Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 2012

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Erythromma lindenii - MHNT - 2012-06-14.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Coenagrion puella, azure damselfly in botanic garden of the Muséum d'histoire naturelle de Toulouse. --PierreSelim 17:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 07:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Species should be Erythromma lindenii. --Quartl 14:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment Confirmation of Coenagrion puella, Erythromma lindenii is not present in the south of France --Archaeodontosaurus 16:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
      •  Comment Erythromma lindenii is a mediterranean species and quite common in southern France. --Quartl 17:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
      •  Oppose temporarily until identification is clarified. --Quartl (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
      •  Support now. --Quartl 14:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Selbymay 21:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Until properly identified. It is Erythromma lindenii per Quartl and own expertise. Biopics 07:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC) ✓ Done Biopics 14:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you both Biopics for confirming the identification made by Quartl. I'm such a newbie on Damesflies I couldn't tell who's right or wrong. --PierreSelim 11:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info id changed in description and renamed file to File:Erythromma lindenii - MHNT - 2012-06-14.jpg --PierreSelim 12:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Ridicule does not kill, if not long ago that I am dead. The curator in entomology of the Museum De Toulouse (Philippe Annoyer) confirms Erythromma lindenii. --Archaeodontosaurus 15:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Having an opinion is not ridiculous, though sometimes it might seem so around here ;-). Biopics 18:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Don't worry, no harm done. --Quartl (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for quality. about ID: this collaborative work is the pure example of what I like very much in "Commons". @Biopics: +1 ;-)--Jebulon 17:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes; appreciating Quartl, Archaeodontosaurus, Biopics and especially PierreSelim for his willingness to accept opinions. Jkadavoor 04:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Brenthis ino, Violetter Silberfalter 07.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Brenthis ino --Böhringer 21:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Weak oppose A bit blurry. Mattbuck 12:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support May be; but QI enough for me. Further, this is a FP now without any oppositions. (QI and FP are different though.) --Jkadavoor 05:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me too.--Jebulon 23:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Tomer T 11:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Cape_Verde_Santiago_São_Jorge_dos_Órgãos_Bougainvillea_2011.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cape Verde, landscape with Bougainvillea. --Cayambe 07:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support QI to me.--ArildV 08:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose Messy composition. --Tomer T 12:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
     Support I like the aerial perspective. -- JLPC 21:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
     Support -- JDP90 05:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Train_ČD_750_near_Červená_Hospoda_and_Třebíč.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Train ČD 750 near Červená Hospoda and Třebíč (Czech railway line 240) --Ria 20:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 11:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Unnatural sky, lack of fine detail, purple CA on the left. --Iifar 10:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above. Tomer T 11:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Les_Herbiers_-_Eglise_Notre-Dame_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Notre-Dame church - Les Herbiers, Vendée, France --Selbymay 10:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Needs sharpening. Mattbuck 13:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC) ✓ Done Thanks for reviewing. --Selbymay 16:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    Well, it's definitely better, but not convinced. I think the focus might be too close. Mattbuck 21:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough, I'm afraid--Jebulon 09:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support. Lack of sharpness isnt big problem because of high res of image. So, good in whole, I think. --Florstein 09:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I cant understand this argument. Is it sharp (QI), or is it unsharp (not QI) ?--Jebulon 09:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Sharpness of this image generally conform to QI claims. IMO. --Florstein 20:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Jebulon. --Iifar 05:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support to me, it's sharp enough to be QI. Tomer T 11:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support as Tomer --Moroder 19:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Colline de Miramont, Hautes-Pyrénées, France.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Miramont, Hautes-Pyrénées, France --Florent Pécassou 18:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 20:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose Too blurry to me. --Tomer T 11:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too blurry and overexposed for me. --Alchemist-hp 12:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 17:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Expo-Zaragoza-España11.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Expo 2008, Zaragoza, Spain --Poco a poco 19:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion * Vignetting and bypassers leg cut, maybe you can fix it --Moroder 18:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    I cannot recover that foot and therefore tried a new crop, Poco a poco 09:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    Very nice, can you ad geocoding? Ciao! --Moroder 10:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    Not QI for me due to chromatic noise, posterization, and fringes --AzaToth 16:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 Comment I made some additional improvements, especially noise and CA Poco a poco 19:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Now QI for me --Moroder 05:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JLPC 20:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 11:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Soiuzpechat Kharkov 1.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Pressa/information kiosk on Euro-2012 in Kharkov. --Vizu 17:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportInteresting and nice composition, i think the quality is good enough for QI. --ArildV 19:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO the chromatic noise is disturbing, it makes the image look flat. --AzaToth 16:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Сhromatic is a normal... This is chromatic noise. --Vizu 18:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JLPC 20:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 11:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Frankfurt Skyline von Deutschherrnbrücke.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Frankfurt Skyline, Germany --Schlurcher 16:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very good. --Florstein 17:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I would want to have higher resolution for a panorama --AzaToth 16:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Resolution and size sufficient for QI, according to the guidelines.--Jebulon 15:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Resolution and size sufficient for QI --Ralf Roletschek 17:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 11:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Frankfurt Skyline von Deutschherrnbrücke 2.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Frankfurt Skyline, Germany --Schlurcher 16:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
     Request Geocoding otherwise QI --Moroder 08:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC) I added the missing info --Schlurcher 12:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 13:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Requesting higher resolution for panorama --AzaToth 16:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Above demand out of scope of QI and irrelevant, IMO. This picture is good for QI as it is.--Jebulon 15:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Resolution and size sufficient for QI --Ralf Roletschek 17:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 08:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 11:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Nantes_-_Hotel_de_ville_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Noon mark on Derval manor's facade - Nantes city hall, France --Selbymay 17:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. At first I was worried by the shadows but how could a dial work otherwise --Moroder 13:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the windows show a lot of chromatic noise and posterization. --AzaToth 00:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO it's irrelevant at 100% size --Moroder 07:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Moroder.--Jebulon 15:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others. --Cayambe 08:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 11:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Vyborg June2012 Petrovsky Bridge.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vyborg, Russia: Petrovsky Bridge. - A.Savin 11:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI for me --Haneburger 14:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not QI for me due to visible JPEG compression artifacts --AzaToth 00:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Nothing unacceptable to me.--Jebulon 14:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --JDP90 18:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others. --Cayambe 08:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 10:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Café_Santa_Cruz,_Coímbra,_Portugal,_2012-05-10,_DD_01.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Exterior of Café Santa Cruz, Coimbra, Portugal --Poco a poco 11:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI for me --Haneburger 14:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are visible purple fringes around peoples heads, decline for me --AzaToth 00:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    Agree, there was CA,now it is ✓ fixed Poco a poco 09:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Moroder 07:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me now. --Cayambe 08:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 10:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Bristol Temple Meads railway station MMB 46 220003.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 220003 at Bristol Temple Meads. Mattbuck 13:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Blurriness --AzaToth 00:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    Blurriness? It's sharp. Mattbuck 00:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The object of interest is OK imo --Moroder 08:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support--JDP90 16:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- George Chernilevsky 17:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 10:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Panch_Mahal-Fatehpur-Fatehpur_Sikri_India0014.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Panch Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri, India --Poco a poco 11:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC) PD: Re-nominated after improvements
  • Promotion Sharpening haloes visible all along the structure near the sky.--Jebulon 09:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded Poco a poco 13:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)euh...hum... sure of your crop ?? ( + noise in dark parts )--Jebulon 15:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    New try...Poco a poco 16:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Support seems acceptable now.--Jebulon 15:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    Chromatic noise— Preceding unsigned comment added by AzaToth (talk • contribs)
    I cannot see such a chromatic noise to decline this shot, could you add a note? Poco a poco 09:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    marked with a example --AzaToth 00:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any relevant CA at 100% size, maybe if you blow up at 200%?. May I suggest to increase contrast, just a little bit?--Moroder 08:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I did increase the contrast, I agreed with the comment Poco a poco 19:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Much better AzaToth 22:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 17:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Edible fungi in basket 2012 G2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Picked edible fungi in basket -- George Chernilevsky 21:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. Please add geotag :-) --Cayambe 08:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Please recheck visible species. Biopics 07:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • All OK with visible fungi. Note: this photo is rather about food. So, full Taxa ID for each mushroom not needed IMO. "Picked edible fungi in basket" far enough for photo description -- George Chernilevsky 18:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Misleading information is not OK. Not all the mushrooms in the description are also visible on the image. If you name them then you can as well be correct. Biopics 20:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good photo. the informations can be added by teh biologists here. But it is no part of the picture. --Ralf Roletschek 20:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support criteria for QI meet, no debate on principles needed here --Taxiarchos228 20:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support per nom. as a collection of different type of mushrooms for food. Hope a very tasty dish. Jkadavoor 07:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  strong oppose A friendly request apparently does not help here. The description is plain wrong, so the image fails the requirements for QI. If full taxa ID are in your opinion not required, then why do you give the wrong taxa? Biopics 09:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment You can simply tell, what mushroom from description you don't see in a basket. A mysterious hints won't help our dialog. -- George Chernilevsky 09:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
It is your photo, not mine. You are supposed to be the specialist on Ukrainian mushrooms, so you better recheck them all. For one I don't see any Cantharellus species in your basket. BTW, collaboration comes from two sides: one side gives a hint on how to improve (the friendly request above) and the other acts upon it. Comments as made by those two here are not helpful. Biopics 09:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Temporary note about one young Cantharellus added to photo. -- George Chernilevsky 10:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Now was that so difficult? I suggest you leave the temporary note permanent and add others for the rest of the species as not to confuse a casual viewer. Biopics 10:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportI've added a french-speaking description. I generally agree with Biopics about the need of the most precise possible identifications, butas an humble non specialist, in this case, I tend to understand George's arguments. What I see here is not a collection for natural history, but only an "impressionist" picture of mushrooms, as food. Would somebody ask for the species if we had here a basket full of potatoes or carrots, even different ?--Jebulon 13:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes and no. If the description had been merely "Picked edible fungi in basket", I would have had no qualms. But if species names of the mushrooms are given (as here) the image can be much more valuable, on condition however that they are identifiable on the image, e.g. with (permanent) notes. Biopics 15:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 17:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Marienkapelle_Seiseralm.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination House chapel on the Seiser Alm (elevation 2020 m.) Kastelruth --Moroder 09:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline It needs a tilt correction CKW, otherwise QI Poco a poco 14:40, 24 June 2012
    Thsanks for the review. I'm afraid the steeple is naturally tilted (maybe the weather conditions at 2000 m) because the buiding is strait (UTC)--Moroder 15:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    I actually didn't change my mind and was just awaiting somebody else to make a comment. Let's discuss, Poco a poco 18:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I uploaded a new version with correction of the belltower inclination --Moroder 18:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose white line in sky. AzaToth 21:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose white line in sky. And I'm interesting for the info: why are your images so blurry? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know. In this case probably because the focus is on the chapel but I suppose that with an aperture f9 with 18 mm at 10 m from the object, focus should reach also to infinity (it's just a wild guess), maybe the 18-105 Nikkor isn't the best lens, but now I changed equipment, what do you think? --Moroder 16:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I fixed the white line --Moroder 17:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Naranjaverdetandil.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Español: Naranja verde amarga, Citrus x arantium apoyada en el banco de una plaza de Tandil, Argentina --Ezarate 19:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed, compression artefacts. --Tomer T 11:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
I don't see overexposition neither artifacts in the new version --Ezarate 12:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Rock_Garden,_Darjeeling_15-08-2011.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Rocks at Rock Garden, Darjeeling, India --JDP90 10:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality; geoloc would be nice. --Coyau 13:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Compression artefacts, blurry. --Tomer T 11:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose as Tomer T --Iifar 17:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 10:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Coleptère noire sur un mur-06-2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination unidentified Coleoptera on a wall --Bourgeois.A 21:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Needs species identification (Scientific name). Should be written in description here, not only in filename. -- JDP90 05:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done 11:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unidentified. Biopics 06:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support we discuss about Photos, not about identification of plants or animals --Ralf Roletschek 06:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose until identification. Sorry to disagree, we don't discuss about "Photos", but about Quality Images. And a picture of a living species needs a (most precise possible) identification to be labelled as QI. Please read the guidelines.--Jebulon 15:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unidentified. --JDP90 16:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Biopics 16:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Ritsch-Hof_in_St._Michael_Kastelruth_Nordseite.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The farmhouse Ritsch in Saint Michael in Kastelruth --Moroder 14:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Unnatural lines across the clouds and spots. Retouching problems? --Iifar 15:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)*✓ Done Thanks for reviewing, yes. I fixed it--Moroder 17:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC).  Comment Lines are still there, they are going diagonally from the mountain to the very end of the left side. --Iifar 17:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    Pardon me, are you sure you don't see an old image from the cache, I fixed them, now I can't see them any more?--Moroder 18:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC). Yes, I'm sure (even open it in different browser), added notes with some unnatural line places. --Iifar 19:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    What are you looking for? Microbes?
    Deutsch: sehr kleinlich!
    Italiano: il pelo nell'uovo?
    . Have a good night I hope with better things to do. --Moroder 22:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC). Ah, I forgot to tell you:"The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection" --Moroder 22:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC).
  •  Oppose This image is not QI to me (retouching problems). If you disagree, take it to the CR. --Iifar 05:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeLine residues per Iifar. Biopics 12:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Biopics 12:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Vyborg June2012 Old Sorvali Cemetery 02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vyborg, Russia: old Sorvali Cemetery. - A.Savin 12:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose insufficient DOF, bad flash lighting --AzaToth 16:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Opinion I don't think so. - A.Savin 12:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Biopics 13:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Brasserie 't Paviljoen.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Restaurant in Donk, Berlare. Cultural property. --DimiTalen 09:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 17:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the noise in the sky should be taken care of before promotion --AzaToth 00:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Fixed. DimiTalen 06:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI now. -- JLPC 21:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Biopics 08:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Estatua_de_Juan_III_de_Portugal,_Universidad_de_Coímbra,_Portugal,_2012-05-10,_DD_25.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of John III of Portugal, Coimbra, Portugal --Poco a poco 14:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose overprocessed; the background looks like a painting --AzaToth 00:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support My opinion is different enough to put this picture in CR.--Jebulon 16:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    Note: there was some dust, I cleaned it, increased sharpness and reframed the picture Poco a poco 18:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Better now. -- JLPC 21:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Biopics 12:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Boeing_747-4Q8_-_Virgin_Atlantic_Airways_(G-VFAB).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Boeing 747-4Q8 - Virgin Atlantic Airways (G-VFAB) --Eluveitie 09:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too tight crop. Please let the poor thing breathe! -- Alvesgaspar 09:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Better now?--Eluveitie 10:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the image has other issues: extensive white fringing (due to sharpening?) and not sharp enough in some areas. Alvesgaspar 13:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Biopics 08:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

