Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 2011

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Halictus subauratus female 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Halictus subauratus, female --Gidip 21:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Lacks DOF, is a bit noisy and not really crisp. W.S. 06:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment I disagree. I think it is good enough for a QI of a bee, in all these criteria. Gidip 08:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's a borderline case in all these respects, also the resolution is quite low, but the tip towards oppose to me is the disturbing thorn in front. --Quartl 20:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 04:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Szydlow 20060619 1304 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The medieval Cracow Gate in Szydłów, Poland -- Jakubhal 19:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality --Czonek 19:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing geometric distortion -- Alvesgaspar 20:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The distortion can be corrected. Not sharp enough. The sky has noise, too much to me--Lmbuga 17:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 17:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Paris July 2011-24.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fontaine Saint Michel, Paris (2nd try) -- Alvesgaspar 18:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. Please geotag. --Cayambe 09:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment léger "tilt" ou "distortion" tout à fait en haut (see annotation). Un petit réglage, et ça sera très bien.--Jebulon 15:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done I was aware of that angle, which is the result of normal perspective, the fountain being not exactly centered with the camera. But I fixed it as a sign of good will :-) -- Alvesgaspar 18:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
      •  Support That's why I hesitated between "tilt" or "distortion", which are not exactly the same. Ok now, my dear rhetorician friend ;)--Jebulon 13:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support better now. PierreSelim 14:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Quartl 17:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Krakau_-_Flughafen.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination John Paul II Airport in Balice-Kraków --Taxiarchos228 14:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Blown sky and deformations (left). W.S. 06:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • original white sky you can not make blue, there is no deformation but normal perpective display --Taxiarchos228 06:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight at left. To me, not sharp enough (see people)--Lmbuga 17:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 17:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Saint Saturnin Cernin.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The church Saint Saturnin in Saint-Cernin de Reilhac, Dordogne, France.--Jebulon 11:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support bit noisy (sky) but good for QI --Taxiarchos228 14:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    • You're right. Due to this b...y polarizing filter I don't know how to use properly. I've tried something...--Jebulon 15:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp and some CA. W.S. 06:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp and some CA. As W.S.--Lmbuga 17:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 17:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Skanstull_Metro_station_August_2011.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Skanstull Metro station. --Ankara 10:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Motion blurred people, motion blur of camera (see the displays). --Quartl 12:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
    • A metro station is never empty, and has poor lighting. So either you'll have people who are moving, or you must use a very wide aperture and high ISO settings (which would affect the image quality very significantly). The camera was absolutely still, and was not handheld. --Ankara 13:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I acknowledge the difficult circumstances, but even in a metro station there are times when people are not all moving around or when they are quite empty. Maybe the blur came from the reflex mirror. Set to discuss. --Quartl 13:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I don't have an issue with the motion blur, on the contrary, I like that effect. But there's a lot of noise - which surprises me at ISO 100 ... if it's denoised properly, I'll support it. -- H005 08:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 13:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Amanita phalloides 2011 G2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The death cap. -- George Chernilevsky 20:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI for me -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 21:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB/saturation problem IMO. W.S. 06:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment Thanks for review, W.S. In a very dark forest young death cap sometimes has a bright coloring like this. -- George Chernilevsky 19:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Widely enough to QI --Archaeodontosaurus 17:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support per Archaeodontosaurus. --Cayambe 08:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me--Lmbuga 18:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me too --Holleday 08:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Cascada .jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cascada del Parc de la Ciutadella (Barcelona) --Cmr97 18:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality and very good lanscape --Cristian97lagarriga 07:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Sockpuppet. Jakubhal 15:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I like this photo --Cmr97 18:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not QI. Not sharp and lacks proper description. Jakubhal 09:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but what a blurred image ! Fandecaisses 17:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Olbrichhaus.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Art-Nouveau-House named "Stöhr- oder Olbrichhaus" in St. Pölten, Austria --AleXXw 21:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Perspective correction, chromatic aberrations and it can be more sharp--Lmbuga 11:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
    •  Question: I cant find any CA, sorry... AleXXw 19:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Answer: No problem, now you can see 6 notes. I think that it is better than others think: "Discuss" --Lmbuga 19:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose many issues add up. --Elekhh 02:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 12:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Cannabis sativa eden.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Un plant de cannabis sativa --Fandecaisses 17:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose No significant improvements since the last and recent declined nomination, IMO. --Jebulon 17:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, there is less noise than before. Fandecaisses 17:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I did not wrote "no improvements", but "no significant improvements". Let the others discuss, then.--Jebulon 17:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight--Lmbuga 22:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

