Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 2011

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Tjeldsundbrua, 2009 09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tjeldsund Bridge over Tjeldsundet in Nordland, Norway. -- Ximonic 10:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support that looks ok to me --Carschten 13:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very strong sharpening halos at the horizon, those should be fixed. -- H005 13:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done Atleast some of those fringes have been removed now. --Ximonic (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support OK now, although the posterization of the clouds still is an issue. I think less light and colour tweaking would have been better here. -- H005 21:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Backhaus Helfenberg-2.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination The bakehouse of Helfenberg (Ilsfeld), Baden-Württemberg. -- Felix Koenig 09:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose poor lightning --Carschten 13:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    Bad joke? I thought the lightning was very good when I took the photo. -- Felix Koenig 14:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
There couldn't be a very good lightning when you see so many underexposed and thereby disturbing (especially at thumb) areas. So no joke, just facts. --Carschten 16:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any underexposure. It's inpossible to take a photo without the shadow, and I don't think the shadow is disturbing. -- Felix Koenig 17:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
It's disturbing imo and it's of course not impossible, take a photo at cloudy weather. --Carschten 18:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I forgot. A photo at cloudy weather would be very nice... how could I forgot that the best photos were taken at cloudy weather?? And of course the lighting is nearly perfect - at cloudy weather! I don't understand how I could forgot that. Felix Koenig 14:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, to me the shadow is disturbing--Lmbuga 21:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 02:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Murgjo Sharr Mountain Dog Nedi Limani.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sharri Mountain Dogs with Sheep ---- Mdupont 12:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Does not conform to the 2MP minimum resolution requirement, sorry. --Murdockcrc 20:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    •  Info now updated check new resolution --Mdupont 16:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Agreed, resolution is now over 2MP, I'm switching it back to nomination. Thanks. --Murdockcrc 17:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Underexposed image, but this is very easy to fix --Archaeodontosaurus 09:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
    •  Info Rtouched image now uploaded ----Mdupont 12:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Sorry but the subjects are blurry and with little detail. No QI in my opinion. -- Alvesgaspar 00:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noised in the heads of dogs: Poor detail where the detail interests. To me (perhaps only to me) too tight crop: I need to see de horizon--Lmbuga 13:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Quito Proc del Jesus del Gran Poder 2010 e.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Street procession in Quito, Ecuador. --Cayambe 18:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeInteresting, but IMO too much going on. Can't concentrate on anything. Sorry. --kallerna 12:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support No technical problem and that image is very rich --Archaeodontosaurus 15:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Plus very good white balance, no overexposure. Agree with Archeo.--Jebulon 16:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Carschten 15:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 00:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) (4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Two fox cubs out to play -- Ken Billington 10:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion Not perfectly sharp, but good enough--Jebulon 10:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose 1,600 × 1,200. --kallerna 08:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done A larger crop has now been uploaded (2,000 x 1,500). Hope this resolves this problem -- Ken Billington 18:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support another time, if needed.--Jebulon 23:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it. Perhaps the image could be more sharp. Good composition--Lmbuga 13:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok. --Makele-90 17:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --PetarM 18:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 00:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Kärsämäen eritasoliittymä, Turun ohikulkutie (kantatie 40), Turku, 11.7.2010 (4).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Kärsämäki interchange at Finnish national road 40 (part of European route E18) in Turku, Finland. --Makele-90 17:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Better if almost half of the sky be cropped out.--Jebulon 01:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Technical quality is good, but I do not know what the image is for. Neither does it illustrate the subject appropriately, nor is this a particularly beautiful or interesting view. Also I find the front area too dark. -- H005 17:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - good quality. -- Felix Koenig 10:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose composition not good: very ambiguous, unclear what the intention was. PS. sky crop would indeed help, per Jebulon. --Elekhh 20:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Echoing the comments above, unclear composition. The picture is in three disjoint parts: the sky, the road, and the hill; not sure what it's depicting. -- King of Hearts 19:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Elekhh 20:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Sanderling (Calidris alba) (6).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Sanderling has short stopover in Austria during circumpolar migration -- Ken Billington 10:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion Ok. Nice colours. --Ankara 23:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Needs a discussion IMO because of the grey disturbing thing in foreground (and maybe small overexposure of the back of the bird)--Jebulon 23:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice composition altogether! But: 1,92 MB, isn't it a little too small? Moreover the legs, the beak and the face are a little diffuse. And the stone in the foreground is disturbing. Sorry. --Bartiebert 17:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support: Despite the size and the "stone" (which appears as a shell to me), still a good image. -- H005 21:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 Question Such a shell in Austria ?--Jebulon 00:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 Info It's definitely a stone and not a shell. --Ken Billington 13:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI imo, despite the disturbing stone. --Cayambe 17:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Size is 4.3 M pixel. QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 08:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Bartiebert does raise some valid concerns, but they are minor and I feel this is an excellent image overall. -- King of Hearts 09:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Elekhh 20:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Linnanmäen Vonkaputous 4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vonkaputous in Linnanmäki, Helsinki. --kallerna 09:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Composition - too much uninteresting empty sky. Mattbuck 04:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
As it was an aesthetic choice I like, I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 00:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Per my opinion above.--Jebulon 10:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I don't like the composition--Lmbuga 00:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting use of rule of thirds. LeavXC (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Composition is a breath of fresh air (no pun intended). -- King of Hearts 09:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Elekhh 20:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Liss-Ellas mustard and Vika crispbread.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mustard and crispbread in stall.--V-wolf 16:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportSome mild overexposure, but I really like the composition and the warmth here. Mattbuck 19:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  OpposeThe "pole" in foreground disturbs the composition IMO.--Jebulon 00:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's a stall with roof and as a such it has supporters in the ends.--V-wolf (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The composition is good for QI, imo. More important is that it is technically OK too.--MrPanyGoff 16:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon. Composition is equally important with "technically OK". If is bad composition is not going to be used. --Elekhh 01:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad composition --Archaeodontosaurus 10:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support This is a really good photo! For me a quality image. --A.Ceta 17:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad composition--Lmbuga 20:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition is a little messy. -- King of Hearts 09:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline? Elekhh 20:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Monet - un bras de Seine près de Vétheuil.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Monet painting in Tours. --Eusebius 11:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Very good and useful.--Jebulon 15:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, but shouldn't the frame be cropped to ensurer it is a 2D reproduction of a 2D artwork (frame is 3D!). --Dschwen 15:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    •  CommentWho cares? It is not PD-Art, it is PD-self: I am the photographer and I choose to release it under a free license, like many other photographs of 3D scenes. We can make a version without frame of course, but we're not forced to do that by "legally technical" reasons. --Eusebius 10:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 Comment Indeed. The frame would only be a problem if the uploader weren't the photographer. PD-Art is for 2D photographs of artwork taken by third-party photographers. This, however, is a PD-old painting by Monet, photographed by a Commons user who releases his own photograph into the public domain. So, no need to crop. Gestumblindi 02:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, good point. Sorry for the holdup then. --Dschwen 04:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 03:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Borjomi's Park.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Nice photo from Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park in Georgia. --Geagea 21:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Unfortunately, NR has destroyed the textures of the greenery. In general compact cameras need to be shot at ISO 100 or lower for a good signal-to-noise ratio. --King of Hearts 20:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 Support OK with your comment, but it isn't too drastic to ask such technical requirement? It is only QI... Borvan53 (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't find it all that drastic. If the ISO 200 were necessary given the light value, then I wouldn't mind. But here we have a shutter speed of 1/100, which could be lowered instead of raising the ISO. -- King of Hearts 09:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon 15:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 00:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Green turtles at Black Sand Beach.jpg