File:The Sawtooth Mountains.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sawtooth Range, Idaho --Fredlyfish4 23:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very good! DimiTalen 06:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Left part too blue and unsharp, sky noisy and partly overexposed, trees very dark; let's discuss --Llez 08:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose the sky has low quality. --Iifar 10:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Biopics 11:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Wallrafplatz.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cologne's Wallraf Square with cathedral. - A.Savin 11:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice composition --Haneburger 14:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are some motion blurs which makes the cathedral totally blurry. I would say decline --AzaToth 00:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per AzaToth. Biopics 12:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Biopics 12:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Innsbruck_-_Innufer2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Innsbruck: Inn River --Taxiarchos228 06:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Needs a perspective correction at the left side. Will change my vote once the correction will have been made. --Cayambe 12:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)  Support after perspective correction. --Cayambe (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support For me the picture is a QI, I don't see need for perspective correchtion --Haneburger 14:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral For me it would help, at no cost --Moroder 08:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose It looks easy to fix. I will change my vote after that. --Iifar 17:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 17:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 07:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Crocosmia_lucifer_FR_2012.jpg

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination : no better file to upload. -- JLPC 21:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 14:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sare_Fronton_2012.jpg

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination -- JLPC 21:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 13:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Allamanda cathartica MHNT.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fruit of Allamanda cathartica --Archaeodontosaurus 16:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose there is a dark gray 1px line at the top --AzaToth 20:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I missed it was up to me :) --AzaToth 16:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you it was hard to see. Correction made. --Archaeodontosaurus 05:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK now. -- Jkadavoor 13:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. May I say that it is not very "fair" nor polite nor collaborative to "decline" a picture for such a reason ? When the flaw is correctible, or the quality improvable, a simple message (even on the talk page of the uploader) is more kind and more useful. QI is not a "contest" for beautiful pictures, but a common way to offer better images for users and projects. Only my opinion.--Jebulon 13:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I think it is not a matter of fair but of 48 hrs time to react. In this case (Archaeodontosaurus) is a regular user who would have noticed. In other cases some users would not acknowledge such a hint or not frequent QIC so often, and then the 'problematic' image would pass without fixing. CR is not a punishment. It is a holding area for improvement/dicussion IMO. Now that the image is fixed it is up to AzaToth of course to retract his opposition (or not). Biopics 15:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
      •  Comment Jebulon is right, we have templates like {{comment}}, {{question}} or {{request}} that should be used in these cases. Opposing is just too strong. The person who nominates a picture should check this page from time to time, not every hour, but maybe two days later is advisable, just in case there are requests. --Kadellar 11:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes indeed. But especially in this case, I have to admit that Biopics is not absolutely wrong, after reflexion. An "oppose" vote was the unique way to prevent the quick promotion of a non perfect picture, and to obtain a correction. But now that the image is fixed it is up to AzaToth etc etc...--Jebulon 13:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
          • The issue is with the QIC helper. It has only two options, promote or decline. We have to manually write the HTML if we prefer other options. (There are other issues too. If we promote a nomination with some comments, the comment is simply ignored at least in the preview. We have to add manually the br tag etc. Horrible to me.) -- Jkadavoor 07:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 09:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Ledra_Palace_-_façade.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Ledra Palace Hotel. --SalopianJames 14:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Noisy, strong reflexion, suboptimal crop --Poco a poco 19:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The crop and position of the reflection are, I'm afraid, unavoidable, as to my back and either side of the driveway is the UN Buffer Zone, from which photographs are not permitted, severely limiting the shooting positions available. SalopianJames 09:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco a poco --Archaeodontosaurus 17:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, + too strong perspective distortion, IMO. --Jebulon 13:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 14:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Kapelle_Drocker-Hof_Kastelruth_Schlern.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination House chapel in St. Oswald Kastelruth --Moroder 12:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose motion blur (shaky camera or bad stitching) --AzaToth 17:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for reviewing. You are right it is a stiching problem with multiple exposure. I use a tripod but the wind shakes the leaves. Do you think the motion artifacts are too bad for the picture to be QI? If you don't mind I put it on CR :-) --Moroder 21:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 14:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:LovelandDamByPhilKonstantin.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Photo of Loveland Dam from a helicopter --Philkon 12:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Bad filename --AzaToth 00:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good Image, QI --Ralf Roletschek 16:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacking details. Filename is OK IMO. Biopics 15:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise and lack of sharpness Poco a poco 08:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 07:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Potsdamer Platz - Park Kolonnaden and Bahn Tower.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Potsdamer Platz, Berlin - Park Kollonaden and Bahn Tower --Pudelek 20:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose over sharpened --AzaToth 21:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I disagree, move to discuss --Pudelek 11:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good --Moroder 12:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am not sure of this is over sharpened but there is a strong pixalisation visible --Taxiarchos228 15:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 07:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:470_auf_der_Außenalster.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Deutsch: Segelboot der 470er Klasse auf der Außenalster --An-d 18:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. - auch wenns mir zu viel Tärfenschiefe ist. --Ralf Roletschek 09:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA on main object. Biopics 13:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    • i try to fix it - best regards --An-d 15:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support as already said --Taxiarchos228 20:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 07:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Angoulême_Armoiries_2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Upper part of the former post-office (ca 1900), carved and adorned peculiarly with the town coat of arms and latin motto. Angoulême, France. --JLPC 19:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose chromatic noise + overprocessed --AzaToth 16:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Needs a discussion IMO--Jebulon 17:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • New file uploaded. What about it ? -- JLPC 08:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful --Moroder 13:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support now. --Cayambe 09:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 09:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

File:12-06-05-aut-rom-freundschaftsspiel-468.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Exhibition game Austria vs. Romania at 5st. June 2012 --Ralf Roletschek 17:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Nice, but the cut at left is a bit unfortunate. For the encyclopedia, who are these men ? --Jebulon 17:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Commons isn't a encyclopedia, my main space is Wikiversity. --Ralf Roletschek 19:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC) It is just a question, in order to feed wikipedia if needed...--Jebulon 19:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)these are the referees and a ball boy at a football match --Ralf Roletschek 20:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Maybe you could identify the names of the three referees ?--Jebulon 22:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC).
    OK identifyed. --Ralf Roletschek 07:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC). Thank you !--Jebulon 15:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Is the tight crop at left improvable ?--Jebulon 23:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)this is original, without crop.--Ralf Roletschek 10:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)I'm embarrassed with this (fine) picture. I wont oppose, because it is a nice, sharp and interesting picture. But the little maladjustment of the framing at left prevents me for a support vote. I remain  Neutral, sorry. Maybe somebody else could decide ?--Jebulon 15:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    Unfortunate crop; but difficult to reproduce (IMO); so  Support. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Commentunsigned vote... Please correct...--Jebulon 17:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks; sign added. Jkadavoor 07:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop is unfortunate. Biopics 11:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Biopics, although quality is good, a pity Poco a poco 08:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info it isn't cropped. --Ralf Roletschek 15:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • We mean "cut". It can be accidental cut at the time of capturing. -- Jkadavoor 07:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Poco a poco 08:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Fußballländerspiel Österreich-Ukraine (01.06.2012) Kameramann3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination camera operator at Exhibition game Austria vs. Ukraine at 1st. June 2012 --Taxiarchos228 11:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline :
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 13:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy. Biopics 07:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
reduced --Taxiarchos228 20:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is not sharp enough, sorry Poco a poco 08:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Poco a poco 08:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Col_Peyresourde_4x4_berger_2009.jpg

[edit]

