:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice image. --A.Ceta 15:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown highlights. Lycaon 16:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lycaon. Mattbuck 15:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Mattbuck 15:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Medium voltage power line near Azraq.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Medium voltage power line near Azraq, Jordan. --High Contrast 23:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Excyclopedic worthy and good quality. --A.Ceta 15:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beg do differ. Insufficient quality (not sharp, WB problems and haloes). Lycaon 16:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- As above -- Alvesgaspar 23:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 07:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Taktshang.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Takshang Monestary --Spongie555 17:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 05:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed sky or fog. Maybe VI but not QI. JDavid 09:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose on grounds of overexposure. Mattbuck 15:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  SupportI see no overexposure! If there was fog, it is supposed to appear whashed out. I fact, it is perfectly exposed! --Stegop 18:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Of course it is overexposed: 11.9 % of the image is pure white (RGB(255,255,255)). Lycaon 04:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -Lycaon 04:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Tashichoedzong-Bhutan-2001.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Tashichho Dzong.--Spongie555 03:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI, usefull --Ianare 16:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise. Lycaon 11:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy and extremely unsharp away from the center. Even parts of the main subject are unsharp. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Johannes Robalotoff 17:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Kharkov DZhD 08.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Children's railway station, by Ace^eVg. --Vizu 13:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Size image. Overexposed white column. --JDavid 16:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support image size is okay, the teeny white coulds are just white, but not overexposed. No valid oppose reason here. Discuss --Carschten 16:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Er meint, die Säule sei überbelichtet, nicht die Wolken. --Mbdortmund 16:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Danke... schneller im Tippen als im Lesen ;) But I think it's still good enough --Carschten 13:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Could be still QI if perspective would be corrected. Size minimum is just reached. The (existing) overexposure is still bearable as nothing was lost by it. I will oppose until perspective will be corrected. --Johannes Robalotoff 16:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done perspective distortions are corrected now --Carschten 17:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 Support because perspective correction was done as requested. --Johannes Robalotoff 16:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Johannes Robalotoff 16:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Pardosa amentata qtl3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Spotted Wolf Spider on Hoary Ragwort. --Quartl 07:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good! --Kuli 13:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, IMO too unsharp. Compare to this. --kallerna 13:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The other image shows the spider from a different angle and has comparable quality, indeed. --Quartl 13:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp an too little subject--Lmbuga 20:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 05:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Bolted joint bridge.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A detail of bridge construction utilising bolted joints --Thermos 15:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice, if a bit noisy. Mattbuck 13:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy indeed. Lycaon 04:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noised but solutionable with a new version --Lmbuga 20:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 07:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Graphocephala fennahi qtl1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Rhododendron Leafhopper. --Quartl 07:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support nice photo of tiny insect --George Chernilevsky 07:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO main subject too small, the image is noisy + not the sharpest one. Sorry. --kallerna 07:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info Cropped more towards the hopper. These buggers are small (<1cm). --Quartl 08:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Consider buying some kind of extension tubes or close-up lenses? Btw this wasn't good enought to be QI. --kallerna 11:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • A closeup lens wouldn't do much on a macro lens, but I do consider buying some extension tubes. --Quartl 13:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI IMO.--Mbz1 13:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Agree with Kallerna, subject too small and fuzzy. -- Alvesgaspar 08:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --kallerna 08:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Zentsu-ji in Zentsu-ji City Kagawa pref04s3s4290.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Zentsu-ji --663highland 15:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice shot! --A.Ceta 15:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs perspective correction. Lycaon 16:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Opposeg Good subject, but Needs perspective correction! --Archaeodontosaurus 05:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 07:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Ours des carvernes - Crâne.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Cave bear Skull --Archaeodontosaurus 14:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Happy to be the first to promote!--Jebulon 17:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not happy to be the first to oppose, but the image loos very blurry and noisy to me. Could you correct it? --Carschten 17:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise is not (no longer?) a problem, but very little of the skull is actually sharp. For a static object this can be better. Lycaon 07:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment yes, but without a tripod at the top of a ladder was not an ideal position :) --Archaeodontosaurus 06:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Ouch! ;-). Lycaon 06:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Lycaon 07:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Gud är kärleken.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: "Gud är kärleken" ('God is the Love') Hosjö graveyard, Falun, Sweden --V-wolf 22:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support not perfect, but interesting view --Mbdortmund 00:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I hope the rainbow is really true !!--Jebulon 00:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The rainbow was there – I actually saw where the rainbow ended, in lake Hosjön (an optic illusion of course). I could alter some light- or color settings if that's preferable. --V-wolf 00:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose strong halo --Carschten 14:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  CommentNew version uploaded (please revert if the other was better). Is the halo still there? --V-wolf 22:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it's a bit better, but the halo is still there. --Carschten 18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yet another version uploaded. Duller colors, but maybe better light settings? Same questions: Is this one better and is the halo still there? V-wolf 15:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey! Higher resolution (still very good quality), no halo, nice composition --> QI :-)  Support now --Carschten 12:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The cross looks pasted (not saying it is, halos and extreme sharpness make it look like it is), and I don't like the crop (makes me wonder what's underneath). ZooFari 14:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yet another version up. This time without any photoshopping, just cropping. --V-wolf 11:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks more natural now. Was there anymore cross that you cropped out? ZooFari 15:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • No, I cropped as far down as I could. V-wolf 18:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate crop. Lycaon 13:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry. Unfortunate crop. --Lmbuga 22:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - not perfect, but I like the composition and the quality. Felix Koenig 15:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes? Felix Koenig 15:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Tail of Czech Air Force Airbus A319 CJ.jpg[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Carschten 12:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arantxa_Parra_Santonja,_Moers_I.jpg[edit]