File:0 Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekathedraal - Antwerp (1).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cathedral of Our Lady, Antwerp, Belgium (1352-1521) -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 09:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too much perspective distortion. --Yann 10:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support this should look like this --Ralf Roletschek 11:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the crop spoils the composition. Obviously it's a big building, but wider lenses exist. --99of9 00:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose because of bottom crop. --Ikar.us 07:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I like this photo --Cmr97 18:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
     Support Good Picture --Cristian97lagarriga 09:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Sockpuppet -- Jakubhal 15:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A bit too much cropped and distorted. --NicoHaase 12:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Steinen_-_Katholische_Kirche2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Steinen-Höllstein: Catholic Church (Church of the Immaculate Conception), bell tower --Taxiarchos228 06:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI for me. --PierreSelim 08:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Even for an evening picture, I'm not sure about the white balance. Please let discuss.--Jebulon 00:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 10:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good. --KFP 16:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 00:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Steinen-Hofen_-_Evangelische_Kirche3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Steinen-Hofen: Protestant Church --Taxiarchos228 06:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
If I make a small thumb of my other picture KFP told it would be better you see also a halo
  •  Support Good quality --Czonek 11:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see a strange halo in the sky around the trees and the tower bell. Maybe other opinions could be interesting.--Jebulon 00:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality. What could fit better than churches and halos --High Contrast 12:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --Czonek 16:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange halo indeed. Your other photo of the same subject is better! --KFP 22:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I looked, expecting to oppose, because halos are exactly the kind of quality defect supposed to disqualify an image from QI. But I could hardly see it, even at full resolution, and since the resolution is nearly 8 times the requirements, this defect would be invisible if viewed at 2MPx. --99of9 00:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ah, yes, I see it now, even at full res. Because it's quite a wide halo, I was looking for something different. --99of9 14:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange halo--Lmbuga 11:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • This "halo" is obviously an insufficiency of the thumb-software. This effect is verifiable strong at the thumb-view but not perceivable in 100%-view. --Taxiarchos228 11:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Halo is definitely there. Also full size on a 24" monitor. W.S. 14:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • you'll better change your monitor --Taxiarchos228 14:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --Ralf Roletschek 14:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ich sehe das Halo auch und finde File:Steinen-Hofen - Evangelische Kirche13.jpg deutlich besser. --Berthold Werner 07:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Art_laurent_marqueste.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Art, allegory by Laurent Marqueste, Paris. --NonOmnisMoriar 21:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose I like the tecnical quality of the image, but the composition is too tight at left. I can't promote the image, sorry, and I can't decline it with only my vote. I think that this is only my opinion: "Discuss"--Lmbuga 23:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
     Support I think it is good enough for QI --Mbdortmund 22:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry I disagree. Bad composition (tight crop at left), and backround disturbing, distorded and random. --Jebulon 09:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 06:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Ostrowiec kosciol 20071008 0913.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Michael's Church in Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski -- Jakubhal 06:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion good quality --Czonek 15:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
    need perspective correction --Pudelek 09:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yeah, this is a good picture (luminosity, etc.) but the picture needs a perspective correction... Fandecaisses 17:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment ✓ Done This is the best I could achieve with my limited skills. If you think it is enough. please rethink your vote. Jakubhal 20:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good QI.--Jebulon 21:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment the original version is better. Now the tower is deformed. Not everything has to be simple. Without the follies Gentlemen. --Czonek 16:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    •  CommentI didn't assess the first version, but I understand what you mean. First, perspective correction, that's ok. But second, little stretch, or vertical scale correction, is needed, especially in this case (see the oval clock !) therefore I have to remove my support, and stay neutral for now. Sorry.--Jebulon 23:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support This is a good correction. Congratulations ! QI to me. Fandecaisses 17:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Another correction applied. Please reevaluate your votes Jakubhal 08:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's fine and good now. Thank you very much !--Jebulon 09:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I think though that the version without the correction of perspective is better! --Czonek 21:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 06:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Chêne glands.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Acorns and leaves of Quercus robur, Dordogne, France.--Jebulon 01:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Lens flare should be cropped out, especially on the left side, maybe also on the right side. --Gidip 17:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
    • thanks for feedback. I'm not sure there are lens flares, but I understand what you mean, I'll try to improve--Jebulon 00:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done New version uploaded. I think it is better now.--Jebulon 13:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. W.s. 14:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --W.s. 14:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Bezirkshauptmannschaft_St._Pölten.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Administrative Building for the district St. Pölten, Austria --AleXXw 21:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Nice, but the image needs perspective correction and there are strong chromatic aberrations (see notes). To me, the cars and trees at left have underexposed zones, the cars of the center have overexposed zones (perhaps little important)--Lmbuga 10:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
    •  Info: I reduced CA and did a little "perspective correction". AleXXw 19:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)}
      • Answer: (poor English) The CA is better and now it's marginal, but there are a little CA. To me, the image needs more perspective correction: Discuss--Lmbuga 19:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment There's also a stitching error in the 6th window from left, top row. --Quartl 15:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
    Thx for the hint, I've removed the error now. --AleXXw 11:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Quartl 14:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Saints Apostles Peter and Paul church - Balgarevo.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saints Apostles Peter and Paul church in Balgarevo village. --MrPanyGoff 17:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Because of the disturbing cropped car, and of the strong shadow. Sorry.--Jebulon 19:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Neither the cropped car nor the shadow is disturbing the view of the church in a significant way. QI for me. --Taxiarchos228 06:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Jebulon. Also from a few steps further away the dome would be better visible. --Elekhh 02:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 02:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Taurotragus oryx qtl1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Common Eland. --Quartl 05:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Unfortunate lighting. W.S. 05:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I tweaked the lighting - better now? --Quartl 04:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --Taxiarchos228 13:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me--Lmbuga 19:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unbalanced composition with the light on the background. --Elekhh 02:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 16:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI Jakubhal 11:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --Czonek 15:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I am not sure, but it seems to me that it is tilted clockwise. It looks unusual to me how the animal is standing, so I gave it a try and found that it looks much more natural if it is rotated by -1 to -2 degrees. -- H005 18:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 02:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Castellane 8 Mairie.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Castellane, Mairie, France.--Dirk Van Esbroeck 14:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good composition--Someone35 15:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, overexposed sky, unfortunate crop, heavy ca and not sharp. --Berthold Werner 17:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Berthold Werner.--Jebulon 13:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 06:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Häg-Ehrsberg_-_Sonnenmatt.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sonnenmatt, quarter of Häg-Ehrsberg --Taxiarchos228 06:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice picture -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 08:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC) All houses are tilted to the right Tlusťa 12:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    not tilted any more --Taxiarchos228 13:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. (Please remove the little thing in the sky at the left edge)--Jebulon 14:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me.--Lmbuga 22:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 06:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Contax Tix00o4592.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Camera "Contax Tix" --663highland 12:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Andrei Stroe 08:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I'm not convinced by the DoF, and the background I find disturbing. It needs a discussion IMO.--Jebulon 09:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Jebulon I don't like the dof. I do not understand the reason for the shades and for the background, other background and light are possible--Lmbuga 22:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 06:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Rouen_cathedral.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rouen cathedral. --Vitold Muratov 23:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose The quality of the upper part of the image is bad --Someone35 12:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)  Support Quality is good up to the angel and as expectable at the chicken. --Ikar.us 17:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose Distracting street-car composition. --99of9 13:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree sadly.--Jebulon 17:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh yes, I was focussed on the quality and didn't consider composition. --Ikar.us 21:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • 3 opposes, decline--Someone35 09:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 07:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Guatiza - Lanzarote - J18.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Guatiza, Lanzarote, the Canary Islands, Spain--Lmbuga 16:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Blurry when viewed in full resolution, maybe you can try to make it smaller by about a half so it'll look better in full resolution --Someone35 16:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC) I think there is a clear consensus here against downsampling.--Ankara 16:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    Perhaps not QI because the car is disturbing, but blurry!, the horizon is blurry and the mountains are very far, but blurry?!--Lmbuga 17:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC) look left of the white citroen and the middle top left part of the picture--Someone35 17:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    Ok. I understand you: It's possible better image --Lmbuga 18:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline, as there are no other votes--Someone35 09:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 07:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Saab 9-5 Sport-Kombi 2.3 Turbo SE (I) – Heckansicht, 15. August 2011, Mettmann.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saab 9-5 Sport-Kombi 2.3 Turbo SE (I) -- M 93 16:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline The top left corner kind of ruins the picture--Someone35 16:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose manipulated number plate --Ralf Roletschek 16:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor background (bush on the top). --Elekhh 09:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Declined, 2 opposes and no supports--Someone35 09:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 09:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Bentley Continental GT (II) – Frontansicht (3), 30. August 2011, Düsseldorf.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bentley Continental GT (II) -- M 93 16:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Is this picture's resolution high enough?--Someone35 17:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Why not? The rules tell us: "2 megapixels is normally the lower limit" (1600x1200) -- M 93 (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
    • And the rule notes that 1600*1200 is "just below" the limit - but doesn't say if this means still enough or still too small. --Ikar.us 23:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
      •  Support If its resolution is high enough then it's QI for me--Someone35 11:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Promoted, no opposes--Someone35 09:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 07:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Steinen_-_Kloster_Weitenau5.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Steinen: Abbey Weitenau (today: clinic), detail of portal --Taxiarchos228 09:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Someone35 17:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose Composition nonbalanced (see note). Easily improvable. The windows show distortion--Lmbuga 14:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    documentation in this case is more important than complaisant composition. QI is not for "wow"-pictues but for usefull, encyclopedic images with good quality --Taxiarchos228 09:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposePer Lmbuga. This picture needs a crop or something. What is "good quality " ? The composition is part of the quality, and the composition is not good in this case. In my opinion, it is not a quality image now for this reason. But it can be improved--Jebulon 14:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
the composition shows the upper part of the door and the coat of arms. no need for improvement. --Taxiarchos228 12:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline, 2 opposes and no new votes in the past 2 days--Someone35 (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 07:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Gent300110_9groot.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ghent, view in the winter --Dirk Van Esbroeck 14:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Composition is OK but what camera did you use? The quality in full resolution doesn't look well--Someone35 15:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall bad quality, even in thumbnail.--Jebulon 13:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Jebulon: Jpg artifacts--Lmbuga 11:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 04:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Schopfheim_-_Katholische_Pfarrkirche8.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schopfheim: Catholic Church, figure of Bernhard II. of Baden --Taxiarchos228 06:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Not properly described nor categorized. How this pic can be found and used for a project ?--Jebulon 18:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
improved now --Taxiarchos228 09:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 Neutral Agree. Previous reasons to oppose have disappeared now.--Jebulon 19:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Czonek 20:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 06:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 04:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:0 Het Steen - Antwerpen (1).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Het Steen (Belgium) -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 21:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 08:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose sorry, but unsharp, CA and perspective distortions --Carschten 15:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Carschten--Jebulon 13:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support i dont see unsharpness. The perspective distortions is ok, 100% correction is a very bad idea. --Ralf Roletschek 13:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Carschten--Lmbuga 11:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline, 3 opposes--Someone35 09:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 06:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