File:Cladonia coniocraea - gewöhliche Säulenflechte - Hesse - Germany - 02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lichen Cladonia coniocraea. --NorbertNagel 16:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI to me. -- JLPC 17:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Should have higher depth of field --AzaToth 13:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me --Archaeodontosaurus 05:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jkadavoor 08:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 14:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Kenilworth Castle MMB 20.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kenilworth Castle. Mattbuck 12:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I don't like the trees on the left blocking the building --AzaToth 13:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I thought the trees added to it. Mattbuck 21:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good to me. What we "like" is not the matter here, it is an irrelevant reason to decline. @Mattbuck: Is it "the" Kenilworth castle of the novel by Water Scott ?--Jebulon 13:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    Well, this is the new gatehouse, the actual castle bit is rather more ruined. And I assume so, I don't know the novel in question. Mattbuck 13:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as I already argued, wondrously Jebulon removed my first voting, very strange --Taxiarchos228 13:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Very strange indeed. I really don't understand what happened, because I was assessing another picture when the issue merged. I am truly sorry if I made a mistake or a wrong action. To be complete, Taxiarchos' first assessment was: "{o} too dark, suboptimal composition". Sorry again.--Jebulon 09:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 14:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Nailsea and Backwell railway station MMB 66 43384.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 43384 at Nailsea & Backwell. Mattbuck 12:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient title, as the image is not showing the station --AzaToth 13:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You are really rather overzealous with your title declines. I title things primarily based on where they were taken, so this photo was taken at Nailsea and Backwell station. By any reasonable standard, my naming is fine. Mattbuck 21:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh, and that bit on the right is the end of the platform. Mattbuck 13:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
      • COM:QIC says "have a meaningful title and description", and while the description is sufficient (though a bit short and technical), the title is not enough per my interpretation of meaningful, as it's only refereeing to the point of origin of the photographer, not the actual subject of the image (If I where to take an image of the moon, could I call the image "Earth.jpg"?) AzaToth 14:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Title is Nailsea and Backwell railway station MMB 66 43384.jpg. This is the 66th photo I have uploaded of Nailsea & Backwell, and it's of loco 43384. Per general consensus of people interested in railways on wiki, the station is the platforms plus the bits of track related to it, for instance the bits you can see from the station. You are being petty. Mattbuck 15:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
          • The title must be comprehensible for laymen as well, and not just for enthusiasts. AzaToth 17:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
            • I find my title perfectly comprehensible: it is a photo of/from Nailsea & Backwell. If someone wants to know more, they go and read the description. Mattbuck 19:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 14:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Holzstatue_St._Magdalena_Kirche_Tagusens_Kastelruth.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue possibly of Saint Matthew in the church of Mary Magdalena Kastelruth by sculptor Josef Konrad Wieser (1693-1760) --Moroder 18:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 19:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree, blotchy noise --AzaToth 21:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
     Support --JDP90 16:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
     Support --Archaeodontosaurus 17:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 14:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Nottingham railway station MMB 41.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nottingham station. Mattbuck 12:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I don't see any railway station in that image --AzaToth 00:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    The station is behind the camera, this is the western throat. Mattbuck 13:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • good Image,  Support for QI --Ralf Roletschek 16:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

 Support --JDP90 16:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  •  Oppose lacking expressiveness to be QI. --Taxiarchos228 18:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
    Expressiveness? This is QI, not FP. Pictures don't need to be "wow", they just need to be good quality. Mattbuck 21:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
    I didn't said here is missing wow. This is your wrong interpretation of my words. One requirement of QI is the value, here I can't see any value. --Taxiarchos228 22:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jebulon 12:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support No technical problem for this picture --Archaeodontosaurus 15:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support as Archaeodontosaurus. Biopics 15:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 12:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Apis milifera on Centaurea-06-2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Apidae on Centaurea jacea --Bourgeois.A 21:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Needs species identification (Scientific name). Should be written in description here, not only in filename. -- JDP90 05:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done 11:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportLooks fine. Mattbuck 00:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unidentified. Biopics 06:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    Identified now Bourgeois.A 21:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support now as Centaurea jacea, flower. Jkadavoor 04:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 14:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Lörrach-Hauingen_-_Pfarrhaus2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hauingen: front door of rectory --Taxiarchos228 07:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Overexposed. --Mattbuck 13:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't see overexposed parts --Taxiarchos228 18:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed. Biopics 08:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support i dont see any overexposed parts. Gray is no 100% white --Ralf Roletschek 13:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment in fact the wall is very close to white colour, this is for sure not overexposed, especially there is structure visible --Taxiarchos228 13:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality is fine. I cannot see overexposed parts. And I use a calibrated monitor. The white wall is structured. --Steschke 14:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Good for QI.--S. F. B. Morse 10:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - I apologise for my previous vote. I was on my parents' PC, and it looked overexposed. Back on my own one, it seems fine. Mattbuck 11:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Cerithium_vulgatum_02.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Shell of a Common Cerith, Cerithium vulgatum --Llez 04:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose You may have wanted to clean the shell first (dirt, lint). Unless of course you wanted it to be dirty, as the picture itself is fine. ;-). Biopics 08:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment You admit that "the picture itself is fine". Why do you oppose? Do we assess the quality of pictures or the presence of some "dirt" (which is not always removable) on a natural object? Please have also a look on your own shell pictures, e.g. [1], [2], why was it not necessary to clean them, whereas here you insist on cleaning? ;-) --Llez 21:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Images meets QI criteria --Taxiarchos228 22:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture -- George Chernilevsky 08:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support with -- Jkadavoor 08:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JDP90 17:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support useful image; good quality --High Contrast 15:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Elephantopus_scaber_by_kadavoor.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Taxiarchos228 14:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skaven_-_Strand.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Skaven: lifebelt at beach --Taxiarchos228 06:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 16:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted and haloes. Biopics 12:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I find it good. Good composition. --High Contrast 17:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Clifton Rocks Railway MMB 10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Clifton Rocks Railway. Mattbuck 12:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose - Non-meaningful title (that's no railway) --AzaToth 20:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    It was taken at the Clifton Rocks Railway, which hasn't been used as a railway for ~100 years. Its most recent use was a bomb shelter. This was taken in one of those shelters, iirc one used by the BBC. Mattbuck 12:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Melampyrum pratense by Danny S. - 001.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Melampyrum pratense. --Danny S. 21:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose username in image name (advertisement) --AzaToth 17:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Advertisement? Username in filename is not advertisement IMO. QI has no guideline for this. The image uploader should be a Wikimedian. Here the user is an Wikimedian. Please discuss. --JDP90 16:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree with the formulation of this title. But we can not punish an image to its title. I condemn especially the lack of courtousie of AzaToth.--Archaeodontosaurus 05:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry but yes, it is allowed in the guidelines to "decline" a QI candidate because of a meaningless title, for instance. But it is not the case here, and the picture itself is good enough for QI, IMO.--Jebulon 13:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose File name is OK. However DOF is too small, sorry. Biopics 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Biopics. We already informed this new user about the DOF issue. Jkadavoor 08:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I've changed my mind. Per Biopics and Jkadavoor, sorry.--Jebulon 16:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Innsbruck_-_Innufer1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Innsbruck: Inn River with Herzog-Ufer-Street (right) and St. Nikolaus left. In the background the "Nordkette" with Rumer Spitze --Taxiarchos228 20:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose too much of the image is out of focus --AzaToth 19:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    • sorry, but I don't see what here is out of focus --Taxiarchos228 19:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JDP90 16:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not see a problem in focus --Archaeodontosaurus 15:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • For a minute I thought Azatoth was complaining about too much of the image being in focus.
  •  Weak support - Focus seems ok to me, but it's a bit bright. Mattbuck 11:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