[edit]

Yes, the shorline is not horizontal, as well as the canopy. But it is more a perspective effect than a mistake: the scene is unbalanced and not built. Nothing to stop the eye at right, left turtle is cut,... Sorry, in my opinion, rotating the image is necessary but should be not enough. Waiting for opinion from someone else... --Borvan53 (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The turtle is cut? It is not cut at all.--Mbz1 12:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbz1 (talk • contribs) 2 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Privlaka (Dalmatien) Panorama.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Privlaka (Dalmatien) Panorama --Böhringer 22:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose It's tilt! --Pudelek 13:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support it isn't tilt, you don't have a real even water horizon. QI for me. --Alchemist-hp 15:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 Comment I see water horizon and on the left is tilted! --Pudelek 17:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tilt is obvious to me. Should be easy to fix. --Dschwen 22:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If the image is not tilted, there are distortion. Rule of thirds: Too much sky. I don't like the composition: Too tight al bottom--Lmbuga 18:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 00:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Glenview Station.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Glenview Amtrak/Metra Station --Jovianeye 03:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment A bit tilted and a bit of perspective distortion (to me)--Lmbuga 19:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
See if it's better now (this is much harder than I thought!) --Jovianeye 05:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The crop is too tight, especially left.--Jebulon 23:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight crop (at left and at bottom)--Lmbuga 13:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 13:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Schwafheimer Meer, Feld Sonnenuntergang, CN-2010-12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sunset at a snowy field in Moers --Carschten 12:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, uninteresting composition. --kallerna 12:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you confound FP and QI. --Carschten 13:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The composition is part of the image quality. Yann 15:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 Comment Yann, of course. But boring composition, uninteresting composition and no wow factor aren't QI criteria imo, that's FP. Bad composition would be one, but if there's bad composition, please tell me what's bad. And if you tell me uninteresting composition is a QI criterion I know my vote decisions at a lot of the candidates here, e.g. File:Porto July 2009-10.jpgFile:Okochi Sanso32n4592.jpgFile:N Connector.jpgFile:Coral reefs in the Red Sea.jpg etc. --Carschten 15:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 Comment At least you should follow the rule of thirds for the sun. Better you could also try playing with the tracks on the ground. Yann 15:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 Comment so you mean yes, boring composition is a QIC criterion?!? --Carschten 16:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 Comment Agree with Carschten: "uninteresting composition" is not a QI argument, only "bad composition" is. The image could be cropped if you would like to achieve rule of thirds, so is no reason to oppose IMHO. --Elekhh 01:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 13:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Edfu Tempel 42.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sunken-relief in the Temple of Edfu, Egypt. --Oltau 17:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Dschwen 21:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Needs a slight perspective correction IMO.--Jebulon 01:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support It is not always necessary and sometimes counterproductive to correct pespective in a compulsive manner. In this case it would crop essential parts of the relief. Good image as it is. -- Smial 15:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Perspective correction ready, --Oltau 18:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it now--Lmbuga 02:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support for this, by Oltau himself perspectively corrected, version. --Alupus 10:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support now, with this slight enough (and not compulsive) perspective correction. Nothing essential lost. Much better.--Jebulon 16:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 23:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Práce s navlhčeným svalákem (002).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Working glass mould.--Juan de Vojníkov 11:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Noise is visible in the person's shorts. Denoising might help! --Jovianeye 05:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
     Support NR has clearly been applied already, and in any case being absolutely noise-free is not a requirement. I think overall this is a good image. --King of Hearts 19:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 Support QI for me ; but a caption in English is recommended --Archaeodontosaurus 15:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 Support No relevant noise problem. -- Smial 17:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 23:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Sjöstadskapellet december 2010.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination New Chapel in Stockholm.--Ankara 21:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • sin't it a white balance problem ? I think it is too "blue-grey"--Jebulon 00:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • New version uploaded.--Ankara 01:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you, better now, but not good enough, I'm afraid. Let's discuss--Jebulon 09:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Are you still concerned about the colours? Remember that the photo was taken at two o'clock in the afternoon (sunset 14:47) in Stockholm (59 degrese North) in 17 of December. It was also a dark day with low cloud cover. I think the image now reflects the natural light and colours of the day. Regards--Ankara 10:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    • You are not wrong. That's why I didn't oppose...--Jebulon 16:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose White balance isnt't ideal, but what concerns me more are other factors such as dull light, the tree hiding part of the building, the lines that go straight through the image. The fact that the weather was this way doesn't mitigate for the issues resulting from it. It just wasn't the rigth time to shoot a QI. -- H005 13:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's just not possible to create a QI for some subjects in certain types of weather. -- King of Hearts 09:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Elekhh 23:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Wall-038.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wall of a war memorial. --Bartiebert 16:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Good quality. --Dschwen 17:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose; overexposed sky. A.S. 17:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
A little better now? Please note there are possibly influences by weather too. It was not a clear and blue sky - not all through. --Bartiebert 20:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but on the other side, a wall cannot run away; I suppose that it's possible to shot the same motive to a more appropriate time. Imho, the upper third of the pic is still much too white; it may hardly be corrected by software. A.S. 21:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Remove the upper third?--Ankara 23:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support There is not any over exposure in both images. Please adjust your tft settings. Image meets QI requirements. This is not FP. Please do not crop without need. -- Smial 17:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Evaristo Nugkuag - Rathaus Köln (7177).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Evaristo Nugkuag, a Peruvian environmentalist --Raymond 21:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Ok. --kallerna 10:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Red eyes and exotic colors in glasses and black parts. --すけ 17:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per すけ. The hair (dark color) is messed up --Niabot 22:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support. I don't see "messed up" colors. This is an above average portrait and certainly QI to me. --Dschwen 18:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for QI at least red eye reduction should be done and I see disturbing reflections on glasses and skin, caused by flash --J. Lunau 19:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Saqqara BW 7.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The way to the pyramid of Unas, Saqqara, Egypt --Berthold Werner 16:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Nothing special; this kind of composition should have something interesting in the middle. --King of Hearts 18:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment 1st This is not FPC. 2nd The interesting part is the light gap in the ceiling. --Berthold Werner 09:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • What I'm saying is, it does not depict its subject well in that case, which is a QIC requirement. -- King of Hearts 09:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support solid quality. --Dschwen 22:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon 15:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good composition. -- Elekhh (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Well, it seems to show the way to the pyramid of Unas, and it does it fine. -- Smial 18:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 21:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Storfjorden autumn, 2009 09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Autumn at Storfjorden, Troms, Norway. -- Ximonic 10:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose oversaturated, chromatic aberrations --Carschten 13:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    Carschten is right but would be nice if corrected --Mbdortmund 23:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done I had some time removing the chromatic aberrations and also the saturation has been reduced in some color ranges. Any saturation wasn't added in the first place, but I think you were right about the bit too harsh colors anyway. --Ximonic 13:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support looks good for me now --Mbdortmund 23:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems to be a good and vivid landscape shot. LeavXC 21:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong  Oppose Oversaturated, us Carschten--Lmbuga 18:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Overexposed at left--Lmbuga 18:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
To me beautiful. Beautiful, beautiful, but not QI--Lmbuga 18:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversaturation is not corrected enough --Archaeodontosaurus 10:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be quite easy to go and fix if I knew which color is still oversaturated and where? I've desaturated it quite much all over already (I will soon make it just gray piece of work) Maybe I just desaturate it all over again. --Ximonic 16:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done Overall desaturation - still oversaturated? Before the doom, I would really like to give this photo all I can because I personally like it. --Ximonic 17:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • colors are best now --Archaeodontosaurus 09:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment The colors are at the moment indecuate to me. I would like to see the original image--Lmbuga 02:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The original is very close to the first version in file history. During the photograph it was very strongly a colorful moment. So the original photograph might look like ”strongly oversaturated” to people here. Yet the original pictures are also quite dark to overexposure the bright sky at the right as little as possible. --Ximonic 14:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