File:QC_-_Ste-Anne-de-Beaupre.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Basilica of Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré --Taxiarchos228 08:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI for me -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 09:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposed parts, spot of dirt on the lens Tlusťa 12:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    (1) is the minor overexposure on the statue significant for this picture? (2) where is the dustspot? --Taxiarchos228 12:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    Note about dust spot--Lmbuga 20:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Question pincushion distortion ?--Jebulon 14:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support it's not featured picture candidates and the picture looks good enough and has good persective--Someone35 (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Ralf Roletschek 13:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Dust spot (I don't understand)--Lmbuga 11:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
sorry, but I don't see any dust spot. feel free to retouch it if it is so worse. --Taxiarchos228 11:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy sky and dustspot. Can both be fixed. W.S. 15:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The spot is really strange. Not a single grain, but a big blotch. --Ikar.us 17:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • denoised, dust sport removed --Taxiarchos228 18:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support To me now QI, I like it--Lmbuga 19:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support, too. --Ikar.us 20:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promoted, 5 supports--Someone35 09:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ikar.us 20:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Gm-belltower-0708.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pereslavl museum, Epiphany church under bell-tower. -- PereslavlFoto 21:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Composition: I don't understand the purpose of this detail view. And the window frames are overexposed. --Ikar.us 21:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    • The purpose is to show the church side. I will check the windows; seems my CRT display is set to low brightness.--PereslavlFoto 13:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I think is bad practice for the nominator not to acknowledge the opinion of the reviewer. --ELEKHHT 05:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Framing. --Elekhh 05:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Declined, 2 opposes--Someone35 09:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Plafond de l'Église Saint-Jacques-le-Mineur (1).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Celling of the St. Jacques churche in Liège. --M0tty 07:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment beautiful, but a greatly reduced noise, looks like plastic. This can be corrected --Czonek 10:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Don't know what you mean, Czonek, it's very good work - except for the chromatic aberrations ... Can you fix that, M0tty? -- H005 22:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very amazing ceiling, but denoising too visible, lot of CA, and distortion below (see the basis of the organ). All correctible.--Jebulon 13:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Some anomalies QI but for me and... useful --Archaeodontosaurus 16:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry to disagree, but the CA is VERY strong. -- H005 18:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per above.--Jebulon 09:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice image, but per H005. --Alchemist-hp 21:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have no reduce the noice... but too late... --M0tty 19:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Why too late ? Tu peux toujours travailler ton image et la reproposer plus tard --Jebulon 09:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)!
  • 3 opposes, declined. Even though I think it's very good for a QI...
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Alchemist-hp 21:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Corbillard hippomobile.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination An old rural horse-drawn hearse in a barn. Dordogne, France.--Jebulon 16:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Nice, but distortion. To me, the first right road is flying--Lmbuga 12:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't like the two zones of light--Lmbuga 12:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • No distortion IMO. The light is bad because the picture was taken in an open barn. I agree with you, I did my best.--Jebulon 23:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment The planks of the background are not straight (distortion IMO), but I'm not sure: "discuss", sorry--Lmbuga 18:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for rare motif. --Ikar.us 23:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