 I think I'll renominate it when I found a good resolution. --Carschten 19:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Carschten 14:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luxembourg City porte des Bons Malades 01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Luxembourg City, World Heritage Site. --Cayambe 20:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support I wish the crop on the top was different, but still QI.--Mbz1 20:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharpened with halos along edges and grain in the shadows. Probably also a bit undersaturated. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Agree, poor quality due to poor lighting. -- Alvesgaspar 15:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad light, bad composition, bad quality. Not a QI imo sorry. --Carschten 14:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 14:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Krankentransportwagen in Passau.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination A Ford Transit ambulance in Germany. --High Contrast 11:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support OK. Lycaon 16:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed curve of the roof, backdoor, ambulancelight. --JDavid 16:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Although normally being the bad guy who looks for overexposure everywhere I would say that nothing was lost here by overexposure. I see no color aberrations from partly blown RGB channels. The totally white highlights on the roof would look exactly like this for the human eye in the sunlight. There are no other problems. For me the picture is clearly QI. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support It is clearly QI for me too --George Chernilevsky 11:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support overexposure - nice joke --Carschten 14:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
     Comment Yes, this is very good joke. JDavid 15:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • if you photographed at sunlight, some brighter, white pixels are inevitable. I can't find just one ffffff-pixel, so to oppose here because of overexposure looks like a joke to me. --Carschten 15:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 Comment Sorry, although I opposed against the relevance of overexposure above (and supported the promotion), I do not find it OK to make user JDavid's position ridiculous. There are many overexposed pixels (even regions) in the image. It's just that they are only slightly overexposed, so that this does not have a serious visible effect. In most of the overexposed pixels here only one or two RGB channels are blown. (The regions with overexposed red channel are much larger than the regions that JDavid marked on the externally linked page.) Therefore you do not find an ffffff at once. (But there are ffffff. I hope I do not have to tell the coordinates.) --Johannes Robalotoff 17:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but when I see, that a good-quality-photo is delined because of ~0,3% (I've count it lavish by myself) overexposed pixels, I can't think this QIC but the perfect photos on Commons... --Carschten 19:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 14:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Donaufähre in Obernzell bei der Überfahrt nach Österreich.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination A ferry on the danube at the German-Austrian border region. --High Contrast 23:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support In my view not perfect (especially sharpness) but the composition makes it a quality image. --A.Ceta 15:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image is tilted, compostion and image quality are not good enough -- Alvesgaspar 08:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is overprocessed with aggressive noise reduction and (in-camera?) software sharpening. Detail is spoiled by this and severe overexposure on the boat. Seems as if the image were made with a camera from a totally different class than the very good ambulance picture by the same author above? --Johannes Robalotoff 17:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tilted, bad quality, overexposed ship --Carschten 14:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 14:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Bus of the Yarmouk University.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination A Toyota bus of the Jordanian Yarmouk University. --High Contrast 23:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good, detailed shot of this bus. --A.Ceta 15:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight crop: Composition--Lmbuga 21:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose composition and crop --Pudelek 11:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Amanita_citrina_2010_G1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Citron Amanita (Amanita citrina). --George Chernilevsky 19:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very good.--Mbz1 19:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Much better than the panoramic version, illustrative, however slightly overexposed. --Ikiwaner 17:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • {{Oppose}} Bad exposition and poor DOF--Lmbuga 22:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC) and too green: White balance --Lmbuga 22:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC))
  • ✓ Done Error Corrected --Archaeodontosaurus 19:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks You, but i revert this image back. Natural color of fungi is lemon yellow, not cream brown --George Chernilevsky 19:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I am in discord with George Chernilevsky. I annul my vote by the stress that brings about the reversion of Chernilevsky & the upload of Archaeodontosaurus--Lmbuga 21:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Better version to me (white balance...) but not QI--Lmbuga 21:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Luis Miguel Bugallo! The alternative looks colorfully, however it is not natural look for me. It is old wood, very dark, old oaks above and an elder and raspberry bush below. I used a tripod and flash with the white filter for more natural result --George Chernilevsky 08:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Ok. Thanks for your words and sorry--Lmbuga 19:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 07:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Montserrat_panorama.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 350 mega pixel panorama from summit of Montserrat Mountain --Wjh31 09:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Stiching errors. Try downsampling. --kallerna 13:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC).
    • Downsampling corrects stitching errors?--Wjh31 14:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The problem is that other frames are sharper than others, so it could help. But overall the photo is too big considering the sharpness. --kallerna 07:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Downsampled to 15k pixels wide --Wjh31 18:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Much better. --kallerna 11:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Any remaining barriers to QI? --Wjh31 17:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, it's much better, but the stiching errors are still too visible. --kallerna 09:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Výří skály u Oslova from Dědovické stráně (2).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Natural reservation Výří skály u Oslova, Písek District, Czech Republic --Chmee2 20:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Possibly should be rotated a tiny bit clockwise, but QI-worthy IMO. Mattbuck 13:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacking details (very soft). Lycaon 09:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice composition (even if it's a bit tight at the bottom), but unsharp and some little chromatic aberrations --Carschten 19:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Malá Fatra - panorama by Pudelek.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Malá Fatra, Slovakia --Pudelek 12:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, I like the image, but, with adobe lightroom, the sky (left side) is overexposed other parts inferiors subexposed, but I like the image and I don't know if it's QI --Lmbuga 19:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose seems noisy, bad composition (among others tight crop at bottom and the left --Carschten 12:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Composition is okey, a little bit noisy, but okey for me. Alofok 21:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Alofok 21:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Lisnice near Sepekov (6).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Building in the village Líšnice , part of Sepekov village, Czech Republic --Chmee2 19:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment - not technically overexposed, but the building does seem very bright to me. Can you play with the curves a bit? Mattbuck 10:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like the pictutre. With Adobe lightroom 3.0 the image it's not overexposed or subexposed, but I think: color noise (water) and a bit of noise (all the image), unsharp or blurry (dark zones)--Lmbuga 19:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice compoistion, but chromatic aberrations and perspective distortions --Carschten 12:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Kolobrzeg fire station 2010-06 front.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fire station in Kołobrzeg, Poland. --JDavid 15:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support OK. Lycaon 16:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Partially unsharp. --High Contrast 16:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Barrel and perspective distortion--Lmbuga 16:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI IMO.--Mbz1 16:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 07:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Enough for QI --Pudelek 17:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Pudelek 17:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

File:SMP September 2010-8.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination New version of breaking wave in the tunnel -- Alvesgaspar 16:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose nothing really sharp, the cave is distracting and has no (encyclopaedical) value, also some CA in it. --Carschten 16:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Can we discuss it, please? encyclopaedic value is not a Commons' requirement -- Alvesgaspar 16:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC
  •  Comment encyclopaedic value was just one of four opppose-reasons, but I have no problem if you want discuss and hear some other opinions. So let's discuss --Carschten 17:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment For what it's worth, I think this image has educational value. Jonathunder 12:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The other is ten times better, it's sharper and the composition is superb comparing to this. --kallerna 17:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can not see the encyclopedic value --Archaeodontosaurus 10:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Notre Dame 2010.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Notre Dame de Paris --Sfu 20:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The distortion is really unnatural --Jebulon 22:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    • New version uploaded --Sfu 19:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Still a barel distortion IMO, sorry. The ridge of the roof looks not straight--Jebulon 23:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 16:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Girl August 2008-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Portrait of a girl from Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 23:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very good--Lmbuga 08:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposure of the green T.shirt, IMO. Let's discuss--Jebulon 09:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support T-Shirt was spotlighted by the sun, but I think it isn't distracting, just natural. So no problem imo. QI --Carschten 09:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info Jebulon is right, the greens in the shirt are overexposed. I have uploaded a new version where the highlights were slightly darkened. Please tell me if it is better, so I can replace the original. -- Alvesgaspar 14:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks. But I'm sorry, I don't see here a significative improvement. The young girl's face is very good (and pretty, Alvesgaspar), but the shirt is not very good IMO--Jebulon 20:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see it a problem. ZooFari 02:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 13:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Royal Wedding Stockholm 2010-Slottsbacken-05 edit.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling; --Spongie555 03:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Didn't we have this image here already? --Quartl 07:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I just checked and you did but they retouched the picture so didnt know till i saw the original Mbz1 04:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I do not recall making comment on this nomination, and not sure what's going on here.--Mbz1 21:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it is OK for QI.--MrPanyGoff 07:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Other (near identical) version is QI. Lycaon 21:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Lycaon. --Quartl (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lycaon. --kallerna 11:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I didnt know we had an identical one when i nominated it. This is an edit of the other one so i didnt see the QI template so i thought it wasnt featured.-- Spongie555 03:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --kallerna 11:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Morigo Building.jpg[edit]

File:Morigo Building.jpg

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Johannes Robalotoff 17:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ab mollusca 16.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Chamelea gallina --Butko 14:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Does not meet 2MP requirement. Mattbuck 12:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed I increase size. 2MP now --Butko 05:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment added discuss-status --Carschten 13:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Changing too coarse (fr:Trucage grossier) --Archaeodontosaurus 14:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Archaeodontosaurus, I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. I think it is well done. --MichaelBueker 08:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 16:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

File:ChevroletCruze-2010dim3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Chevrolet Cruze second generation (J300). --MrPanyGoff 11:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI Good work and very original --Archaeodontosaurus 13:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the single frames are too small, also disturbing lights from the roof on the car --Carschten 14:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To me, bad composition: I don't like the shoes at the bottom (windows of the car), also disturbing lights from the roof on the car--Lmbuga 01:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 13:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Chimney and two hiperboloide cooling towers on Kharkov.JPG[edit]