So all I had done to the first file in file history after the stitching of original pictures was mostly just lightness increasing to make the picture not to look as dark. Not much anything else. So, if you would like to make your own version you would as well just edit the first file in the history. --Ximonic 15:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I can not judge the colors without knowing the real locations, but in general for me a great shot in high Qualitiy --J. Lunau 19:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. Please add geo info. -- Smial 00:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done Location tag added. It was very diffucult to find just the right spot from the satellite pictures but I think I found it. Atleast I'm very sure about the part of the coastline. --Ximonic 00:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Ford Focus RS WRC IAA 2009.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination: Ford Focus RS WRC, IAA 2009. -- Felix Koenig 12:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Review Good image. --King of Hearts 19:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC) bad white balance IMO. Please discuss--Jebulon 16:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    You may call it "bad white balance", but the car was in blue light, and it would be nonsense to correct that. -- Felix Koenig 17:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Eusebius 10:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Trosky, věž Panna.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Castle Trosky, Czech Republic — Jagro 12:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline A bit undersaturated and unsharp. Not the best weather for this shot, unfortunately. --King of Hearts 19:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Not so bad. Please discuss --Jebulon 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose Beautiful picture, bat us King of Hearts--Lmbuga 02:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Nicht typisch für Trosky; Grauschleier über dem Bild --Ralf Roletschek 16:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Eusebius 10:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Ritz Cracker.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ritz Cracker that I just ate. ZooFari 03:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support QI - please does not photo of what has become --Archaeodontosaurus 10:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose Shadow and border does not look good to me. --Niabot 15:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me.--Jebulon 16:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I don't like it. Perhaps too yellow (or orange), but i'm not sure--Lmbuga 18:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The color of the cookie looks ok. I was actually pleased with the shadow, but others' opinion count too. Not sure what border Niabot refers to though. ZooFari 19:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm referring to this borders: [1] --Niabot 22:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 17:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Eusebius 09:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Bastion Valletta.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bastion of Valletta with the Hastings Garden on it. -- Felix Koenig 20:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment left side seems to be tilted/distorted ccw --Mbdortmund 07:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    Nicht unbedingt. Das Ding ist definitiv schief, vgl. auch hier, fragt sich nur, wie sehr. -- Felix Koenig 15:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose too tight crop at bottom imo --Carschten 15:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry, I don't think so. The whole bastion is shown. -- Felix Koenig 19:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 Comment Slight perspective correction applied -- Smial 23:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm not sure whether it is totally realistic, but good rework I think. Felix Koenig 16:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Eusebius 09:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Friedhofskapelle Bönnigheim-2.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Cemetery chapel in Bönnigheim, Baden-Württemberg. -- Felix Koenig 11:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Shadow in the bottom right is a bit dark, but good quality otherwise. --Dschwen 15:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose Underexposed at right and at windows, see notes--Lmbuga 02:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps too tight crop only at right, but to me it's not QI with this crop--Lmbuga 00:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good view, only very slight under exposure. Details in shadowy parts are visible. Please adjust your monitor. -- Smial 16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • die Schatten haben Zeichnung und können bei Bedarf auch problemlos aufgehellt werden. --Ralf Roletschek 12:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support good composition. Alofok 17:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Amphiperca_multiformis_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Amphiperca multiformis from the Messel Fossil Pit Site --Llez 16:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeA bit too small, too little resolution on the subject (padding left and right) --Dschwen 21:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The support is rarely symmetric, which explains the fossil plate of the framings sometimes unsightly. Fish is perfect. --Archaeodontosaurus 09:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Guys this image barely has 2 Megapixel and some of the space is wasted by padding. --Dschwen 13:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The space around the fish is very interesting. It's plastic, not stone. The fossilization of this field is amazing including extraction techniques that are complex. The fish itself is absolutely true! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Then go nominate it at VIC. This is QIC and the quality of this image is substandard. --Dschwen 18:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Dschwen. Should be centered. --kallerna 13:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Dschwen. Subject is too small and should be centred. Besides, reflexions are overexposed, although this might be unavoidable. --Eusebius 10:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Eusebius. --Makele-90 20:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Nippenburg Burgtor West.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination On the castle ruin Nippenburg, Germany --Harke 17:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Bad orientation of the light. Disturbing shadow in foreground right--Jebulon 09:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it, imo the shadow isn't disturbing. Let's discuss. -- Felix Koenig 17:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support light is ok IMO, shadow in the foreground definitely not disturbing. --Elekhh 02:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, your subject is not backlit, but the shadows are disturbing--Lmbuga 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose even it is a nice shoot in good quality, I agree with Jebulon and Lmbuga: disturbing shadows in foreground. (could be avoided by better crop, I think) --J. Lunau 19:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support If there is light, there will be shadow. Excellent composition, good lighting that enhances the old masonry, details in shadowy parts still good visible. Sharp, no CA, no blur, perfect exposure. -- Smial 23:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image. However, it could be cropped a little bit, to make the shadow smaller. But the composition is more important than that. -- Lipedia 03:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others: distracting shadows. --Eusebius 09:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support There are shadows, but those are vivid shadows. Real life landscapes have some shadows in Summer, yes.--PereslavlFoto 15:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support shadow isn't disturbing. Alofok 16:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Alofok. --Makele-90 20:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 21:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Henriksdals station december 2010.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Henriksdal station.--Ankara 18:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support I like it --Mbdortmund 22:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like those brances, the focus is not in the station. The right side is too messy. --kallerna 12:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 Comment The bus stop is of course related to the station. I was not trying to create an artistic image, but to show the place as it looks. The area around the station is messy, and when the image is intended for use on Wikipedia, it should portray the site as it looks..--Ankara 20:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Is a good illustration of a train station-bus stop interchange. The time of taking the shot is ideal (winter, two trains and a bus of the same colour) to make it look as unmessy as possible, although I think a vantage point from further right might have been better, to avoid some of the branches. --Elekhh (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per kallerna. -- H005 23:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The branches are quite distracting. Per Elekhh, a view from further right would be better. --LeavXC 22:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Standing further right would mean standing in the middle of the tracks ... I think this depicts the subject well. -- King of Hearts 09:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Kallerna. In addition, the branches and others are disturbing. Not sharp enough--Lmbuga 02:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 17:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • unten und links radikal beschneiden, dann wäre das was. Zuviel unwichtiges Gestrüpp auf dem Bild --Ralf Roletschek 11:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of composition, distracting branches on a significant portion of the picture, subject centred. --Eusebius 09:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per kallerna. --Makele-90 20:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 23:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Sean_Astin_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The actor Sean Astin giving a talk at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign --Dschwen 15:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Very good portrait! --AngMoKio 15:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
     Comment Less than 6 megapixels and unsharp. Let's discuss. I'm not sure--Lmbuga 01:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
     Support Sharp enough for me and already a featured picture...Letartean 18:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
     Support Weak support. The face isn't entirely in focus, but ok for QI (but not FP) IMO.--Ankara (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
     Support focus not perfect, but otherwise a very good job, especially for an indoor portrait picture. --Carschten 22:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Siřejovice, střecha domu.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Roof covered by "bobrovka" in Litoměřice District, Czech Republic.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality and useful -- Smial 12:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose See the detail of transition between roof and black colour. Image is nice and should be QI, however it needs more work to be QI. Not now and not this version. --Chmee2 15:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Chmee2-- --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Chmee2-- --Kyknos 16:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Chicago_lifeguard.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lifeguard at North Ave Beach in Chicago --Dschwen 01:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Image quality is fine but the guy with the DSLR is stealing all the attention from the lifeguard. --Jovianeye 03:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Uhm, ok, now we are really drifting off into the realm of COM:FPC! --Dschwen 20:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose no, in this case we don't drift off to the FPC. Composition is part of the QIC, too, and I also think that the composition is not good enough (the man in foreground, lifeguard tower cutted off at the left) --Carschten 14:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Carschten. Makele-90 20:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • So if the filename of the image would have been Photographer on a Chicago city Beach, it would have been fantastic, considering that I went out of my way (into the water) to include the lifeguard tower with the Chicago city flag, and an iconic Building (Hancock Center)? This review is confusing to me. --Dschwen 21:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In this case not convinced that the composition is OK (framing: left side of the construction and of the man standing there cut off; no concentration on the main object; random background)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 07:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