File:P-petrik-ni-0377.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nadezhda Petrik, PhD of agriculture, assistant professor from Northern Federal University --PereslavlFoto 14:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose bad cropping of the hair --AzaToth 17:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    • This was not about the hair, but about the face.--PereslavlFoto 10:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per AzaToth and due to the wrong WB, Poco a poco 08:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
    • What's wrong with WB? I will change if you tell me the way. And the 2nd item, how may I show the face if people want to see the hair?--PereslavlFoto 18:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
      • The light is not natural to me, it looks a bit reddish. I could only tell you how to balance it properly if you would have a picture under the same light conditions with a gray card on it. Regarding the missing hear, to me it is disturbing. Sorry, but that is my opinion -that is of course subject to error, like the opinion of all others- and this is the place to express it. Poco a poco 19:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Never mind about the hair. What about the WB, a t-shirt in the background is white. Anyway, I will check the WB and possibly remake the image from raw, thank you for the useful comment.--PereslavlFoto 15:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support - I think the white balance is OK - yes, the photo is red, but I think that's due to the subject. I'm not entirely happy about the overexposed white area. Mattbuck 11:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose weak oppose due to the crop. --High Contrast 17:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Airbus_A330-243_-_US_Airways_(N283AY).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Airbus A330-243 - US Airways (N283AY) --Eluveitie 08:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: too tight crop, poor lighting and overall unsharpness -- Alvesgaspar 10:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose - I agree, it's a bad crop, way too tight at the nose. Mattbuck 11:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Apart from the tight crop, (imo) the wings and the lower part of the fuselage are too dark and noisy. --El Grafo 11:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad colour balance. The bottom side is too dark. --High Contrast 15:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Vyborg June2012 Old Sorvali Cemetery 03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vyborg, Russia: old Sorvali Cemetery. - A.Savin 12:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose bad lighting --AzaToth 16:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC) I don't think so. - A.Savin 12:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Flash lighting isn't the nicest, but good enough for QI imo. --Kadellar 12:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --JDP90 16:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per AzaToth. Biopics 16:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good enouth for QI. --Ralf Roletschek 08:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Clé_86_FR_2012.jpg