Tilt and colours corrected, some quality improvements

  • Nomination: Chimney and two hiperboloide cooling towers. Power station in Pesochin. --Vizu 18:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Хороший Albertus teolog 09:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of details and tilt. Lycaon 19:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done File name - ok.--Vizu 16:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Id - ok.--Vizu 11:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info I've uploaded a version with corrected tilt and colors and with some quality improvements --Carschten 09:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Kind and nice for sure, but for which photo are we voting, now ?--Jebulon 23:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
    • ))) --Vizu 16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Quartl 05:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Sympetrum sanguineum THWZ 02.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Sympetrum sanguineum --THWZ 22:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Bit noisy, but good. Mattbuck 14:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insect macro shot have (traditionally) had high standards for QI. In this case, the lighting is good, composition is good for showing dorsal details, but the subject is not sharp enough. --Relic38 02:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with Relic38, the head should be in focus. --Quartl 12:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Lycaon 15:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Sympetrum sanguineum THWZ 03.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Sympetrum sanguineum --THWZ 22:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Possibly a bit out of focus at the front, but good. Mattbuck 14:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately too OOF for me. --Relic38 02:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too blurry. --Quartl (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Lycaon 15:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Lampost-454.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lampost in Pereslavl museum. --PereslavlFoto 12:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Two-thirds of the image are blurred. --Quartl 15:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  CommentBlurred by tilt lens, an effect to emphasize the lampost.--PereslavlFoto 17:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I surmised so, but I still don't see the point of it. Set to discuss. --Quartl 19:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposed --Carschten 13:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question What part of the lampost is overexposed?--PereslavlFoto 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • extensive for your: bad composition (cropped bank in foreground, disturbing background), background complete and disturbing overexposed, main motive small and unsharp, background at the sides extremly abnormal blurry and unsharp. This image so far away from QI status... --Carschten 19:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • 1) What part of the background is overexposed and shiny white? 2) The main motive (the lampost?) is narrow itself and cannot take much place, but how can it be avoided? 3) Background on the sides are unsharp to stress the center, yet is unusual, and I could make unsharp background, albeit you would say: «the sides abnormal sharp and distracting from the main motive». Thank you for the comments, after clearing the point I hope to redo this photo possible w/o bank.--PereslavlFoto 21:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Especially because of the bench in foreground (composition) --Jebulon 22:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Viljo koirarannalla 9.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A dog with his ball. --kallerna 06:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose lack of composition: Right a big part without anything, but the water trace of the dog at left is cropped out. --Carschten 13:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd support if it were cropped a bit on the right. Mattbuck 21:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Carschten. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 19:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Jardin du Luxembourg 2010.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gardin du Luxembourg, Paris --Sfu 19:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose "Jardin". Sorry, dark parts are underexposed, and clear parts are overexposed (windows of the right wing). The composition is not very good.--Jebulon 21:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    • new version uploaded --Sfu 22:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support For me it's ok for QI.--MrPanyGoff 12:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment barrel distorsion IMO, the façade looks curved IMO.--Jebulon 00:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    new version uploaded. --Sfu 20:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Much better now, concerning the distortion (no more) and the light (good job). I still consider that the compo is not very good and does not show the real aspect of the palace, but I remove my oppose because of the hard work made for improvements due to my nitpicking. Thank you.--Jebulon 22:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 16:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Ivanovskoe-0098.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination House to the left from school, Ivanovskoe settlement, Pereslavl district. --PereslavlFoto 16:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose sky --Pudelek 18:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
    • You mean I have to make artifical sky? The real one was light and dull cloudy one, and much brighter than the house.--PereslavlFoto 21:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
      • sky is overexposed - Pudelek 12:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with Pudelek. It is overexposed, especially right (look at the "leaves without branches" near the parabolic antennas)--Jebulon 20:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