File:National Park Service ranger vehicle.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination National Park Service ranger vehicle in Mesa Verde. --Dschwen 00:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • schönes Foto, mach doch die Vignettierung/das Rauschen in den oberen Ecken wech, vor allem links oben. --Mbdortmund 04:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • {{o}} I can't understand your language. To me, good picture, but too tight crop. And the car of the right is disturbing--Lmbuga 01:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Sigh, this is not FP. --Dschwen 02:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Sorry, is not "too tight crop" criteria to QI when, in adition there is a foreground disturbing? It's dificult to me understand the differences--Lmbuga 19:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Ok, I only understood half of that, but a) how is this crop too tight? b) there is no disturbing foreground, c) the background is hardly disturbing, it does not interfere with the bright car at all. --Dschwen 23:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you are right. I will be able to learn with the opinion of others users, if I am able. Thanks and sorry--Lmbuga 12:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support On FP, reviewers may object to the crop on the sides, but I think it satisfies the criteria for QI where the emphasis is more on technical quality than composition. A tight crop makes an image more useful as a thumbnail. Vignetting on a 5D at f/9 and 75 mm FL is not a reasonable explanation; sky brightness variation occurs and is the probable cause, in my judgment. I don't think a polarizing filter could be responsible over the corresponding FOV and no such filter was mentioned on the file page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can't understand, Wsiegmund, perhaps I can't understand English. Is the concept of composition writed in Commons:Image guidelines? Why does the composition, in QI, have less value? For me too tight crop at right and at left--Lmbuga 20:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
But the image is good (perhaps QI). Only I wish to understand and I do not understand the explanation. The explanation, I think, would have to be present in the policies --Lmbuga 21:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Purpose implies that QI is a more inclusive set than FP. I find no detailed guidance to distinguish the two. In the absence of more explicit guidance and as long as the explicit criterion is satisfied ("The subject should not be cropped"), I will likely support an image that some may consider cropped too tightly. It is one component of five of the "Composition" item, which is, in turn, one of eleven criteria (please see Commons:Image_guidelines). Operationally, a QI is whatever a majority of reviewers decide. That said, I think explanations and criteria for QI and FP could and should be improved. Changes may be proposed at Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates. Wsiegmund 22:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I think (all users think) that QI is a more inclusive set than FP, but I don't will likely, habitually, support an image that some may consider cropped too tightly. I can do this if there are policies that express it--Lmbuga 00:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have changed my vote {{o}}: Too tight crop at left and at right. Not much, but the background are disturbing (black car at right)--Lmbuga 00:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps too tight crop only at right, but I must see the new image--Lmbuga 00:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality. Alofok 20:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO the framing is acceptable for a vehicle. --Jovianeye 00:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • New opinion  Support--Miguel Bugallo 23:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Car at right is not too disturbing. Makele-90 20:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Destroyed hotel in Srebreno.jpg