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination

File:Maiquetía_Nacional_Airport.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Maiquetía Nacional Airport --The Photographer 20:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Bit blurred but lovely. Mattbuck 21:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree due to that it's way too under exposed, and at the same time blurry --AzaToth 16:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its QI, good picture --Ralf Roletschek 17:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportPer Ralf Roletschek. -- JLPC 20:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Difficult conditions but good enough outcome imo. Cute picture. Alvesgaspar 09:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Garden_at_Ramoji_Film_City,_Hyderabad.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Garden at Ramoji Film City, Hyderabad, India. --JDP90 19:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too tight crop of the pagoda --AzaToth 16:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • According to the title it's not the main part of the picture. -- JLPC 18:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Poor framing. Alvesgaspar 13:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Hoodown 4936 Kinlet Hall.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kinlet Hall on the Dartmouth Steam Railway. --Geof Sheppard 07:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overexposed sky. --Mattbuck 21:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
    It was a dull day with just an occasional hint of blue through high clouds. Don't expect bright blue skies in England this summer! Geof Sheppard 13:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
    Overexposed smoke too. Mattbuck 20:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed. Danrok 21:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Munich_Business_School_in_June_2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Munich Business School in June 2012. --High Contrast 20:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose There are some strange lines in the sky (see annotation) AzaToth 21:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)  Comment Atmospherical structures. Maybe some sort of cirrus clouds. --High Contrast 15:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose due to overexposure. Mattbuck 01:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Overexposure? Where? --High Contrast 17:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Artifacts in the sky, poor framing (car at left), geometric distortion. Alvesgaspar 13:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Citroën_DS_21_27_Quai_Anatole_France_license_plate_blanked_2012-06-02_cropped.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Citroën DS21 Cabriolet from 1969 parked outside 27 Quai Anatole France, Paris. Crop of original. --Slaunger 21:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI and Useful (But a little expensive) --Archaeodontosaurus 05:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose number plate is manipulated. --Ralf Roletschek 12:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I normally blank license plates for individual cars photographed in public as a courtesy although I do not have to (actually I do not know if there are country-specific rules for this?). But it is an interesting dilemma as here the car is probably parked illegally. Should I provide the license plate information, such that the owner could be fined? I found license plate issues has been discussed previously in 2007 with an inconclusive outcome. --Slaunger 22:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI.--Jebulon 12:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me too. --Kadellar 21:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. --Selbymay 12:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 18:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Angel_Coulby_20100701_Japan_Expo_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Autograph session with Angel Coulby at Japan Expo 2010 (Paris, France). --Raghith 04:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good picture in my opinion --Démosthène 10:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I would like to move it to CR, to me it is too blurry Poco a poco 18:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I don't like crop on upper part. --Iifar 06:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Details in the field of focus are unsharp. Danrok 21:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Nailsea and Backwell railway station MMB 25 150244.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 150244 at Nailsea & Backwell. Mattbuck 12:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeI feel the noise makes the image look too flat --AzaToth 00:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Moving to Discuss because I really don't understand what you mean. Mattbuck 13:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks fine to me Poco a poco 08:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jebulon 13:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the composition. Maybe a cropped version could look better. --High Contrast 15:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose as above. --Iifar 06:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
    Could you suggest what you want cropped? Mattbuck 20:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeLooks flat, slightly underexposed and taken in poor light. Danrok 21:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Pythagoras_similar_triangles_simplified.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination RENOMINATION Pythagoras theorem, similar triangles proof simplified --Gauravjuvekar 09:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 09:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Is there a threshold for originality/complexity here? Do we put a QI seal on a simple triangle svg? Needs discussion IMO. Biopics 11:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too simple for QI, sorry Poco a poco 08:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support clear and correct design, educational, I see no reason to oppose here --Taxiarchos228 14:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment "Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects". This is used at Pythagorean_theorem#Proof_using_similar_triangles and nobody removed it even when it appeared two times at English FPC. So quality and valuable, I assume. And is complexity a requirement for QI? Further is it ironic to keep the old work with some issues as QI and reject the corrected version? (The same thing can be simple to a genius and complicated to an average.) Jkadavoor 08:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportPer Taxiarchos and Jkadavoor.--Jebulon 16:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Nothing to say, clear case to me. -- Alvesgaspar 20:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too simple. We should create a minimum-requirements-guidline for QI --High Contrast 15:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 20:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Ugly Kid Joe - Sofia Rocks.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ugly Kid Joe at Sofia Rocks 2012. --MrPanyGoff 12:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose oversaturated pink and cropped leg --AzaToth 17:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • If under the word „pink“ you mean these small bands nearby the guitarist I would rather say it is undersaturated. As for the cropped leg, you can see the gallery of Quality images of people where most of the performers are with cropped legs and there are reasons for it.--MrPanyGoff 23:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Poor framing -- Alvesgaspar 09:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Badly framed - legs missing, too much headroom. Danrok 21:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:ChristSaviourCathedral Views May 2012 04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow from Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. - A.Savin 20:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose - overexposed sky, blocky details --AzaToth 20:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    I don't think so. - A.Savin 20:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose - sky is fine, but I agree with the blocky part - see trees in bottom left/right. Mattbuck 20:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:ChristSaviourCathedral Views May 2012 07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow from Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. - A.Savin 20:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. --AzaToth 20:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Insufficient argument. - A.Savin 20:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Azatoth. Image lacks detail and sharpness due to poor lighting and atmospheric conditions. Oversaturation? -- Alvesgaspar 09:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Boulevard_Saint-Martin_(Paris),_feu_rouge_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grands-Boulevards set back to two-way, Paris. --Coyau 06:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose If the primary subject is the pedestrian crossing, then the focus is wrong, and if it's the divider, it's off composition and badly cropped --AzaToth 22:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • rule of 1/3 is off??? --Coyau 04:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Confusing composition, blown sky at top, weird black thing at left. Alvesgaspar 09:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor composition, and over-sharpened. Danrok 17:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Angoulême_Chapelle_St_Gelais_2012.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 18:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maesteg (Ewenny Road) railway station MMB 03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ewenny Road. Mattbuck 12:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Out of focus --AzaToth 21:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say it's out of focus, and a few people I asked on IRC agreed. I accept the focal point might be a too far away, but I'd like a second opinion. Mattbuck 21:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --Taxiarchos228 20:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Poor exposure solution leading to a too shallow dof. Alvesgaspar 09:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 18:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Ardelay_-_Chateau_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ardelay castle's weather vanes - Vendée, France --Selbymay 20:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good DoF, but visible purpure CAs Poco a poco 20:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Well, I don't know how to get rid of it... --Selbymay 23:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    CA is a frequent problem that you should cope with, here you can read more in the case you use gimp Poco a poco 20:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    I tried to desaturate the yellow hue, maybe too much. Please, tell me what you think. --Selbymay 17:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    It was still not yet good enough but better, I uploaded a new version. Poco a poco 19:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    I will move it to CR to hear other's opinions Poco a poco 15:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for QI, in my opinion.--Jebulon 09:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Matricaria recutita by Danny S. - 001.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Matricaria recutita. --Danny S. 21:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose username in image name (advertisement) --AzaToth 17:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Advertisement? Username in filename is not advertisement IMO. QI has no guideline for this. The image uploader should be a Wikimedian. Here the user is an Wikimedian. Please discuss. --JDP90 16:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree with the formulation of this title. But we can not punish an image to its title. I condemn especially the lack of courtousie of AzaToth. --Archaeodontosaurus 05:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry but yes, it is allowed in the guidelines to "decline" a QI candidate because of a meaningless title, for instance. But it is not the case here, and the picture itself is good enough for QI, IMO.--Jebulon 13:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Filename is OK, but DOF is too small: almost nothing is sharp. Biopics 15:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Biopics. We already informed this new user about the DOF issue. Jkadavoor 08:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as above. --Iifar 06:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Toddington railway station MMB 11 37324 5619.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Toddington station. Mattbuck 20:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Insufficient title, the main subject is clearly not Toddington railway station, and the numbers are totally incomprehensible for laymen --AzaToth 20:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