1 support, no opposes: promoted--Someone35 10:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Ikar.us 23:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

File:11-07-29-helsinki-by-RalfR-253.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tourist Ferry in Helsinki --Ralf Roletschek 16:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeThe visibility isn't really good (see the background). The ship looks blurry. --Someone35 17:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you're right, but I can't understand: blurry?, blurry?. To me, the image can be QI, where is it blurry? --Lmbuga 19:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough.--Jebulon 14:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Excuse me for my mistake. I was talking about another photo, not about that. --Lmbuga 15:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment the background should be blurred --Ralf Roletschek 16:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The ship is sharp for me, and the foggy background is very good. --Ikar.us 17:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support of course the background has to be blurry... Felix Koenig 18:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment Did I spoke about the background ? To me, the main sbject, i.e the boat, is not sharp enough.--Jebulon 23:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sadly nothing is actually in focus. W.S. 06:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? W.S. 06:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Rue Eyzies falaises.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A street under the cliff in Les Eyzies, Dordogne, France.--Jebulon 17:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Is the image a little tilted to the left, and too yellow? --Lmbuga 19:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The light was so (evening) but I can change if you wish a tilt correction ?--Jebulon 09:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know. I think that the buildings are a little tilted to the left, but...--Lmbuga 17:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • But what do you hope I do ?--Jebulon 19:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it's only a image, others can think:Discuss--Lmbuga 13:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it's not tilt, but perspective distortion from looking upward. Good for this setting.  Support --Ikar.us 08:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support For me its correct and QI. --Ralf Roletschek 18:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 19:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Peykan chaldoran.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Paykan in Chaldoran --مانفی 09:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 09:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose compositiopn not bad, but very soft (unsharp, JPG artifacts, bad details) and a lot of overexposure --Carschten 12:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Carschten--Jebulon 23:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 07:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Ram Raja Temple.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ram Raja Temple, Orchha, Madhya Pradesh, India. Yann 15:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality, but outside of the center of the picture the quality is quite bad--Someone35 18:02, 11 September 2011
  •  Support Issues mentioned not significant to me. I think it is a QI.--Jebulon 23:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Taxiarchos228 07:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Cruz de Tejeda 2010.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Cruz de Tejeda, eponymous for the surrounding village, with the Parador in the background. -- Felix Koenig 17:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Review  Neutral problem for the reviewers: the picture is technically nice, but the subject is ruined by the transversal wire. To be typically unassessed, IMO.--Jebulon 10:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    What's the problem with the wire? It is there in fact, I couldn't remove it before taking the photo, and it wouldn't be senseful to retouch it. Felix Koenig 10:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    The problem is the wire ruins it. It may be there, but it is still a problem. It's like taking a painting and smearing mud over it. It may be there next time you see it, but it makes it a worse picture. Mattbuck 23:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I don't accept that. I've heard this argument several times and I know that I'm not the only user who thinks like that. A wire which is at this place in fact and not only temporarily has nothing to do with the quality of a picture taken of this place. Nothing. -- Felix Koenig 07:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
     Support It's not possible totake the picture without the wire. I agree a wire that can be avoided should disqualify a photo, but this is not the case here. --Ianare 11:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Taxiarchos228 06:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Corbillard hippomobile.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination An old rural horse-drawn hearse in a barn. Dordogne, France.--Jebulon 16:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Nice, but distortion. To me, the first right road is flying--Lmbuga 12:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't like the two zones of light--Lmbuga 12:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • No distortion IMO. The light is bad because the picture was taken in an open barn. I agree with you, I did my best.--Jebulon 23:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment The planks of the background are not straight (distortion IMO), but I'm not sure: "discuss", sorry--Lmbuga 18:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for rare motif. --Ikar.us 23:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

1 support, no opposes: promoted--Someone35 10:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC) ---QIC bot incident: This picture was already promoted before the vote below--Jebulon 17:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  •  Support Tzhe distortion makes it interesting. --A.Ceta 12:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Ikar.us 23:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

File:11-07-29-helsinki-by-RalfR-253.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tourist Ferry in Helsinki --Ralf Roletschek 16:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeThe visibility isn't really good (see the background). The ship looks blurry. --Someone35 17:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you're right, but I can't understand: blurry?, blurry?. To me, the image can be QI, where is it blurry? --Lmbuga 19:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough.--Jebulon 14:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Excuse me for my mistake. I was talking about another photo, not about that. --Lmbuga 15:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment the background should be blurred --Ralf Roletschek 16:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The ship is sharp for me, and the foggy background is very good. --Ikar.us 17:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support of course the background has to be blurry... Felix Koenig 18:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment Did I spoke about the background ? To me, the main sbject, i.e the boat, is not sharp enough.--Jebulon 23:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sadly nothing is actually in focus. W.S. 06:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp and wiggly --A.Ceta 12:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? W.S. 06:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Rue Eyzies falaises.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A street under the cliff in Les Eyzies, Dordogne, France.--Jebulon 17:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Is the image a little tilted to the left, and too yellow? --Lmbuga 19:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The light was so (evening) but I can change if you wish a tilt correction ?--Jebulon 09:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know. I think that the buildings are a little tilted to the left, but...--Lmbuga 17:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • But what do you hope I do ?--Jebulon 19:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it's only a image, others can think:Discuss--Lmbuga 13:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it's not tilt, but perspective distortion from looking upward. Good for this setting.  Support --Ikar.us 08:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support For me its correct and QI. --Ralf Roletschek 18:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