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek 19:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's really much too pedantic too oppose the image because it's dark (what do you expect for a lighting in a ruin??), blown highlights (omg, maybe 5% or even less are too bright, omg...) and chromatic aberrations, for which I need a magnifier too see them (just for you information: [2][3]etc. are all supported pictures)... Head-shaking and still a lonely  Support from --Carschten 19:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
+1 for Carschten's comment. Letartean 16:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aspen_trees_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aspen trees near Aspen, Colorado --Dschwen 01:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline The trees on the right-hand side seem to lean to the left - probably due to perspective distortion. - Till.niermann 20:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    No. Probably because the really leaned to the left. It is quite obvious (or so I thought) that this cannot be the result of perspective distortion. All trees on the left and center of the image are fairly straight. Asking for perspective correction on such a subject would be quite inappropriate. --Dschwen 04:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Comment I can't help it, it looks strange. Trees don't normally grow like this, except on landslides or other instable ground. - Till.niermann 20:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose Strong CA on white trees must be fixed. Also lack of sharpness can be fixed with unsharp mask tool, but what can be done at the right corner? Maybe dull colours could be fixed in raw processing, maybe a bit more contrast can help. Looks like the alternate corrected variant of this photo can be QI. And what is the aim of this picture?--PereslavlFoto 21:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  •  Comment Insufficient location ("near Aspen, Colorado" is too few for an educational project). Which a road, which a place? The photo is completely uncategorized. --ŠJů (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Added details. --Dschwen 22:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Philae Temple of Isis coptic cross 2.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Coptic cross and Greek inscriptions on Egyptian hieroglyphs, Philae, Egypt. -- Till Niermann 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion

 Oppose Excessive contrast or/and clarity. The shades are disturbing--Lmbuga 20:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 Comment The photo was taken inside a dark temple, with a streak of sunlight from the side, so imo the relief comes out nicely and the picture has a mystic touch to it. Any other opinions? -- Till.niermann 18:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 Support I actually like this effect. --Jovianeye 15:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 Support i see it like jovianeye. Alofok 17:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose this is not an effect: it is a failed photo --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 Comment In fact, I think these are the ideal lighting conditions to show the subtleties of shallow reliefs like this one. But thanks anyway for your opinion. Now that Opposers and Supporters are even, I'm curious about what others think. - Till.niermann 18:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 Support I think the lighting fits the subject very well. -- H005 22:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose The two shades are disturbing. I see some CA. Not perfectly sharp--Jebulon 17:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 Comment I think the two shadows help to interpret the relief - they make it clear that the light comes from the upper right. - Till.niermann 21:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 Support This technical imperfection fits the image very well in my opinion. -- ElHeineken 22:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 07:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

File:2010-02-20-kickboxen-by-RalfR-01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kickboxing. --Oltau 21:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Interesting and dynamic, but just too much motion blur and noise. Sorry. --kallerna 13:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, please take into account that the image has 10MP. Noise is pretty much irrelevant here and the motion blur should be judged on an appropriate scale, not looking at the image at 100%. --Dschwen 17:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support You can freeze motions by short exposure or flash. You can also express dynamic bei motion blur. In this photo the latter works fine, QI for me. -- Smial 04:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Poor framing. Alvesgaspar 13:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support per Dschwen. --Alchemist-hp 20:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support +1 Alofok 16:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support and the next German... Very good image, interesting and superb figure of the dynamics and force of Kickboxing. And I see no problems with the framing. --Carschten 15:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

all comments and votes under the line are given after the maximum time period of 8 days --Carschten 14:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Kallerna and Alvesgaspar--Lmbuga 00:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Jebulon 17:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much buzy area --Archaeodontosaurus 16:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 14:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Trait breton La Rochelle.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Breton draft horse (Trait breton). Background blurred and darkened by me--Jebulon 23:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Sorry, to me the horse is flying. I don't like your work with the background. The background is disturbing--Lmbuga 01:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Thanks for feedback. It was an attempt...If you are interested, you may see the original file (I mean: without manipulations) on the description page.--Jebulon 16:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    I can't understand what happens. I change "decline" by "discuss"--Lmbuga 12:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose Inappropriate rework. Background disturbing anyway. -- Smial 04:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose as per others. Nice idea, but I find it confusing. -- H005 22:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree...Let's forget this image...--Jebulon 17:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --H005 22:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Water_pump_1.jpg

[edit]