File:CentralMarketHall-Sofia-C.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Central Market Hall in Sofia. --MrPanyGoff 19:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good--Ankara 21:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose subexposed--Lmbuga 23:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agreed, underexposed. --Relic38 03:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Overexposure can be very hard to avoid, I think the photograph is well done. --MichaelBueker 08:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Relic38 03:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Cableway in Yalta 05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cableway in Yalta --Butko 09:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Feels tilted, and also unsharp. Mattbuck 21:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
    • FixedI rotate bit counter clockwise and make more sharp --Butko 07:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me now. --Cayambe 15:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes--Jebulon 20:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very much oversharpened, yielding strong halos on the wires/cables. Lycaon 23:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Change to  Oppose, because after a second contemplation, Lycaon is right. I didn't notice the halos. Sorry--Jebulon 00:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   ---Elekhh 05:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Homemade cloudberry jam.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Homemade cloudberry jam.--Ankara 12:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good, and surely good too.--Jebulon 22:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks underexposed to me. Lycaon 19:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Better. Lycaon 15:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed to me--Lmbuga 01:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Better--Lmbuga 22:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • New version uploaded. Better? --Ankara 13:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • ähm... underexposed means too dark and you uploaded a new version which is darker o.O --Carschten 13:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry my mistake. I have to learn to read. New version uploaded.--Ankara 14:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support now, but imo it could be still a bit brighter --Carschten 20:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice! --MichaelBueker 09:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Lycaon 15:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Ara chloropterus qtl1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Red-and-green Macaw. --Quartl 20:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose cropped out tail --Carschten 13:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, in this case intentionally to emphasize the main plumage. The tail feathers are quite long and the image would need to be twice as high to get them all on. --Quartl 16:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Quartl. --Cayambe 09:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I also hear the Norwegian Blue parrot has an especially beatiful plumage. --MichaelBueker 11:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Certainly, but the Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back ;-). --Quartl 18:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Lmbuga 23:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 04:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Ostaš - sandstone formation in the Czech Republic - view from mountains.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Ostaš - sandstone formation in the Czech Republic. View from mountain --Pudelek 18:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I think the branch ruins the composition. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think so. It is obvious that it is an artistic intentional choice. It needs a discussion IMO.--Jebulon 20:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the subject is "sandstone formation in the Czech Republic" – the branch has nothing to do with this. --Quartl 19:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
    • in the title is "view from mountain"... --Pudelek 10:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jebulon --Carschten 09:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The branch may be a hand-held. It's very artistic, but not encyclopedic. --Archaeodontosaurus 17:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    • It's very artistic, but not encyclopedic. - this is QI, not VI --Pudelek 09:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 04:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus Augustus.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Octavian Augustus.--Jebulon 23:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support To me, very good--Lmbuga 01:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too zealous cutting. Some images are simply not appropriate for masking. Lycaon 23:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I strongly disagree with this comment. Too zealous review too, IMO... --Jebulon 17:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support For me it is the white background Inconvenient. I tried a light gray background and uniform. This is not FP but QI. --Archaeodontosaurus 18:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not sure with the light reflections at the head, which are disturbing imo. Furthermore a stepped cutting out, see Image Notes --Carschten 09:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    •  Info Thanks for comment. I cannot change the eventually disturbing reflections on the face. But I softened the cut of the base.--Jebulon 17:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
      • „I cannot change the eventually disturbing reflections on the face“ That's why I'm not opposing ;-) --Carschten 18:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI imo. The stepped cutting is a very minor flaw imo. --Cayambe 09:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 04:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Estrela Março 2010-11.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A view of Serra da Estrela, Portugal (unassessed last time) -- Alvesgaspar 23:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support I don't know why... QI, I think.--Jebulon 23:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose little detail, looks a bit unsharp to me, composition could be better too (e.g. cropped out car at bottom) --Carschten 11:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
    • But a very good and interesting example of work with difficult light(s), IMO. Extraordinary clouds too...--Jebulon 17:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Slightly increasing the contrast effect was most striking, but for me QI --Archaeodontosaurus 18:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 15:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Carschten--Lmbuga 23:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 04:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Young Shaggy Parasol.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination A Shaggy parasol (Chlorophyllum rhacodes). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment To me, poor DOF--Lmbuga 22:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • weak  Support, DOF really a bit short but else good and useful --Mbdortmund 19:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose per Mbdortmund, but the DOF is too short to me --Carschten 09:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose To me, poor DOF, sorry--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 04:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Škabrijel z reko Sočo.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination River Isonzo-Soča seen from the mountain. T137 14:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Pretty. Mattbuck 01:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  OpposeOverexposed and what actually is the subject here?--MrPanyGoff 12:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment The subject here is Soca river view from border area; rather than the overexposed photograph shows a subject in which there was mist.It's impossible have better exposure at that time. T137 15:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposed. PS: Than is a question if nominated image like this photographed in the time when ideal lighting situation was not there. I suggest visit in "the right time" with nicer light --Chmee2 09:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment I agree, you're right. but it is not always possible to visit places any day and time! --T137 09:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
      •  Comment I know it and also I have this problem in many cases. However I think so then I/you have to be self-critical enough to not nominated for some honors cause not all images taken somewhere are appropriate for QI/FP and other. --Chmee2 09:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm really very sorry, but the plants in the foreground really distract too much from the river. I know the problem when you took just one picture of a great scenery, and then you're thousands of kilometers away... --MichaelBueker 11:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The image meets the QI-criteria. I find it not overexposed and the plants in front do not distract anything too much - in my view. --High Contrast 17:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 04:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Luxembourg Rambrouch Jardin Napoléon front 05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of tower, 1928. --Cayambe 08:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good.--Ankara 13:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per really bad composition. Sorry --Chmee2 08:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Part of the building is cropped. --Berthold Werner 08:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    In my opinion there is no problem to show a detail of a building, in this case, the tower's entrance.--Ankara 11:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    • However if you want to show entrance of the building, more suitable crop will be appropriate --Chmee2 11:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Berthold Werner 08:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Louka (okres Písek), rybník na jihu.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Pond near Louka, Czech Republic.--Juan de Vojníkov 22:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Shame of the missing edge of the pond left, but otherwise good.--Jebulon 23:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  CommentWell, Aktron was there.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of details in the image and also colours are not really good. Lightning was to strong. --Chmee2 09:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy --Archaeodontosaurus 10:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 20:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Metz_Cathedral_001.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Coronation of Mary, Window, Cathedral of Metz, France --Llez 06:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good. It would be even better if you could expand the description. --Jonathunder 17:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Window by Hermann de Munster, 14. Century --Llez 19:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The correction is not at its end, imo. You have to re-scale a bit: look at the halos, for example. They are supposed to be circular, but they are oval. I put it in CR, but do not oppose now.--Jebulon 20:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done You are right, corrections done, the halos are circular now --Llez 06:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
      •  Support now. Much better. Thank you.--Jebulon 17:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support very good now. -- Felix Koenig 20:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 20:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Julia Babilon, Damen-Tennis-Bundesliga Moers, 02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Female tennis player Julia Babilon in Moers do a service --Carschten 11:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  CommentI'm not sure here. It is a good photo, but the man behind her is disturbing.--Ankara 20:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think that the man is disturbing; very good quality and view. -- Felix Koenig 18:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with Ankara. Furthermore it would be better, IMO, as a "portrait" than as a "landscape". I suggest a discussion in CR--Jebulon 20:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)<
  •  Comment it's an official game so what should I do against vistitors?? The man is in full-res unsharp and that was all I can do. --Carschten 21:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Sorry, but the composition is not good. Alvesgaspar 22:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • because of the visitors? Or what? --Carschten 09:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Not only the visitors but the whole background, as well as the framing. You already have a very good version when she is serving. -- Alvesgaspar 19:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice subject.. but the composition is too busy. --Elekhh 05:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Národní divadlo, Škoda 15T.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination New tram Škoda 15T, Prague — Jagro 22:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion * Support colours imo a bit "warm" but still good --Mbdortmund 23:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise (sky), motion blur (driver), ghosts (near the sign). Needs a discussion IMO --Jebulon 09:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support very good night shot. It's almost impossible to haven't a ghost or something other what Jebulon points out. --Carschten 12:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 12:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Wilno - kosciol Wniebowstapienia Panskiego.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Church of Ascension in Vilnius -- Albertus teolog 10:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose The composition is imo not very good: Leaves at the top right, sings at the bottom left, tight crop at all corners... --Carschten 11:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
     Comment not so bad, but leaves should be removed --Mbdortmund 15:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Monument Huerto de las Flores.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Monument in the botanic garden of Agaete, Gran Canaria. -- Felix Koenig 17:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The plants left and right below are very disturbing. The shadow on the plaque is too strong: it is impossible to read the first lines of the poem.--Jebulon 20:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I propose this correction, because the idea of the poem in the garden I like --Archaeodontosaurus 18:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I really don't prefer the rework, because the stone isn't grey and the sign isn't so bright. That doesn't improve the image, sorry. Please upload as a derivative work. -- Felix Koenig 16:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed--Lmbuga 00:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 10:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Moulin composition.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Composition with the wings of a mill in Spain.--Jebulon 23:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support OK. Mattbuck 13:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Week  Oppose cause of some CA and unsharpness in right down corner of the image. (Subjectively I don't like the composition too). Sorry --Chmee2 09:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Quartl 10:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Forests in Alberschwende 3.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Two winter spruces. By Böhringer Friedrich. --Vizu 11:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment - beautiful, but a bit unsharp. Mattbuck 21:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Deserves the QI label IMO.--Jebulon 21:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp --Carschten 21:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Then discuss.--Jebulon 23:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jebulon. --Cayambe 09:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose rather noisy in the sky. Lycaon 18:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe "bit unsharp" at 10Mpix (!) but perfectly sharp at 2MPix. --Elekhh 05:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - but the image is 10MP. The image should be quality at the size it is, not just in thumbnail. Mattbuck 02:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    Of course, if someone were just to sharpen the damn thing... Mattbuck 02:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    I think the same criteria applies to all images, which is to meet minimum quality requirements at 2 Mpix. Why be unjust and punish those who upload higher resolution images? --Elekhh 04:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    I think the criteria is to meet minimum quality requirement at whatever size the image is. That's not punishing people who upload at higher res - I expect exactly the same from all photos, which is that they be the best they can be at the resolution they are. Mattbuck 16:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Elekhh --Cayambe 07:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