    See that in the background? THAT'S THE FUCKING RAILWAY STATION. And those numbers? THOSE ARE THE TRAIN SUBJECT OF THE PHOTO! The photo is PERFECTLY NAMED - BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS. Both location AND subject are in the title! You should be having a fucking orgasm over it or something. Mattbuck 13:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    Oh, and you know what? Titles aren't simply for laymen. Heck, some aren't even remotely for laymen: a title which has a taxo name in it? Damned if I know what it is. But I do make my titles for laymem. And for experts. This is of Toddington station. I know it is because that's where I took it, and it's in the photo. That's enough for a layman. But someone else might want to know the train #s. I know I do, it makes it a lot easier for categories and such. My structure is simple: general subject (Toddington station) MMB (my initials) 00 (number of uploaded photo chronologically for general subject) details (names, etc). That way they all get sorted together easily. If something is in the general subject field, that's what the photo is of, whether you recognise it or not. In fact, you did not recognise the station, so the title should have informed you that it was of the station. That's what titles are for. Mattbuck 13:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    Mattbuck, the file name is irrelevant, so no real need to even mention it. --Danrok 17:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    I mentioned it because that's why the image was declined. Mattbuck 22:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me -- JDP90 12:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Kadellar 16:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI, good title --Ralf Roletschek 08:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for sure - the title follows a format that is commonly used for UK transport subjects including many that have been assessed as QI in the past. Geof Sheppard 07:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Cat March 2010-2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Portrait of a tabby cat -- Alvesgaspar 16:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image page lacks taxonomy --AzaToth 17:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You are kidding, right? Taxo info serves a purpose other than identifying common animals like cats, dogs and people. A cat is a cat is a cat... -- Alvesgaspar 17:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I actually thought different cats could have different taxonomy. --AzaToth 19:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info Nope, they are all Felis silvestris catus Alvesgaspar 23:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
    I saw the title and expected a march of militant cats :( Mattbuck 13:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. The application of a taxonomy in this case does not fall within the common sense. --Archaeodontosaurus 08:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 16:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support (Category:Tabby cat portraits is a subcategory of Category:Felis silvestris catus) -- Jkadavoor 06:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support i think, its may be that it is a cat. --Ralf Roletschek 08:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Thibaut Pinot - TDF 2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Thibaut Pinot during the Tour de France 2012. -- Ludo29 22:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose There's chromatic aberration along the helmet, otherwize QI --AzaToth 23:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    I delete CA along the helmet. Ludo29 05:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI. --Kadellar 12:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There is still a slight turquoise fringe on the right side of the helmet, though it's not as apparent as before. --AzaToth 17:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The CA looks very minor to me. Danrok 17:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 08:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support + I find the reflection in the sunglasses absolutely fantastic !--Jebulon 17:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Frank Schleck (2) - TDF 2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Frank Schleck during the Tour de France 2012. -- Ludo29 22:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion There's CA around the helmet and the subject is not in optimal focus --AzaToth 23:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    I delete CA along the helmet. For focus, it's a sport-movie with very speed subject. Ludo29 05:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
    Lets discuss this; I'm still not convinced that the lack of focus is fine for a sport shot. --AzaToth 17:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I never said that “the lack of focus is fine for a sport shot”. I just said that subject of sport shot are moving (very fast). So, you can have problem of focus. You cannot judge a sport shot and a picture of a building with the same criteria. And in this case, the lack of focus is very minor. Ludo29 08:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 08:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with the nominator's arguments there are some minor green ca (white texts on black parts of the jersey) to be removed, when possible--Jebulon 17:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Torre_de_los_Clérigos,_Oporto,_Portugal,_2012-05-09,_DD_01.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Clerics Tower, Porto, Portugal --Poco a poco 18:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Red and green discolorations at the upper part --AzaToth 23:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I worked the CA but I am not sure if I fixed the problem you comment, if not, could you add a note? Poco a poco 09:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Notes added --AzaToth 10:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't agree in this case. I cannot see anything at 100% and hardly at 200%, I think that he quality overall is good although having the whole building in focus was not simple. I would like to hear what other colleagues think. Poco a poco 11:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support No technical problem for me, but I must be sick because I do not see color stripes... --Archaeodontosaurus 12:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- I can't see any stripes either. But the subject is tilted and the weird geometic distortion is disturbing. Lighting is not the best either -- Alvesgaspar 12:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Fire in a tire depot - 2012 April 27th - Mörfelden-Walldorf -7.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fire-fighting operations during a fire in a tire depot. (Not tilted IMO, the car is just inclined to one side.) --NorbertNagel 21:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment The image is very good but can you crop away the spectator on the right side of the image (woman in an orange pullover)?--High Contrast 16:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
     Support --High Contrast 18:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose While the image quality is good, the title isn't sufficient. There is neither a fire nor an tire depot in the picture --AzaToth 17:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support the image is good and the title also --Ralf Roletschek 11:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Info @AzaToth: Once again, please note that your opposition based on an alleged poor file name is not supported by the rules. Alvesgaspar 12:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Clean image, good clarity, natural colour. Danrok 17:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Request could you crop out the woman in the bottom right corner? Otherwise, very good and QI. --Carschten 13:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    •  Support --Carschten 18:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I uploaded an retouched, I hope it's ok for Norbert. --Carschten 18:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support now. -- Jkadavoor 08:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Edificio_en_Avenida_dos_Aliados,_Oporto,_Portugal,_2012-05-09,_DD_03.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Building at Avenida dos Aliados, Porto, Portugal --Poco a poco 17:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion The buildings starts to tilt to the left --AzaToth 20:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)✓ Fixed Poco a poco 21:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ One more try Poco a poco 18:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
    There are still a slight bulging of the building, though it's much better now, dunno if it can be further corrected. --AzaToth 10:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
    What do you mean? With the grid it looks fine, can you add a note? Poco a poco 11:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 12:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo. --Florstein 13:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Paris,_averse_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Citroen in the rain. I don't know if motion blur is ok or not. --Coyau 10:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose -bad motion blur --Nasir8891 15:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
     Question How? --Coyau 10:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
    I think you tried to focus on the car but due to the slow shutter speed the subject is blurred. i think this it now correctly captured motion blur. --Nasir8891 07:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I have to agree, the motion blur to my mind doesn't do any favours. Nor does the chromatic aberration on the bollards, and the windowsill in the corner. Mattbuck 12:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks for the reviews and comments. --Coyau 10:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Kuremaa loss 20120304 by Ahsoous.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Manor of Kuremaa in winter. -- Ahsoous 10:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - a QI from Estonia is always welcome in Commons. Avjoska 11:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion, lack of sharpness, some CA. --Iifar 10:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Iifar --Archaeodontosaurus 08:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File:ChristSaviourCathedral Views May 2012 11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow from Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. - A.Savin 20:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose - Insufficient quality. --AzaToth 20:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    Insufficient argument. - A.Savin 20:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - Could do with a bit more contrast, but seems good to me. Mattbuck 20:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good sharpness, good composition, good image --Taxiarchos228 20:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- I agree with AzaToth on this one. Poor detail and sharpness in the background, probably due to atmopheric conditions. Something very wrong with the colors too: oversaturation? -- Alvesgaspar 09:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition is lacking (too much empty sky). Colour looks unnatural. Over-sharpened. Danrok 21:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 08:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support, fine picture. --Florstein 12:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above, sorry. --Carschten 13:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The roof on the foreground takes imo away too much space. --Iifar 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    I liked the roof personally. Mattbuck 12:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Kuigatsi_paistiik_(Kuigatsi_oja).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kuigatsi impounded lake (Kuigatsi stream) --Iifar 16:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose the crop takes away too much of the lake --AzaToth 19:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I think no so. lets discuss. --Ralf Roletschek 19:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JDP90 18:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support nothing bad with the crop here --Taxiarchos228 20:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above, composition is unbalanced due to poor framing. Alvesgaspar 09:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. --Florstein 12:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support very good quality, super light. --Carschten 22:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 08:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Frankfurt skyline panorama with river main.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Frankfurt panorama with river Main seen from the bridge Friedensbrücke. --NorbertNagel 12:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Great! --High Contrast 20:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I really enjoy the panorama, but I had to find some stitch errors, and I have to ask you to restitch them before going full QI --AzaToth 18:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Small stitching errors, all correctable. --Iifar 07:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Chateaudun_-_Eglise_St_Jean_de_la_Chaine_(6).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of Saint-Jean-de-la-Chaîne - Châteaudun (Eure-et-Loir, France) --Selbymay 09:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose too blurry at the upper parts --AzaToth 13:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me its no too blurry. --Ralf Roletschek 08:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JDP90 16:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Poor framing and image quality. Agree with the opposer. Alvesgaspar 09:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Sharpness could be better. --Iifar 06:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 08:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Czarna_Dolna_-_cemtery_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cemtery in Czarna Dolna --Przykuta 23:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Technically ok, but a but out of focus. AzaToth 19:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support : enough DOF for the crosses IMO. -- JLPC 18:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 08:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 18:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