---QIC bot incident, this picture was already promotted before the vote below--Jebulon 17:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  •  Oppose disturbing shaddows in the foreground. --A.Ceta 12:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 19:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Peykan chaldoran.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Paykan in Chaldoran --مانفی 09:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 09:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose compositiopn not bad, but very soft (unsharp, JPG artifacts, bad details) and a lot of overexposure --Carschten 12:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Carschten--Jebulon 23:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support It has technically problems, but the composition is excellent. --A.Ceta 12:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 07:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Ram Raja Temple.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ram Raja Temple, Orchha, Madhya Pradesh, India. Yann 15:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality, but outside of the center of the picture the quality is quite bad--Someone35 18:02, 11 September 2011
  •  Support Issues mentioned not significant to me. I think it is a QI.--Jebulon 23:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support What??? ``outside of the center of the picture the quality is quite bad``??? This photo is a QI with all aspects. --A.Ceta 12:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Taxiarchos228 07:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Cruz de Tejeda 2010.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Cruz de Tejeda, eponymous for the surrounding village, with the Parador in the background. -- Felix Koenig 17:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Review  Neutral problem for the reviewers: the picture is technically nice, but the subject is ruined by the transversal wire. To be typically unassessed, IMO.--Jebulon 10:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    What's the problem with the wire? It is there in fact, I couldn't remove it before taking the photo, and it wouldn't be senseful to retouch it. Felix Koenig 10:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    The problem is the wire ruins it. It may be there, but it is still a problem. It's like taking a painting and smearing mud over it. It may be there next time you see it, but it makes it a worse picture. Mattbuck 23:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I don't accept that. I've heard this argument several times and I know that I'm not the only user who thinks like that. A wire which is at this place in fact and not only temporarily has nothing to do with the quality of a picture taken of this place. Nothing. -- Felix Koenig 07:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
     Support It's not possible totake the picture without the wire. I agree a wire that can be avoided should disqualify a photo, but this is not the case here. --Ianare 11:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose would be nicer if the trees would be completely visible. --A.Ceta 12:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
    • What would that add to the picture of the building? The motive would be smaller and bad visible. Felix Koenig 08:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Taxiarchos228 06:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Tunau_-_Evangelische_Kirche1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tunau: Sacred Heart Church --Taxiarchos228 07:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Someone35 09:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
    1,6 ° cw tilted. That should be corrected. --Berthold Werner 18:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
    improved now --Taxiarchos228 08:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Jakubhal 09:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now. --Berthold Werner 09:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Schopfheim_-_Alte_Stadtkirche18.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schopfheim: Old City Church, pipe organ in choir --Taxiarchos228 06:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment could have been better if you photographed the picture from the front and not from the side.--Someone35 11:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
    • is not possible because of the altar --Taxiarchos228 11:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
      • k, I haven't been to a church for a long time since I'm not a christian so I don't remember how normal churches look like from inside--Someone35 11:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
        • I am also not religious, I have only historical/ architectural interests. here you can see the situation of this choir File:Schopfheim - Alte Stadtkirche9.jpg --Taxiarchos228 12:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
          • ok. I'm a Jew and I live in a Jewish city in Israel so I have only been to famous churches such as Notre Dame.--Someone35 14:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
            •  Info You don't need to travel that far. --Elekhh 00:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the edge of the altar and the big candelstick are ruining the composition, enough to put this picture in consensual review, IMO.--Jebulon 17:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Montfort castle Israel.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Montfort castle, western Galilee, Israel. --Someone35 11:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment The quality of the trees is very good, but the castle seems very overexposed--Lmbuga 19:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Reduced the exposure of the castle.--Someone35 05:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, insufficient data in the walls of the castle: washed out IMO: Discuss--Lmbuga 18:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 10:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:11-07-29-helsinki-by-RalfR-088.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Beach Töölönlahti, Helsinki --Ralf Roletschek 12:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Good composition -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 14:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The foreground elements are distracting. The white bycicle seems to be overexposed, the tubes look just plain and not round. The description "Helsinki" is not enough. But I like the coposition. --Elektroschreiber 08:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much blown highlights (rgb 255,255,255) and strong halos around the bike. W.S. 15:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 07:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Damme_Schellemolen_R04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schellemolen windmill in Damme, Belgium -- MJJR 20:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Strong CA in the sides of the image--Someone35 14:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
     Question I don't see any CA. Other opinions please. Thanks. -- MJJR 20:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
     Support agree with MJJR --Carschten 13:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
     Neutral I don't see clear CAs at 100%, but I don't like the detail and to me too sharpened: I only like the composition--Lmbuga 22:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Look in the middle left and middle right parts of the image, they're blurred with visible CA--Someone35 06:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support nice picture, good quality --Taxiarchos228 07:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I've changed my opinion. Perhaps a little blurred, but I don't see CAs and the quality is good IMO--Miguel Bugallo 12:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

4 supports, 1 oppose, promoted

  •  Support good quality and composition. -- Felix Koenig 19:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Felix Koenig 19:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Moscow July 2011-13a.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The State Historical Museum, Moscow Alvesgaspar 11:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion

 Support Good quality--Someone35 11:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose Ok but too tight at bottom IMO, see the statue--Lmbuga 14:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 Support not FP, but QI --Taxiarchos228 07:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 Neutral You're right, Taxiarchos--Lmbuga 12:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 07:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:14-Westkapelle.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lighthouse from Westkappele with old car -- Basvb 20:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC))
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Nice, but I don't like the composition: Too tight at top and, perhaps, at bottom--Lmbuga 13:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    See above--Lmbuga 12:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
     Support I disagree, it looks OK. --Someone35 12:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Lmbuga--Jebulon 17:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree too. Alvesgaspar 00:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 07:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Koolkerke_Pannemolen_R01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Former windmill Ter Panne in Koolkerke (Belgium) -- MJJR 20:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion The vertical lines of the door and lateral windows aren't strights, it needs perspective correction IMO--Lmbuga 12:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
     SupportGood quality, although some CA is visible in the top of the tower --Someone35 12:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose Perspective distortion: The vertical lines of the door and lateral windows aren't strights--Lmbuga 20:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment As the building is actually conical, there is no perspective distortion here. Look at the wooden frames of the left and right windows: these are the true verticals! -- MJJR 09:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see nor CA neither distortions. Very good picture--Jebulon 16:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Of course there are none distortion, just perspective, but the composition could have been improved -- DaMatta 23:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutralok --Lmbuga 22:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   ----Jebulon 16:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Acunta.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Acunta pass (Georgia), the Acunta pass -- პაატა შ 14:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood Geagea 14:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeNice place, but too much noise and color noise. Dark IMO--Lmbuga 11:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    Discuss (to Geagea it's good)--Lmbuga 11:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  OpposeStrong noise. --Ikar.us 23:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  SupportVery good obtained composition, the far mountains are very sharp and detailled althought a little noise sky due to maybe to the low quality of camera used, at ISO 100 it should not have such noise. DaMatta 23:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above Alvesgaspar 00:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? DaMatta 23:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Paris from notre dame.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Paris from Notre Dame. --Someone35 11:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline too much sky, square image would be better --Ralf Roletschek 13:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC) yeah I know but I took it exactly 4 years and one day ago (so I don't really remember much of it), lol--Someone35 14:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Per Ralf Roletschek. Composition does not work in my opinion. Let's discuss--Jebulon 07:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Cropped.--Someone35 17:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, but now, a bit too much!--Jebulon 23:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Ralf: Note that I cropped the picture...--Someone35 09:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support i think, a little bit more on the top is better? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The all image is laking definition maybe due to the crops and resaving the jpg? the front buildings in the shadows are out of focus, the only thing it seems is in focus is the partial part of the building on the right of the image in first plan--DaMatta 23:49, 34 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp, blurry and noisy. No QI. --A.Ceta 12:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 07:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:11-09-fotofluege-cux-allg-04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bell 407. --Ralf Roletschek 08:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support A very nice picture. Airwolf 09:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    cropped rotor blades bother me M 93 18:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
    I would like to encourage any subsequent voter to refer to any of the numerous aviation photography tutorials, which in general favour cropping rotors or wingtips so as to give more emphasis to the fuselage. Airwolf 22:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Airwolf's argument sounds obvious to me, even if I'm far to be a specialist...--Jebulon 15:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose see above. -- M 93 18:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support As Airwolf. --Elektroschreiber 21:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- It bothers me too. Alvesgaspar 00:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI also for me. -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 14:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Airwolf 18:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Bentley Mulsanne – Frontansicht, 30. August 2011, Düsseldorf.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bentley Mulsanne -- M 93 21:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Someone35 12:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor background. --Elekhh 05:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Taxiarchos228 07:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad background, the fences and the wheels of a motorbike is ruinning the photo, the line on the road under the front wheel doesn't help the composition too. --DaMatta 23:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor background, extreme crop. Alvesgaspar 00:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too tight crop. --A.Ceta 12:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 04:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Dyane Drive Classic retro.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Citroën Dyane --Monfie 09:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice. -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 09:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the white balance looks wrong to me. Yellow cast.--Jebulon 19:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done Color balance corrected.Monfie 21:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sky is blue now, but the rest still looks unnatural to me. --Ikar.us 22:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support now. The only contribution of the uploader - no front view. --Ikar.us 21:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support now with cmyk-correction. --Ralf Roletschek 10:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise. W.S. 15:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Carschten 19:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too noisy. I don't know why didn't see it yesterday... --Carschten 12:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor image quality. Alvesgaspar 00:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise. --A.Ceta 12:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 00:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Passau - three rivers 2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Dreiflüsseeck (“three rivers edge”) is the confluence of Danube, Inn und Ilz in Passau, Bavaria. --Pudelek 20:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment The vegetation in the corners is blurry--Someone35 17:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)  Support Never mind, good enough for QI--Someone35 09:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice and interesting view. Definately QI --A.Ceta 12:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 00:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Fuggers_monument_in_Augsburg_.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fuggers monument in Augsburg --Vitold Muratov 20:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Denoising too strong.--Jebulon 14:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done: Denoising are made weaker --Vitold Muratov 11:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks fine to me now, after rework. --Andrei Stroe 08:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Better, but not enough for QI I'm afraid. Sorry. --Jebulon 12:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Framing is not QI for me. Either show the people at the base or not. --Elekhh 05:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done: New redaction:People are gone--Vitold Muratov 11:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Much better now. --Elekhh 05:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry. Lookes a bit too normal with the people at the lower part. And the new cropped photo does not convince me. --A.Ceta 12:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Elekhh 05:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Schloss Unteraufseß.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination castle Unteraufseß: bergfried and house Meingoz, Bavaria, Upper Franconia.--J. Lunau 23:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Underexposed and high CA in the border between the tower and the sky. --Someone35 15:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • thanks for the review, butI disagree and want to have other opinions --J. Lunau 19:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (see notes) chromatic aberrations, unnatural colors, too sharpened, too much noise, tilted or perhaps perspective distortion, in shade, too tight at bottom--Lmbuga 22:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support it is a good image of higher quality. --A.Ceta 12:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Have you looked at the tower's edges in full resolution? Or noted the lighting differences between the image itself and the sky?--Someone35 13:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, overprocessed --Carschten 14:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 20:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Tunau_-_Evangelische_Kirche6.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tunau: Sacred Heart Church, altar --Taxiarchos228 06:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Difficult lighting conditions, but too much reflections IMO--Jebulon 07:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • indeed very difficult conditions, where are the reflections? --Taxiarchos228 07:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • At the place that make me say that the lighting conditions where difficult...--Jebulon 08:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I see back light, no reflections. IMO it is good for QI, but lets see other opinions --Taxiarchos228 08:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, "backlight" is better than "reflections". Sometimes (often?) my english is very bad.--Jebulon 08:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'd call it disturbing stray light. W.S. 15:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too much reflections. --A.Ceta 12:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lighting. Btw this shouldn't be in CR as all reviewers seem to agree. --Elekhh 23:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 20:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Bencini Comet.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bencini Comet 127mm camera with film. - Bilby 18:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Beautiful. Meets the QI-criteria. --High Contrast 18:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but there are several dustspots. --Berthold Werner 07:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice file, not perfect but very good quality --A.Ceta 09:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks - it should be fixed now. My monitor calibration has been out ever since I installed Lion, so it was hard to see areas with very close contrast. But I think I got them. :) - Bilby 09:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO good now --Berthold Werner 11:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality image. --Jakubhal 20:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 00:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