File:HaMatzevaRishonLeZion001.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination "HaMatzeva" monument in Rishon LeZion, Israel. --MathKnight 07:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood to me. --Jebulon 11:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, poor details. Lycaon 12:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
    Is that an oppose? --Berthold Werner 08:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, it is (da Lyacon beim "Discuss"-Setzen weder bei Jebulon (der ja Pro stimmt) noch bei sich ein Pro/Contra vorgeschrieben hat, kann man beide als Stimme werten.) --Carschten 09:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Oppose and Support if necessary. So did I for my support vote, because it was not very clear IMO--Jebulon 21:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion, Chromatic noise (sky)--Lmbuga 00:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy, poor details, maybe too colorful --BennyJ 13:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 21:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Pulteney Bridge MMB 01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pulteney Bridge in Bath. Mattbuck 12:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good.--Ankara 13:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the building on the right is unsharp. --Chmee2 20:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Slightly unsharp towards the right, but still QI to me. --Cayambe 14:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I don't like the composition: Left side, the bridge is not complete--Lmbuga 00:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    If I'd left more in at the left, then you'd see the wall which continues from where I was standing to the end of the bridge. Mattbuck 02:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga. I miss something left.--Jebulon 22:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 01:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Canon EOS 400D with lens.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Canon EOS 400D -- Der Wolf im Wald 14:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The back of the camera is OOF. I think this may need a discussion. Anyway, it's only a Canon... --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, back is OOF, but it looks good. QI in my opinion.--Kae 19:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry... I love the lightning, but imo the DOF is too low. Also (very) small for a studio shot. I think you can repeat the photography with a smaller aperture. --Carschten 12:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 22:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Victory Day Kharkov 2010.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Victory! (1945). Graffiti. --Vizu 08:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • I do not know the rule of copyright about graffitis in Ukraine, but if free, I support.--Jebulon 22:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sky is strongly overexposed and part of image is noisy too. Sorry --Chmee2 08:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Massively overexposed, the light even seems to bleed into the foreground --BennyJ 15:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • ...new version? --Vizu 15:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the sky is unsalvageable overexposed. The image is noisy, too, sorry --Carschten 12:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 22:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Luxemb City pl d Armes 02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Place d'Armes, in the very centre of Luxemb. City. --Cayambe 10:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Gut --George Chernilevsky 07:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy, a lot of parts are overexposed (little detail, looks imo like a soft halo) --Carschten 11:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too harsh light, overexposed. --kallerna 13:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 Comment Overexposed, mmh... This image is about light and shadows. Everything in the background can be clearly read: Café français, Burger restaurant... --Cayambe 18:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 04:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Lactarius_turpis_2010_G1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ugly Milk-cap Lactarius turpis --George Chernilevsky 18:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too soft and noisy, I think. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Main object is good in focus --George Chernilevsky 07:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Mainly because of the disturbing background. --kallerna 13:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support This is a natural background so I think it's fine. Given the low height of the mushroom, there is also no way to blur the background by using a narrower DOF --BennyJ (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose background is fine imo, but the image is too noisy and the DOF is poor. --Carschten 10:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 04:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Coturnix chinensis qtl1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Asian Blue Quail. --Quartl 02:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose A bit noisy, and I'm not entirely convinced it's quite in focus. Mattbuck 17:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the noise rate is acceptable (there are much worse "quality images" out there), focus seems to be ok. IMO no reason to decline. --BennyJ 18:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The flash shadow is disturbing IMO.--Jebulon 22:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Harsh flash. --Elekhh 21:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   ----Elekhh 04:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Conus_marmoreus_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Marbled Cone, Conus marmoreus --Llez 17:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I'm afraid you will have to go back to the tripode... The images at left are not on perfect focus. -- Alvesgaspar 18:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info I changed the left picture, but all others have been in focus. You can see in full resolution that the border of the mouth at the second and third picture from left is completely sharp, also the spira in all. The colour patttern isn't sharp in the original, so it can't be sharp on the photo (see also the other photos of this species on Commons here). I also observed, that the whole picture seems somewhat unsharp in the preview, but in full resolution the borderlines and the mouth (not the colour pattern!) are sharp, what means, the shells are in focus. --Llez 19:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor quality. To me the images at left are out of focus, or unsharp. At the botton of the second image, I can see chromatic noise--Lmbuga 00:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment ??? I can only repeat: please have a look on the border of the mouth (the opening of the shell), it is completely sharp and in focus over the total length! --Llez 05:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I retire the ""Oppose", but I must think--Lmbuga 15:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support--Lmbuga 18:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree, they look relatively sharp at the borders. It seems to be the texture of the shells that makes them look as if they were unsharp. But I fear we can't change nature ;) However, I think the shells could still receive a little more software sharpening to compensate for that effect --BennyJ 15:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for supporting. I tried already to correct the texture, but more correction results in oversharpening the borders and an unnatural contour of the texture. The picture is also a VI-candidate and should therefore show the realty. It's a pity, but that's nature, and nature fulfills not always all the wishes of photographers. --Llez 19:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't see anything wrong with this. QI. Lycaon 14:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment maybe it's nature, but something looks wrong with the "pink" color at high resolution. "Mother-of-pearl" color ? Not very nice IMO.--Jebulon 23:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 04:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Rally Finland 2010 - shakedown - Matthew Wilson 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Matthew Wilson driving at Rannakylä shakedown in Muurame. --kallerna 13:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Bad composition on the left. Light - ok.--Vizu 18:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would like to see another opinion, IMO there's nothing wrong with the composition. --kallerna 07:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I believe that composition is ideal cause it is possible see the movement of the car. Clear QI for me --Chmee2 08:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Ford go to left (1\3), is not to rigth (2\3)?.--Vizu 14:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
      •  Comment Yes, you are right, if this will be nomination to Featured Pictures, I will agree with your opinion. However this is only QI (lower standards for images...) so for me whole car is there, nothing really important is missing, techniques parameters of image also OK (sharpness, no chromatic aberration, good exposition etc.) so QI standards overstep. --Chmee2 15:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Ok. --Vizu 15:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Not absolute perfect composition but clear QI.--Ankara 16:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI -- S 400 HYBRID 22:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 17:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Lampe Pigeon 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A "Lampe Pigeon", kerosene lamp from ca. 1885--Jebulon 17:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good light.--Vizu 07:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  CommentSeveral areas are imperfect black. I marked for example one this area, so let's discuss --Chmee2 15:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC) ✓ Done. Is it a problem with the toothed wheel ? Note that it is a bit worn by use.--Jebulon 17:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC) No really. I see around this wheel several "flying" dark gold spots if I lightning my monitor. I will try to mark them --Chmee2 17:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC) I'm really sorry, but i magnified a few minutes ago the original file at X 1600 and looked very carefully, but I didn't find any problem you noticed. Are you sure with your monitor ?--Jebulon 22:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC) I made several crops what I see and marked with arrows. Let's try if you find as well (and also please check others images which I marked). And I hope that my monitor (and eyes) are OK :)) --Chmee2 07:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC) It seems that I have a problem with my monitor or my eyes, because you are absolutely right (I'm watching another screen, now). A lot of thanks for your very careful and patient review, I'll improve this at home tonight --Jebulon 10:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I think it is good now.✓ Done--Jebulon 21:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I fixed today the image. Don't ask me why but there was problem with some colour profile. If I opened with GIMP, it wrote me "Camera RGB Profile" so I saved it without this profile and all the gold spots were gone. Several areas remained not ideal but I overpainted with black colours and now is good. It looks QI for me now. --Chmee2 12:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Funny indeed : I work with GIMP too, and have no problem. Well, thank you, at the end ! I'll soon upload another masked image (with GIMP), please review it in the same conditions and say me what happens with the GIMP! A bientôt.--Jebulon 17:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
      Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 06:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Entrance Casa de Colón.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Entrance of Casa de Colón (house of Columbus), Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. -- Felix Koenig 18:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Very good, but needs a perspective correction IMO. The threshold is perfectly horizontal, but not the rest. I'll promote if done.--Jebulon 21:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Perspective is already corrected with ShiftN, should be enough, I think. -- Felix Koenig 19:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, to me, needs horizontal perspective correction, not vertical--Lmbuga 21:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, needs really a perspective correction, and/or a rotation, except the threshold, nothing is straight (look at the window through a grid...).--Jebulon 20:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I don't understand. To me "horizontal perspective correction it's the same than rotation (but not always). I change “Decline” by “Discuss”. Thanks for your compression: Poor english--Lmbuga 19:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs Horizontal perspective correction--Lmbuga 19:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 15:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Křešice (Divišov), stavení u potoka.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Křešice village, Czech Republic.--Juan de Vojníkov 10:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion please correct the tilt! If it's done I will support --Carschten 21:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Need tilt correction. 8 days without activity -> declined --Chmee2 11:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  CommentFixed. I studied how to do so yesterday.--Juan de Vojníkov 18:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Could be brighter but still ok. --Berthold Werner 07:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Is this better?--Juan de Vojníkov 09:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes --Berthold Werner 10:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't lke the crop: I don't like the picture. To me, they lack environmental data--Lmbuga 23:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Berthold Werner 07:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Fort Napoléon des Saintes 2010-03-30.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fort Napoléon des Saintes. --Slaunger 20:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Clouds overexposed--Lmbuga 00:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The clouds are no problem. there is a distortion of the summit, which is curved. This seems easy to fix. --Archaeodontosaurus 07:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your reviews. I agree with both of you in your observations, which I had overlooked myself. I have corrected the barrel distortion using verical and horizontal control points on the straight sections of the facade. There are still blowns in the sky. I do not perceive them as problematic myself. I have the raw though and could try and see if I can get a jpeg out of it with some structure all over in the clouds. Haven't actually tried working in that way with raws before, but I could try.--Slaunger 23:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose Clouds overexposed and no fixed--Lmbuga 18:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 Comment I am not able to improve the exposition--Lmbuga 22:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Square in Telde.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A square in the city of Telde, Gran Canaria. -- Felix Koenig 18:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Bad composition: Not really worthfull for an Encyclopedia. But also we can't see the most important objects: the figures. Alofok 18:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support no technical problems, some encyclopedic value --Archaeodontosaurus 07:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To me, there are technical problems: Shadow, dark areas underexposed, blurry: bad quality--Lmbuga 18:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 15:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Extra 300LP Löchgau.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Extra 300LP at Löchgau, Garmany. -- Felix Koenig 18:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good--Lmbuga 21:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed. --kallerna 08:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course the mobile tower in the background is overexposured. It's a white vehicle and the sun was shining, so what? It doesn't belong to the motive and it's small in the background. Felix Koenig 10:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I didn't mean that, the whole photo is bit overexposed. --kallerna 13:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, sorry then. But then I'm not able to see any other overexposure. -- Felix Koenig 16:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Gosh, some overexposure, but it's a very high quality iamge with nice lightning, even if it's not perfect. Once again: this is QI, not FP... --Carschten 13:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me, agree with Carschten.--Jebulon 22:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   ---Jebulon 22:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Deutsches Reitpony.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination German Riding Pony --Carschten 15:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment To me, disturbing background and noise--Lmbuga 21:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    Background (maybe a bit disturbing but) appropriate and there is no noise, that's the fur. --Carschten 09:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
     Support Ok. Useful, realist; and good--Lmbuga 10:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose Bad backkground, overexposed, needs new level adjustment. --kallerna 08:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
     Support - background isn't perfect, but imo not overexposed. QI. -- Felix Koenig 12:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 17:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Kharkov embankment on Kharkov River, 5.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Kharkov embankment. --Vizu 18:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose tilted--Jebulon 11:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC) :*✓ Done File name - ok.--Vizu 18:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment overdone perspective correction? --Elekhh 21:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To me, too tight crop--Lmbuga 01:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overdone perspective correction and tight framing. --Elekhh 22:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 22:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Xerocomus_subtomentosus_2010_G1.jpg[edit]