File:King's Cross railway station MMB 70.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination King's Cross western concourse. Mattbuck 13:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI, in spite of (unavoidable, I guess) noise.--Jebulon 14:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beg to differ. Noise is not unavoidable, especially at 200 ISO! Too much CA in the skylights too. Biopics 14:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
    • CA? Where? Mattbuck 21:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JDP90 16:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed Danrok 21:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
    It's not the brightest place, and to get to this balance I had to significantly raise the lower levels. As you can see, the skylights are still whited out. I don't believe this is a incorrect balance. Sometimes things are just dark. Mattbuck 13:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support, normal quality for QI, I guess. --Florstein 12:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 18:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Erigeron annuus by Danny S. - 007.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Erigeron annuus. --Danny S. 21:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose username in image name (advertisement) --AzaToth 17:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Advertisement? Username in filename is not advertisement IMO. QI has no guideline for this. The image uploader should be a Wikimedian. Here the user is an Wikimedian. Please discuss. --JDP90 16:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree with the formulation of this title. But we can not punish an image to its title. I condemn especially the lack of courtousie of AzaToth.
  •  Support Sorry but yes, we can "punish" an image if the title is meaningless (for instance), it is in the guidelines. But it is not the case here, and the picture is good enough for QI.--Jebulon 13:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Maybe have a second look. The file name is fine, but nothing in the picture is really in focus. Biopics 15:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Here I'm bit more comfortable due to the flat positioning of the subject. (BTW, the 'by kadavoor' in my file names are not my name or username; just the place where they are taken. )
  •  Oppose Shallow DOF possibly, opening in full res, the petals at the bottom appear out of focus. This being a flat image, it should be well focused.--Gauravjuvekar 07:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Gauravjuvekar, I like the picture but the DoF is insufficient Poco a poco 09:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose as above. --Iifar 06:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 18:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Gimnazija Kranj 02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gymnasium in Kranj, Slovenija. --Mihael Grmek 22:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support I think it meets the criteria.--MrPanyGoff 14:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree due to the left tilt --AzaToth 17:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 17:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The ground is tilted, not the image - check the horizontal lines on the building. Yerpo 06:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good --High Contrast 17:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Small, but notable stitching errors. All correctable, notes added. --Iifar 18:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose very nice, but too many stitching errors --Taxiarchos228 20:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above: stitching errors. Image needs a restitch or an manual fixing (shouldn't be too difficult). --Carschten 22:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 17:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Burghof auf Festung Hohensalzburg.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination inner ward of the Festung Hohensalzburg --Florian Fuchs 15:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose bad crop --AzaToth 19:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me QI --Taxiarchos228 21:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support for me QI --Archaeodontosaurus 17:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - overexposed cloud. Mattbuck 11:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support overexposure for me irrelevant --Moroder 11:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 17:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

File:St Pancras railway station MMB D8 395025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 395025 at St Pancras. Mattbuck 20:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Disturbing chromatic noise --AzaToth 20:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • What the hell is "chromatic noise"? There's no CA in this picture. I know because I spent a long time painting it out of this photo set. Mattbuck 13:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me -- JDP90 12:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Minimal noise, ok for QI -- Alvesgaspar 22:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support There's no chromatic noise, just a little bit of unavoidable luminance noise. That texture on the train is rain water. --Kadellar 16:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me -- --Florian Fuchs 12:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ivar 06:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Fruchtkasten und Schillerdenkmal.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fruchtkasten and Schiller-memorial in Stuttgart, Germany -- Der Wolf im Wald 18:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 18:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The colors feels a bit too bluish and there is a strange artifact (annotated) --AzaToth 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
    It looks like a tone-mapped image, made from multiple frames. That may have caused the ghost artifact. Danrok 17:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jebulon 09:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI. Is it HDR? Vielleicht kann es Erfolg haben in fpc, versuch mal! --Kadellar 16:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me --Florian Fuchs 12:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ivar 06:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Campus MMB G0 Chroicocephalus ridibundus.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jubilee Campus. Mattbuck 18:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too generous crop IMO Poco a poco 20:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Title is totally meaningless relative the subject --AzaToth 23:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Azatoth, sod off. Your idea of a title is a bloody novel. I can crop it though. Mattbuck 20:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support meets QI criteria --Taxiarchos228 20:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Cropped. Mattbuck 20:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI Poco a poco 09:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- Opposition due to title is not justified by the rules. This subject has already been discussed. What if the file name were writen in Vietnamise? -- Alvesgaspar 12:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support and file renamed to "Chroicocephalus ridibundus on Jubilee Campus.jpg" to give more visibility only; no way interfering in the arguments. -- Jkadavoor 09:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    I renamed it to File:Jubilee Campus MMB G0 Chroicocephalus ridibundus.jpg as a compromise between your visibility argument and my general naming scheme (G0 implies it is something like the 160th file in the series). Hope that's ok. Mattbuck 11:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    Yes; a more logical approach. -- Jkadavoor 13:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ivar 06:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-06-02_10-17-54-fort-miotte.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Inside the fort de la Miotte, Belfort, France. --ComputerHotline 08:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good. -- JLPC 08:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too yellowish to me --Poco a poco 12:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Ivar 06:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition - someone's hands holding a camera in the centre of the frame. Danrok 21:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Paint out the camera and it's QI. Mattbuck 12:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose since no action. Mattbuck 14:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not see how the device is contradictory, it gives style to the photo! Bourgeois.A 22:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --mattbuck (Talk)