File:Neuestes rhein panorama von mainz-cöln 1909.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination interesting map of the area at that point in time. Not many like it. --IIVeaa 00:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment 124 megapixels--Lmbuga 02:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way too large, my browser (Google Chrome) couldn't even open it, please upload a smaller version so people can review it--Someone35 06:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry I disagree. It is a nice and interesting vintage document, moreover.--Jebulon 11:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 19:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • @Somoenoe35, see Other Versions for low-res version. --Vera 12:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 00:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Los Hervideros - Lanzarote - LH02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Los Hervideros, Lanzarote, Spain--Lmbuga 21:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment 5,616 × 3,744 pixels (21 megapixels), if you want I can upload my images with 3000x2000 pixels (6 megapixels). With 6 megapixels the images can seem better--Lmbuga 22:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I think you should do it... It will also take less time to load, and what camera are you using??? 20 MP cameras cost thousands of dollars--Someone35 06:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I've a little car, but a good camera (I like thus). I've two cameras. You can see the camera in the Exif data of the images (at bottom of the page): Canon EOS 5D Mark II and Canon G10--Lmbuga 11:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Discuss: 21 megapixels--Lmbuga 02:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality image. --Jakubhal 09:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support HD should be promoted --Archaeodontosaurus 05:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 14:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Marie-Claire 02:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 00:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Studierzimmer_des_Hans_von_Aufseß_im_Meingoz-Steinhaus_Burg_Unteraufseß.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Study-room of Hans von Aufseß in the Meingoz house, castle Unteraufsess --J. Lunau 22:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Underexposed and insufficient quality --Someone35 13:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • thank you for your review Someone35 but I like to hear other opinions. I agree, it is a dark picture but from a dark and narrow room in an old castle. I tried to catch the light mood and if you look to full size, you can see, all dark areas showing fine details, there is nothing underexposed! Please explain, what you mean with "insufficient quality. --J. Lunau 13:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • If any other reviewer would disagree can move the image to CR. Is absolutely no need for the nominator to do that minutes after a negative review. -Elekhh 00:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too noisy. --A.Ceta 12:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment good quality, nice mood, but I think it would be much better with some more contrast and brightness. --Carschten 14:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Dragon and Tiger Pagodas 07.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of a tiger on Dragon and Tiger Pagodas, Kaohsiung, Taiwan --Bgag 22:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The lifgs arent good --A.Ceta 09:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The picture looks ok to me --Someone35 11:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support A paw hidden behind roof element is a little disturbing to me, but nevertheless I think it is QI. --Jakubhal 20:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 13:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

File:El Golfo - Charco de los Clicos -Lanzarote - G13.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wall of the mountain. Charco de los Clicos, El Golfo, Lanzarote, the Canary Islands, Spain--Lmbuga 20:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality enough, huge size. --Coyau 22:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
    I disagree, the picture is blurry. --Someone35 13:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
     Comment You know that Commons recommends to upload large images. Blurred?: (es) Esta imagen sería 7 veces menor de tamaño si tuviese 3 megapíxeles. Con 3 o con 6 megapíxeles, no se podría hacer esa crítica: No está tan mal, pero es que no está tan mal con 21 megapíxeles.--Lmbuga 17:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
    Where is it unsharp, I can crop the image. The image has 21 megapixels--Lmbuga 17:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The whole image is blurry, you can try sharpening it in Photoshop/GIMP--Someone35 11:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

{{Withdrawn}} (Image with 21 megapixels) Soon I will propose the image with 2.1 megapixels and without another variation (I want to see what you can say)--Lmbuga 20:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
New version with 2,003 × 1,335 pixels (2,65 megapixels). The image it's the same than the original (21 megapixels). Unsharp now, Someone35?--Lmbuga 20:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

  •  Comment In the guidelines for QIs it is stated that images should not be downsampled. The original is of far better quality and I think you should not change it just to satisfy one person. --Jakubhal 21:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but this person has voted (spoken) two days ago, and nobody says nothing. I was not born to defend the indefensible thing: Alive with others--Lmbuga 21:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC) (with my level of English all is indefensible)--Lmbuga 21:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
No reason to downgrade the image. I would vote for it, but cannot promote downsampled version. --Jakubhal 21:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the version. Now the image has 21 megapixels, but I want that Someone can see the previous version with 2,5 - 2,65 megapixels--Lmbuga 21:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
He can check that in file history. --Jakubhal 21:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality image for me. --Jakubhal 21:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 13:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