Edited version

  • Nomination Water pump --Dschwen 19:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI to me --Jebulon 11:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, are you sure: The pump looks tilted counter-clockwise. The corners look vignetted, as if a mask was applied to brighten the center. The colors look dull. --Gridnorth 13:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment No, the colors look realistic (too much flickr recently?}, the vignetting is a result of the open aperture to reduce DOF and serves to accentuate the main subject. --Dschwen 14:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support no technical problem for this picture: QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 14:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
    {{o}} Tecnical problem: Inappropriate vignetting. Us Gridnorth. The dark line at the top is disturbing--Lmbuga 02:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Kommentar: ich würde oben noch etwas beschneiden, die dunkle Kante stört mich etwas. Ansosnten nichts auszusetzen. Vignette ist leicht zu entfernen. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Grazas, Roletschek, polo teu comentario incomprensible. Pregúntome (a min mesmo) se o que debo é empregar aquí, nestas páxinas, sempre, é a miña lingua de instalación. Abofé que maior desexo por defender a propia identidade lingüística non o van ter outros, outros que nin sequera empregan a cotío linguas minorizadas--Lmbuga 23:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I think Ralf speaks Spanish fairly well (This was galician though, right?). Anyhow, check out the new GoogleTranslate gadget in your preferences! English is the preferred language here, but of course commons is an international project, so people without sufficient english skills should be allowed to participate in any language they like. There is of course no guarantee your comments will be understood. --Dschwen 23:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but my english is too bad to discuss here. But I'm no write here in Catalá, why you are writing Gallego? We can speak Castellano, english is for me too difficult. --Ralf Roletschek 08:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with the first image (The English is to me difficult, but I can be understood using automatic translators. If you write in other language, please, you must say the language in what you write, there are automatic translators. Thanks and sorry)--Lmbuga 23:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Das erste Bild ist gut, das zweite nicht. Ich hoffe, der Bot versteht das. -- H005 22:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Na klar, der bot ist doch powerd by Watson :-). Nein, es wird immer das erste Bild verarbeitet. --Dschwen 22:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment An exact location (the name of the park, or coordinates) is missing, no information about a type or manufacturer, categories were completely missing. The modified version was wrongly described (as a pump instead as a faucet). Insufficiently described photo can be good as a decoration but not for educational or documentation purposes. --ŠJů 13:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 22:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Stadtbahn Bochum - Rensingstrasse.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Light rail in Bochum. A.S. 22:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment - I feel dizzy... Mattbuck 00:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Good composition. --Mbdortmund 05:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I love the composition, excellent, but there's strong colour noise that could and should be removed easily. A geocode would be appreciated. -- H005 23:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done A.Savin 21:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per H005. Fixable. --Jebulon 17:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Lomer-Gouin-Traversier.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Lomer-Gouin ferry over the St-Lawrence River in Québec (Canada)--Letartean 16:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Noisy, no geocode.--PereslavlFoto 16:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Noise is no issue in this fifteen megapixel(!!!) image. --Dschwen 21:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Luminance noise is no issue, indeed, but colour noise is, and sharpness especially to the left. -- H005 22:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Well, I can't understand... you could almost read the licence plate on the cars on the ferry in a picture taken at falling night of subject you couldn't get much closer and still I get comments that it's unsharp. Plus it's a 15 megapixels picture... I could downsize it and it would look sharp and nice but I don't. Same for my other picture. Next time, i'll give you that instead and you'll be the judge. It's still a 4 megapixel picture but now you can't go and tell me it's noisy... I know I won't make any friends now but it's been enough for me. I think those are pretty good pictures above the standard of what is shown here. Thanks and have a good night. Letartean 01:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support imo OK --Mbdortmund 08:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Pour moi, très bon.--Jebulon 17:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Alphonse-Desjardins-Traversier.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Alphonse-Desjardins ferry over the St-Lawrence River in Québec (Canada)--Letartean 16:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Noisy, no geocode.--PereslavlFoto 16:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
     Comment Maybe for the noise which I have a hard time seeing unless I look at a 100% but I don't see any guideline that requires a picture to be geocoded Letartean 16:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
     Comment geocode would be useful --Mbdortmund 18:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support there is some noise, but it keeps within reasonable limits and I see not really another opportunity to make a evening photo of a driving object without motion blur. Should be discussed. --Carschten 19:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Noire can be reduced with software.--PereslavlFoto 21:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    Feel free to do it, if you are used to do it. Letartean 02:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    New version uploaded, better? Letartean 18:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    OK, half way done. Second step — to return some sharpness with «unsharp mask» tool, and the 3rd step — use «levels» tool to change gamma value. The latter will maybe make this image a bit clearer, or maybe it appears to be useless.--PereslavlFoto 21:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)7
    Followed your instructions for both pictures hope this is cool now. Thanks again for your help. Letartean 22:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    How about sharpness (i. e. «unsharp mask» tool)?--PereslavlFoto 15:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I appreciate the geocode (which is not required btw, although I'd prefer such a rule). However, the background is so distractiong that you hardly see the vessel, sharpness isn't the greatest, particularly on the left side, and the left crop is too tight. -- H005 22:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not find the background overly distracting when viewing the image at reasonable size. And pixelpeeping is just driving people to upload downsampled versions, which are by nature of substantially lower quality. This is detrimental to the project. --Dschwen 04:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose Per H005.--Jebulon 17:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 11:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Melbourne Old Post Office (Shopping Mall Interior).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Melbourne Old Post Office Hall Interior Donaldytong 12:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI for me. Makele-90 17:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed top. --Berthold Werner 15:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The photo would have to be HDR if the the roof windows were to be correctly exposed. In my opinion what is beyond those windows is of little importance, as the focus of interest clearly is the room inside. - Till.niermann 17:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 21:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Fairy ring on Iceland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fairy rings on moose in Iceland --Chmee2 14:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Neutral Interesting phenomenon, but it looks unsharp to me. Not sure, I need other opinions.--Jebulon 10:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think it's sharp enough in the lower half. But I'm missing something to make clear the scale of what we're seeing - something of known dimensions that is easily recognized. - Till.niermann 17:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The flowers provide enough scale IMO, and are much nicer than throwing in an ugly backpack (for instance). I agree the subject is interesting and rare, but I'm concerned about the unsharp upper half. --Avenue 13:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Giant Wild Goose Pagoda, 2008.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination The The Giant Wild Goose Pagoda in Xi'an. --High Contrast 13:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Why is the resolution so low? --Berthold Werner 09:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The usual stuff: cropped out from a bigger image, rotated and then cropped again. But the reolution is above the requred 2 MP - this was important to guarantee quality. --High Contrast 14:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok. --Berthold Werner 16:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too tight crop at top and bottom --Carschten 19:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Carschten--Lmbuga 01:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 08:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC))