  • The background is noisy as well. But I personally can live with that. --BennyJ 17:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Weak support almost every macro photo is a bit noisy. Here I would support a soft denoising, but in spite of that the image is very good. --Carschten 10:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  weak oppose. Noise interferes with the mushroom's texture. Lycaon 14:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Sunset at Land's End in San Francisco with Cirrus clouds.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sunset at Land's End in San Francisco with Cirrus clouds by user:mbz1--ברוקולי 01:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Excellent, interesting shadows. Maybe a bit underexposed but I can live with that. --BennyJ 06:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose badly done HDR. Some parts are over-, some other underexposed. Should be merged again. --Carschten 11:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info -- I've just received a message from Mbz1 informimg that this is not a HDR... Alvesgaspar 13:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • but where are these light differences comming from? That can't be normal... --Carschten 14:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe they are caused by clouds that are not in the field of view (behind the camera) or something. I still believe it looks quite interesting. As long as not stated otherwise, I would regard this as being indended and not as a photographic mistake. Therefore, I can't really see any reason not to let this image pass. --BennyJ 15:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • hm, okay, I removed my oppose and the photo is interesting (of course!). But with the strange light conditions I don't support. --Carschten 17:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting moment, it is rare illumination IMO. Technically good --George Chernilevsky 18:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok. Very interesning ligth. --Vizu 15:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Definitely something have been made. --kallerna 10:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To me, unnecessary or inappropriate use of artistic filters or effects.--Lmbuga 00:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support This image is good and does definately meet the QI criteria. If this image would run for a Featured vote then it would be important to discuss things like artistic filters or any effects that were used. --High Contrast 12:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very unnatural. Lycaon 14:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment To me this image is not QI. If there is no filters, effects…, the contrast is excessive: dark zones and clear zones: luminosity unsuitable and excessive -and sometimes little- for an unique image--Lmbuga 18:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lycaon & Lmbuga. Maybe a nice artsy idea, but not for a QI in "Commons"--Jebulon 22:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose to me image looks too much edidted and unnatural, I would rather support




--J. Lunau 11:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


  •  Support This has such a great atmosphere, it makes one think of another world. Lovely perspective and composition. Beauty of the earth captured in a moment.Coastside2 15:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unnatural --Archaeodontosaurus 06:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 22:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)--J. Lunau (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II in Milan.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination The Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II in Milan, Italy, seen from the Milan Cathedral.. --High Contrast 09:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline * OpposeOverexposure in important areas.--Elekhh 21:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    • And what do you think are those "important areas"? --High Contrast 07:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
      •  Support Parts of the sidewalk and the front of the building. Not too important, I think. But it is a nice and special shot (looks like a drawing) at a descent quality, I support it. --BennyJ 15:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Made the exposure less obstructive. Revert if disagree. ZooFari 23:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To me it's not overexposed. To me it's underexposed (dark areas), but not too much. It's improvable--Lmbuga 20:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's neither under- nor overexposed, but too contrasted - bright areas too bright, dark areas too dark. -- H005 15:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --BennyJ (talk)

File:Adršpašské skály (Adersbacher Felsenstadt) by Pudelek 06.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Adršpašské skály (Adersbacher Felsenstadt) --Pudelek 16:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Nice place, nice colors. but visible CA on the trees especially left, and disturbing red thing under the bench.--Jebulon 22:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • In my opinion this CA is acceptable. I move to discuss --Pudelek 10:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The red thing doesn't matter for a QI (it's not a technical problem and would only be an issue for an FP I think). But the CAs are indeed quite noticeable. Do you think you can fix them with your software? It should be possible without any loss of quality. If you do it, I will support. --BennyJ (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment In my opinion the "red thing" does matter, because it ruins the composition, and composition is a part of the technical quality of the picture.--Jebulon 16:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have removed the "red thing". There was more serious CA in the rocks which I now have removed. The CA in the left trees is not an easy fix but it's only minor fringing and not a big deal in my opinion. Revert file if you disagree. ZooFari 22:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 15:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Caves Gran Canaria.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Caves in Gran Canaria, belonging to heritage site Cuatro Puertas. -- Felix Koenig 19:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • {{o}} To me, too tight crop--Lmbuga 21:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Why? The picture shows all the caves, and it's impossible to show the whole mountain in this perspective. -- Felix Koenig 16:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Appears ok to me, so Discussion. --Cayambe 08:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support okay --Carschten 15:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is not always easy to know the reason for a photo. Because I believe that I have understood it, I have erased the vote--Lmbuga 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 15:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Wilno - kosciol sw. Mikolaja 2.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination St. Nicholas Church, Vilnius -- Albertus teolog 09:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment tilt/perspective needs correction. Mattbuck 16:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can not decline the image by respect, because the image has been in the discussion 14 days, but, too tight crop--Lmbuga 20:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose distortions, tight crop --Carschten 15:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 15:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Fontaine quatre parties monde observatoire place camille jullian.jpg[edit]