File:The negev plateau flowering in a rainy year, israel.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The negev plateau flowering in a rainy year, israel (note:the sky isn't overexposed, it was a cloudy day) --Someone35 17:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overexposed and blown out sky. --A.Ceta 12:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info read the description first...--Someone35 16:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, it is no good picture. --A.Ceta 09:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the composition (random?). chromatic aberrations, I can to indicate them with a note--Lmbuga 20:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 11:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Fort_van_Beieren_R03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ancient Fort van Beieren in Koolkerke, Belgium -- MJJR 21:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality and very visible jpg compression. --Someone35 15:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support This needs a discussion, IMO.--Jebulon 17:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. --Cayambe 16:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Perhaps Someone35 is right and there are something: The leaves of the trees aren't realy good, but I think that it can be QI. --Lmbuga 20:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 Comment There are many things good in the image--Lmbuga 20:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 16:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Schopfheim-Fahrnau_-_Evangelische_Kirche1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schopfheim-Fahrnau: Protestant Church from East --Taxiarchos228 06:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Bad light, the main subject is in shadow.--Jebulon 09:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Supportwhy must all objects are in the sun? --Ralf Roletschek 09:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Who said that ? Not me...--Jebulon 16:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • -- Oppose-- the sky is a bit too much blown out. --A.Ceta 12:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC); I change my vote to "neutral". --A.Ceta 09:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info new version uploaded --Taxiarchos228 20:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The problem to me is the clear halo between the sky and the rest --Lmbuga 20:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC).
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 20:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Zwiefalten 28 04 2011 Angels 04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination An angel holding a map, 18th century, Zwiefalten (Germany).--Vassil 14:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Disturbing background --Someone35 15:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
     Support I don't think there is a real problem with this background. For me it is QI. --Jakubhal 13:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 Support Qi for me too.--Jebulon 13:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 Support I like the background and QI to me--Lmbuga 17:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Panurus biarmicus male portrait 01 (MK).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination male Bearded Reedling (Panurus biarmicus) --Leviathan1983 15:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality, but half of the bird is cropped and the wings are out of focus--Someone35 16:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
    It's a portrait. --Leviathan1983 16:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
     Support All criteria satisfied, in my opinion --Wsiegmund 20:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Jakubhal 12:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Eye is in focus, QI for me. --Ralf Roletschek 17:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ralf Roletschek -- Marie-Claire 02:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good work and useful --Archaeodontosaurus 07:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Also very good. --Lmbuga 18:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 13:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Dragon and Tiger Pagodas 04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Tiger of Dragon and Tiger Pagodas, Kaohsiung, Taiwan --Bgag 22:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Disturbing background --A.Ceta 09:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  SupportThe picture looks ok to me --Someone35 11:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support --Archaeodontosaurus 06:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 03:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Wieden_-_Pfarrkirche_Allerheiligen6.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wieden: All Saints Church from West --Taxiarchos228 08:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice shoot--Biso 09:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Could use some perspective adjustment but it's good enough now --Someone35 13:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose i'm sorry, the white balance is wrong, yellow cast IMO. Please let's discuss.--Jebulon 11:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support wonderful! Nice light catching. --A.Ceta 12:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support As A.Ceta. -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 15:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose yes, a bit too yellow, but the fixing of that shouldn't be a problem for you, Taxiarchos228. --Carschten 14:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support yeah! :-) --Carschten 20:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose stitching errors! Should be restitched... (sorry, leider sind sie mir erst jetzt gerade aufgefallen) --Carschten 19:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose now it is too blue (imho) and the crop isn't good (bank cut off at left). Maybe you can upload a version with the old colors and crop?!? --Carschten 21:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral oppose is too harsh. It's QI, not FP, sorry. --Carschten 20:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support a bit too yellow but QI --Ralf Roletschek 13:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • less yellow now --Taxiarchos228 20:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
      • ACHTUNG !! I was to change my vote because the colors are better now, but Agree with Carschten, this picture cannot be promotted due to the very visible stitching errors. --Jebulon 21:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

--But I'm sure the uploader will be fair-play enough and will withdraw this nomination ! --Jebulon 22:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing happens ?--Jebulon 17:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
No reason for impatience. --Taxiarchos228 20:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, a reason: as you are usually a very good photographer, a technically bad picture by you in QIC is insufferable, even for a short time  !--Jebulon 13:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Carschten: stitching errors--Lmbuga 20:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 Support Good now IMO--Lmbuga 21:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Stitching errors as Carschten noticed. --Jakubhal 20:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Now is much better. I don't see any errors on the church. Since, however I'm not very experienced with stitching I will wait with my support.-- Jakubhal 21:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info new version uploaded --Taxiarchos228 20:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support No more yellow cast, no more obvious stitching errors. I support now.--Jebulon 13:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 03:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

File:0 Les Gilles d'Havré (1).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination The gilles in Havré, Belgium.-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 08:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Cayambe 14:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
     Oppose Needs other opinions: CAs, overexposed zones, not sharp enough to me (see notes)--Lmbuga 01:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
    To have 2,460 × 1,608 pixels it's noisy IMO--Lmbuga 01:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Is it a composite picture ? Looks like if it had a lot of strong stitching errors everywhere.--Jebulon 13:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
    •  Comment Thank you. I uploaded the original version. Regards-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 18:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 13:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Roque-Gageac Dordogne Gabares Canoës.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Dordogne river, in La Roque-Gageac, Dordogne, France.--Jebulon 15:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Bad quality --Someone35 12:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Heu... Could you explain, please ?--Jebulon 14:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • sorry for not explaining: the people with the boats in the river are in bad quality when viewed in full resolution (i think it's called jpg artifacting) as well as the other parts of the image--Someone35 15:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Not disturbing for me, if present at all. --Ikar.us 17:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Have you looked at this picture in full resolution?--Someone35 17:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Someone35, sorry. --Carschten 19:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see a problem. Maybe User:Someone35 must clean his screen ;-) . Good photo and no technical concerns. --A.Ceta 12:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't know the problem, perhaps it's not jpg artifacting, but the quality is not QI to me (poor detail), sorry --Lmbuga 20:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikar.us. -- Marie-Claire 01:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Sufficient quality for QI. We are not in FP. --Archaeodontosaurus 06:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 Comment Ok Archaeodontosaurus, but there are conflicting images (images in the limit): To me the quality is good, but not QI. Evidently, I respect your vision, and I like that the image can be QI (es: por Jebulón y porque es un reto no tener razón --> (poor translation) because Jebulon and because the fact of not being right is a challenge), but not with my vote--Lmbuga 17:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 00:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)