File:Osaka Castle 02bs3200.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Osaka Castle in Osaka --663highland 09:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Aberration of perspective. Spots in the sky. The image can be improved --Archaeodontosaurus 09:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if those are spots or just near-blue clouds. Mattbuck 01:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
      • No, spots linked to dust on the sensor visible to the left of the first building --Archaeodontosaurus 09:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • For me, good image, but needs perspective correction, or the correction of the perspective has been excessive--Lmbuga 01:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Definitely, there's a strong pincushion distortion. -- H005 22:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The image is of very nice composition and exposure, even though I agree on the perspective errors. It's considered an Excellent Picture on the Spanish Wikipedia. --ElHeineken (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To me, perspective distortion, good image, but not QI--Lmbuga 01:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 01:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

do not touch, please! reinserted candidates for reprocessing after bot error

File:Schwalefeld pano stitch1-2.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Jebulon 17:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do not touch, please! reinserted candidates for reprocessing after bot error

File:Porto Covo January 2011-4a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flowers of Agave in contre-jour -- Alvesgaspar 18:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Slight anticlockwise tilt. Promotion upon correction. Mattbuck 13:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support--Too much slight for me. Lmbuga 01:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Could be better with a geocode, EV not sure, but QI.--Jebulon 17:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Seems the supports and opposes needs a new assignment? --Berthold Werner (talk)
  •  Oppose I'm not convinced by the lighting. Too much of the plant is too dark. --Berthold Werner 12:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Berrthold + plant not really sharp --Mbdortmund 01:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Mbdortmund, sorry --George Chernilevsky 11:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 01:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

do not touch, please! reinserted candidates for reprocessing after bot error

File:Staatsgallerie_Stuttgart_amk.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Staatsgalerie Stuttgart --AngMoKio 14:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I don't understand the composition, looks random to me. --Jebulon 00:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • It is a quite typical view on the Staatsgalerie in Stuttgart. --AngMoKio 13:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the composition, which highlights the gallery's pink handrails (which are mentioned in our de wiki article as an element of its post-modern architecture). The overexposed clouds are tolerable IMO. --Avenue 11:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose clouds overexposed --Archaeodontosaurus 20:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am sorry because I would prefer to promote. But I also think the overexposure (in the area at/above the border between sky and building on the right side) is not tolerable. --Bartiebert 16:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 22:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Peter Stehlik 2010.12.25 022a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Weiterstadt-Gräfenhausen (Hesse), protestant church --PS-2507 16:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support ein wenig CA und die Äste links oben würde ich entfernen --Mbdortmund 11:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Entschuldigung. Too much CA, especially in the trees, really. Bad composition because of the angle of the roof (?) disturbing at left. The white balance seems wrong (too blue) to me. The picture is noisy. It needs a discussion IMO --Jebulon 17:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have upload a new picture. --PS-2507 22:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but nowhere near QI to me: white balance way off, very noisy, low contrast, and still some CA. /Dcastor 15:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 22:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

File:South Melbourne Townhall.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination South Melbourne Townhall Donaldytong 22:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mbdortmund 01:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Something is wrong, the lower portion of the building is curved. --Ankara 13:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Good point, a corrected version has been uploaded to see whether improved image would meet the criteria of QI. Donaldytong 02:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
      •  Support Thank you. Very nice now.--Ankara 14:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 20:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Greyhound_Racing_4_amk.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panning shot of a greyhound during a race --AngMoKio 11:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline (de:) Zu kurze Belichtungszeit. Kamera ist mitgezogen aber die Beine des Hundes müßten doch etwas Bewegung zeigen, da fehlt Unschärfe. Google-translation: At short exposure time. Camera is pulled but the legs of the dog but should show some movement, it lacks focus. --Ralf Roletschek 23:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    Das Problem ist, dass die Hunde sehr schnelle vertikale Bewegungen beim Rennen machen, so dass man eine relativ kurze Belichtungszeit wählen muss, da man natürlich nur die horizontale Bewegung durch Mitziehen ausgleichen kann. --AngMoKio 15:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? George Chernilevsky 18:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Freudenberg-9014.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Freudenberg, Germany. A tailored/fitted version of this one. --Bartiebert 18:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Beautiful--Lmbuga 18:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
    • looks like it's just a cropped version of File:Freudenberg-014.jpg, so I don't know if it's ok that the same image which is just cropped should be also a QI. Let's discuss --Carschten 19:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
      • You are right, but I didn't make it a secret... My thought was that this new version is a more usefull format because there are less environs and sky. So I guess in an article the historic district would be more visible. But I don't know if there is a prohibiting rule in Commons. --Bartiebert 20:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment  Oppose There was a precedent where the decision was to QI tag only the largest version not the crops. This crop is anyway linked to the original which has a QI tag, so anybody understands this is a QI derivative. You could further emphasise this by placing a Quality images seal in front of the link to the original. Otherwise I think is a useful crop, as landscape format tends to fit better in article layouts. --Elekhh 22:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Can someone vote, please?--Lmbuga 13:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I vote  Oppose (after a contemplation) per my Elekhh above and per Elekhhs statement. --Carschten 20:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks. Now I know what I must do. I do not wish to vote because I am not against of the decision--Lmbuga 18:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, in my opinion, no need to promote this one, it is already a QI... Both are already very good--Jebulon 10:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   ----Elekhh 02:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)