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes? Carschten 15:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SchlossCharlottenburgNacht.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination "Charlottenburg Palace" in Berlin, Germany illuminated at night --BennyJ 09:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support for me perfect. --Alchemist-hp 18:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Need perspective correction IMO.--Ankara 10:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose until perspective correction. There is noise too, but it is the night, and it is not a real problem. The perspective is, IMO.--Jebulon 23:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - excellent, FP for me. -- Felix Koenig 14:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Until perspective correction.--Ankara 10:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The unique problem, to me, is the correction of the perspective, but I like the image --Lmbuga 20:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The perspective is alright and part of the composition, I'm not gonna change anything about it (especially since this would result in a loss of quality and in a smaller field of view - which is defintely not what I intended). There is only minor perspective divergence here and it's absolutely within the range of what you would expect from an image like this at a focal length of 17mm. Only because something CAN be software-manipulated, doesn't mean it has to (see some of the over-corrected images above). If you don't think it's a quality image because of that, I will actually have to live with that. I always care about making a good image, not about unnecessary "optimizations" that result in a loss of quality, sorry. --BennyJ 20:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You use the word manipulated and "fake" above. Your image is a manipulation of reality. It is manipulated by your lens and your camera. Darkroom technician can, and has, correct perspective distortion in the printing process during the history of photography. I see absolutely no artistic reason to manipulate (which your lens and camera do) walls so that they lean, rather than to show the house as it looks in reality. --Ankara 21:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You can have that opinion, I don't share it. It's a matter of taste. Your image above does indeed look wrong (left wall) to me but that's only my personal taste as well and I did not judge it. So you can still get the promotion :) Good luck. --BennyJ 21:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support for me perfect too - high quality even with the perspective. I agree with BennyJ: because correction could be done, does not mean, it has to --J. Lunau 13:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Disagree. It has to. Perspective distortion is known as a technical issue, like vignetting, noise, chromatic aberrations, over or underexposition, motion blur etc... due to the lens or camera, and must be corrected if no specific justification (rare). If not, it cannot be a quality image. Overcorrection is an issue too. In my opinion.--Jebulon 13:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
      • No, there is no general "rule" like this. And even if there was one: Rules can be broken. See the first image at the right (which is a QI btw.)
        The perspective is a lot more "distorted" than it is in my image, but it's still appropriate and even helps to visualize the size and glory of that mighty building. Or the second one
        which has minor "perspective distortions" (like my one) but is even FP (because it's great!). It's all relative. I accept your personal taste and your vote but I can't agree. --BennyJ 14:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I said "if not specific justification". It is the case for the first example you give. The distortion is a real choice of the photographer. Then no problem to me : it would be ridiculous to decline because of distortion, and I completely agree with you. The second case is different. I think that FP are not exactly "better than QI", the standards are not the same. For your own pic (very nice and interesting, well balanced and perfectly composed and sharp, imo), it looks (to me) like if the job was "unfinished", if you understand what I mean. That's why I think it is not here only a matter of taste. I find this discussion very interesting ! --Jebulon 08:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Great justification ;) Yeah it looks _to you_ like the job is unfinished, but it isn't. Be happy with your opinion, I think all has been said and there's nothing left to discuss in terms of perspective. Oh an btw: FP is the highest category a picture can get on Commons and every aspect (technical and non-technical) matters. It is really hard to achieve this status and there are many experts who investigate every little detail of candidating pictures (at least in Germany). Just in case you didn't notice: My picture got FP status yesterday and no one ever mentioned any perspective "distortions" at all. Whatever, have a nice day :) --BennyJ 09:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Also File:RomaCastelSantAngelo.jpg had never been FP today.--Ankara (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
            • It is FP, you should read the page again --BennyJ 09:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
              • Today. There are several quality issues that would not be acceptable for a FP today. Original Nomination and promotion was 2005.--Ankara (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
                • That's an assumption. You can't know this but need to accept the fact that it is FP. Maybe you should spend more time improving your own photography (I don't wanna say it's bad but.. u know...) than speculating about whether or not a decision is right. This discussion has become way too complex and off-topic for a simple QI, I think. So I will stop here --BennyJ 09:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
                  • Maybe you should behave a little less arrogant, to think about the criticism that your photo get instead of just denying it. And above all, do not take things personally (it is just childish). And we all have much to learn, even you my dear friend. It's been a pleasure to participate in this constructive discussions with you despite the childish nonsense in your last post. Once again, thank you very much.--Ankara 09:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Perfect! Btw: this is a featured picture on the German Wikipedia. So it would be ridiculous if it wasn’t a quality image too (QI is a considerably lower category than FP) (talk)--Coastside2 11:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Oh, ein neuer Freund ! Herzlich Willkommen ! Erster Tag in "Commons" ! :)) --Jebulon 16:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Meinst du mich? Ich bin lange bei wikipedia dabei. Kenn ich dich oder was soll diese überschwängliche Begrüßung?--Coastside2 18:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs perspective correction--Lmbuga 23:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs perspective correction --Archaeodontosaurus 06:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Lovely picture. I really like it. -- Fish-guts 09:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Great image, and already FP on German wikipedia, where the standards are very high.--Mbz1 13:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support For me a very good picture. Alofok 16:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Great coalition of german wikipedians ! Impressive ! result of canvassing ? Not a problem to me, but funny...--Jebulon 23:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
      • As far as I know, Alchemist-hp, Felix Koenig, J. Lunau, Alofok and the photographer are different and independent users from Germany. Fish-guts comes from Switzerland and he's normally not active with images there. I do not know Coastside2, at least not under this username. --Quartl (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
        • The picture was Kandidat für exzellente Bilder (≙ FPC on Commons) a short time ago, so many German users know the picture and vote also here at Commons. -- Felix Koenig 17:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
          • I do not suspect anything here, I just find funny this german "support run" and nothing else. It seems that this picture is going to be promoted as QI, it is nor a scandal neither a shame (even if it needs a perspective correction ! lol) and it is really not a problem to me, I can live with that. Congratulations and good luck to the photographer for new nice pics.--Jebulon 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Congratulations and good luck to the german photographer for new nice pics--Lmbuga 21:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can't say this in english: es: Yo soy un usuario menor que lleva muy poco tiempo colaborando en estas páginas, pero aún siendo así, me parece una falta de respeto para con los que aquí colaboran (no para conmigo, pues acabo de llegar) que alguien aduzca como motivo o como apoyo de algún motivo que esta imagen debe ser o no debe de dejar de ser lo que digan que es en la Wikipedia alemana. Los proyectos son diferentes, respetemos las diferentes comunidades--Lmbuga 22:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I am going to solicit that they translate these words--Lmbuga 22:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment This image is beautiful, too bad that the prospect is not corrected. Too bad for those who are denied all year for their error of perspective. They must have a strange idea of justice.--Archaeodontosaurus 10:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Alofok 16:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Ngiao (Myoporum laetum) flowers.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ngaio flowers. --Avenue 14:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Appealing composition and valuable with good resolution and DOF, but I find the shadows on the flowers distracting.--Wsiegmund 18:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe this could be discussed ?--Jebulon 22:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy. Should be photograph again with ISO 100/200 and a tripod. --Carschten 13:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 13:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Concorde Air France Musee du Bourget P1020006.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Concorde in Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace, Le Bourget. --Pline 13:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • {{opp}} It's a good image, not easy, but noised to me. To me, not QI to me--Lmbuga 22:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes noisy, I agree. But at high resolution only. Could it be possible to be less noisy ? I put it in discuss.--Jebulon 22:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I apply noise filter ✓ Done --Pline 08:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Now, good. Thanks--Lmbuga 18:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 16:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Kirishima-jingu07bs4592.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination a sculpture of Kirishima-jingu's Chokushiden --663highland 09:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment tilted--Jebulon 09:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 Info I corrected the tilt, then I cannot support. I put it in discussion, I think it is good now. --Jebulon 23:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support, also made the overexposure less obvious. ZooFari 20:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Carschten 12:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 12:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Adršpašské skály (Adersbacher Felsenstadt) by Pudelek 05.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Adršpašské skály (Adersbacher Felsenstadt) --Pudelek 16:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
    These are clearly chromatic aberrations imo --Carschten 16:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

  •  Support Good, with acceptable chromatic aberration on both sides. Please, geocode. --Cayambe 20:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, the CA needs a discussion IMO.--Jebulon 22:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Some (moderate) CAs but still acceptable --BennyJ 14:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose at the right and left the CA are okay, but the half stairs are red and green and not only brown. This isn't acceptable imo --Carschten 15:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Red and green? I can only see algae and dust, most wooden items get that after a while in outdoor environment. --V-wolf 00:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Carschten, the new version didn't explain anything to me. I still only see algae, dust and rust. It's patina and natural, to remove it artificially would decieve the viewer. --V-wolf 16:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Us Carschten--Lmbuga 17:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support as V-wolf. I don't even see a lot of red and green and should that be bad imo?--McIntosh Natura 01:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Carschten. I put an annotation on the other CA upper right, visible even on thumbnail.--Jebulon 22:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I rest my case. --V-wolf 23:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice composition, shame about the CA on lower stairs and at upper right. --Avenue 16:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 19:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Paris - Mondial de l'automobile 2010 - Volvo S60 - 002.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Volvo S60, Paris, Mondial de l'automobile 2010 --Thesupermat 07:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Bad exposure, too dark (underexposed areas). Too noisy... I think this may need a discussion. -- S 400 HYBRID 21:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC
     Support Good. Rama 10:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

{{o}} Per S 400 HYBRID. + Chromatic noise: can be see in the front wheel--Lmbuga 00:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 Comment (Poor english) But the image it's not bad, it's good. I made (or "do") an retouched image, in case somebody wants to propose it: File:Paris - Mondial de l'automobile 2010 - Volvo S60 - 002. retouched.jpg (The front wheel of the two images must be seen) --Lmbuga 00:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

  • It is possible that I am not right--Lmbuga 01:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
J'ai changé l'image. --Thesupermat 20:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - As for free image in so called free wiki projects I think it is a great photo. A little tilted which is not so fatal.--MrPanyGoff 16:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The actual image it's better and to me QI--Miguel Bugallo 20:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop too tight, tilted and the front is a bit too dark. At least the crop should be wider. -- H005 15:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? H005 15:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Шахтер граффити Харьков.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination "Miner". Naïve art graffiti in Kharkov.--Vizu 15:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good to me --Lmbuga 21:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question FOP in Ukraine? --Myrabella 08:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • AyAyAy, I think Myrabella is right...--Jebulon 22:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
     ::* Oppose Sorry, I don't know. Thanks --Lmbuga 18:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Vizu 18:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

File:NKS SSSR.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination USSR Peoples Comissariat of Communications emblem (1933) on telephone cover. Kharkov.--Vizu 16:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Bad flash luminosity--Lmbuga 21:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
    See a new version.--Vizu 17:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry, Vizu. I do not know what to do, I do not know what I must do. I would like to hear other opinions--Lmbuga 19:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  OpposeIMO, this picture seems to be easy to re-shot. Then I notice that it is not sharp enough, that the crop is too tight, and the light in the corner left above is not good. --Jebulon 15:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Vizu 22:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Moschus-Steinbrech.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saxifraga moschata --McIntosh Natura 10:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, to me, bad quality: Perhaps poor dof or bad crop. Few clear areas--Lmbuga 22:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment"few clear areas": the only thing which is thought to be clear here, is the flower itself; I think it's good, that the background is blurred out!--McIntosh Natura 22:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • {{Oppose}} Poor DOF or bad crop. The flower is too little--Lmbuga 10:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment So you think it would be better, if I cropped the picture? (by the way, I don't even think the flower is too little; the size of the blossom is about 15mm / 2/3 inches diameter and its not needed that the blossom fills the picture)--McIntosh Natura 13:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, the flower is small in relation to the image, not in relation to the reality. If the reality was in focus, I could have another opinion--Lmbuga 19:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Uneven bokeh, and the flower doesn't stand out from it enough. I also agree that the flower is too small. -- H005 16:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can't vote 2 times--Lmbuga 19:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with H005 & Lmbuga --Jebulon 21:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 22:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

File:ThyssenKrupp Quartier Essen 01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The new ThyssenKrupp headquarter in Essen --Arnoldius 22:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Foreground and main object too dark IMHO. -- H005 15:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment OK for 18:40 imo --Mbdortmund 20:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support not perfect, but above-average night quality --Carschten 15:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support good --BennyJ 17:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. To me it's not underexposed. The reality is as dark as the image--Lmbuga 00:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --BennyJ 17:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Battersea Power Station, Nine Elms, London.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Battersea Power Station, Nine Elms in London (by User:Hellodavey1902). --High Contrast 09:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support A bit noisy but still good. (with greetings to Pink Floyd) --Berthold Werner 11:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To me, clearly underexposed and big areas underexposed. Vertical lines of right tilted. I can't understand the luminosity (too yelow or orange to me, and it's not sunset because is too dark). To me the better of the image it's Pink F. --Lmbuga 22:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support noisy, but very good view. -- Felix Koenig 20:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support As for me, good. --Vizu 18:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 09:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Kharkiv city hall - UkSSR coat of arms.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination USSR coat of arms on Kharkov city hall. By Ace^eVg.--Vizu 10:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good, but better if little perspective distortion corrected, IMO--Jebulon 21:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I tried a perspective correction. Then I cannot support, so I put it in Discussion. Thank you. --Jebulon 22:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 Support --Berthold Werner 06:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Berthold Werner 06:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Jerusalem Oesterreichisches Hospiz BW 4.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View from the roof of the Austrian Hospice on the old town of Jerusalem --Berthold Werner 09:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Good to me. The left church (at the backgrund) have e little CA (green and violet line), but the CA not disturb--Lmbuga 11:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry. Vertical perspective distortion. More CA below the church. I don't know if I must decline--Lmbuga 11:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Tried to remove CA and distortion. --Berthold Werner 14:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry and thanks. Better to me. It is a difficult image and a image with technical merit--Lmbuga 19:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Berthold Werner 06:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Crassostrea_gigas_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Pacific Oyster, Crassostrea gigas --Llez 12:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The lower left one is overexposured / shows white without details --Mbdortmund 13:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment and  Info Sorry, that's not correct. The left (e.g. anatomically the right valve) shows only the (coloured) impression of the adductor muscle and the pallial sinus, the rest is nearly pure white (and not overexposed), but some brown colour spots are visible and the uppermost part is slighltly darker (visible in higher resolution). The other valve has additional colour patterns so that it looks quite different. This valve also looks a bit darker, as it is strongly arched, whereas the other is flat. PS: If you leave your adress on my talk page, I'd like to send you the original for comparison. --Llez 14:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
     Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 16:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Not overesxposed to me. I like it--Lmbuga 19:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Don't see any problem here, only good things--Jebulon 22:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Berthold Werner 06:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Jack adaptor IMG 6580.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination TRS connector. -- Rama 07:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Well done. --AFBorchert 08:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment To me, regular quality: Bad clarity, not sharp enough. To me the image can be a valued image, but not QI (I'm not sure, I will learn if others think)--Lmbuga 23:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose See above--Lmbuga 19:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness is sufficient, and I can't see an issue with clarity. I'd recommend some color denoising though. -- H005 16:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, I can't say what is clarity (es:"claridad"), it's not luminosity. This version have more clarity and less chromatic noise, and it's more sharp to me--Lmbuga 19:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • But I'm not sure: Is my version better?--Lmbuga 19:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarity it's not contrast, but the edges have better definition. I can upload my version of the image without clarity if you want--Lmbuga 19:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Clarity is the right word, and no doubt it's better in your edit - but it wasn't actually bad in the original version. Just the color noise was a slight issue. You fixed both, I recommend uploading your edit as an update to the original image, not as a new picture. -- H005 20:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I can't know when I can upload a image over other. I need the permision of the first uploader. --Lmbuga 20:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
It is common practice to do that even without the uploader's consent, given that it is just a technical improvement. If for whatever reason he does not want it, it's a just one click to revert the update and restore the old version. -- H005 22:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Now I think that I can't vote--Lmbuga 06:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? H005 16:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)