File:Savigné_86_Boîte_aux_lettres_2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Postbox and a dandelion, Savigné, Vienne, France --JLPC 21:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support - Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Underexposed, IMO. Please discuss.--Jebulon 09:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I agree with both, it is good quality, but it could use brightening. Mattbuck 12:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment - New file uploaded. I hope it's OK now. Anyway thanks for your help. -- JLPC 18:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine with me. --Ivar 19:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now -- MJJR 14:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ivar 14:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Chemin_mont_Veyrier_mont_Baron.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination On the crest between Mont Veyrier and Mont Baron, Haute-Savoie, France. --Myrabella 20:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Main object (lake) looks hazy and distracted by foreground which is in focus, sorry --Moroder 06:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
    • In fact, the main subject here is the path, as indicated in the file name and description. I like this picture (for sentimental reasons I guess) but I understand it doesn't work for other people. Thank you for the review anyway. Myrabella 09:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Well in that case, I'd like to see more of the path - I understand you --Moroder 12:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC).
  •  Support I like it and good quality for me. --Iifar 12:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI imo.--ArildV 16:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ivar 14:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

File:King's Cross railway station MMB 17.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination King's Cross clock tower. Mattbuck 20:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose There's disturbing noise --AzaToth 20:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That's fixable. Mattbuck 13:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - No significat noise that I see. But lighting is not the best and the subject (the tower) is tilted. Alvesgaspar 22:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    Would brightening help? Mattbuck 11:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ivar 14:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Mycalesis_2_by_Kadavoor-2.jpg

[edit]

File:Mycalesis_4_by_Kadavoor-2.jpg

[edit]

File:Mycalesis_3_by_Kadavoor-2.jpg

[edit]

File:Danaus_Plexippus_in_Smithsonian.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Danaus Plexippus in Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. --Rangilo Gujarati 05:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality, nice photo. --Zyxist 06:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeNothing in focus, blown highlights. Biopics 21:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Biopics --Archaeodontosaurus 13:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Erosaria_spurca_01.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Shell of an Atlantic Yellow Cowry, Erosaria spurca --Llez 05:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI for me. -- JLPC 06:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposeImage shows an error. Unaccessable for now. Biopics 22:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 Comment It would be good to show the error. --Archaeodontosaurus 13:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Rechecked on another computer/provider and now it is visible. So that problem is solved. However the right most image (ventral view) is OOF IMO. Biopics 15:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  SupportQI for me. Useful. -- JDP90 12:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Do we provide better computers and connectivity to avoid a decline? -- Jkadavoor 13:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Do we criticize other users or do we support(oppose) an image? Biopics 15:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I support this image because I see no errors and a good technical quality. --Taxiarchos228 21:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment @User:Biopics. I fail to see the anomaly, there is indeed a default shell. you can enclose the area that is obviously abnormal? --Archaeodontosaurus 10:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Mycalesis_1_by_Kadavoor-2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mycalesis mineus derivative work by Mario Link -- Jkadavoor 09:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Poor DOF, partly OOF. Biopics 22:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you sure? --Jkadavoor 08:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Definitely. Why do you doubt my judgement? Biopics 11:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support This is not bad and not get into the criteria of QI for images "in vivo". --Archaeodontosaurus 13:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Nobody said it is bad. But surely it is not a QI! Whether it is in vivo or not is irrelevant. Quality is the thing that counts here. For spectacular yet inferior quality images with mitigating circumstances you should be at FP. Biopics 15:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Biopics. Mattbuck 20:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I just rechecked all of my Bushbrown photos and noticed that they are very unsharp in full resolution (8MP). This is a problem of my compact camera which fails at maximum megapixel. I rarely use more than 5MP for closeups (I am only 3inch from the subject); but here they are a bit more big. Anyway I just down-sampled this image and request for a re-look. I've no problem for any decline though. -- Jkadavoor 08:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

File:P-filatov-al-0422.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Alexander Filatov, researcher from Pereslavl museum-preserve. --PereslavlFoto 15:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Neutral Can you rename the file? I think it's not very suitable. It's a nice portrait. --Kadellar 12:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Danrok 17:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Wait, please, we're discussing about the name. I think it should be clearer. --Kadellar 16:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I move it to CR so it's not "deleted". --Kadellar 10:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • We are supposed to asses the image - quality image - not the name. This is a quality image. --Danrok 23:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's a good one, but according to the guidelines, "it must have a meaningful title". I don't want to discuss about the guidelines (like it happens...), I just think the file name can be improved, because it's not clear enough. QIC is a place where we recognise images with a minimum level of quality, but lots of times those images can still be improved (dust spots, little CA, small tilts, perspective corrections, contrast...). We can improve titles too, it's just some kind of reworking. If you see "p-filatov-0422" without the image, what do you think about??? It tells me nothing, honestly. --Kadellar 11:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Just add a rename request with suggested filename something like "Alexander Filatov 0422"; no need to waste time by discussing here. Chance of a complaint by the author is very little. And the word "title" in guideline is confusing; change it to "filename" if that is correct. -- Jkadavoor 13:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
        • The names don't tell anything, as the categories do (as they are useful only to English-speakers), that's why we use descriptions. The author likes this name chosen by his logic of naming . The spaces are disturbung as they are not supported by any computer system (we have to set quotation marks around the filenames with spaces in command line). The name of «Alexander Filatov» tells nothing about whom we are speaking, due to there are hundreds of people with this name.--PereslavlFoto 18:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
          • I too not a big fan of "filename" arguments. But shortcuts are less meaningful to others; so the caption in this nomination (Alexander Filatov researcher from Pereslavl museum-preserve) is more preferred for a filename. "Spaces" are automatically replaced with "underscore (_)" in filenames; still display as "spaces" in "titles" so better than a "-". Just my thoughts. -- Jkadavoor 04:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
            • Filenames have zero meaning for all but English-speakers.--PereslavlFoto 12:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • PereslavlFoto, what do you think about "p-Alexander-Filatov-0422.jpg"?? --Kadellar 09:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
      • This means I have to take all my photos here and there (on Commons and locally) and rename them with this template... BTW, your variant causes wrong sorting, so it's better to make p-filatov-a-l-0422.jpg (with initials). But any variant will be worse. Long filenames are less convenient as they take more space on the screen that has only 80×25 letters. Why worry about the filenames at all, as noone sees them? They are simply a part of the link. They don't act in searches and have no descriptive meaning (that's why we use descriptions). So I cannot have any reason to think about those technical tags (so called filenames) at all...--PereslavlFoto 12:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Also, noone will ever search for «Alexander Filatov». The searches will be for «Александр Леонидович Филатов», that is stated in the description. Any filename thus will be useless for people. Will we rename all Spanish filenames on Commons to make them more convenient for English-speakers?--PereslavlFoto 12:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your problems to add one more word. --Kadellar 16:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Guildford railway station MMB 03 455912.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Guildford railway station. Mattbuck 18:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion Under-exposed, too dark. --Danrok 16:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    I have brightened it. Mattbuck 12:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
     Support OK, looks good to me now. Danrok 23:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Rotunda Well.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cieszyn Final Defence Tower --Scotch Mist 13:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)uploaded new image with slight tilt addressed and perspective adjustment --Scotch Mist 12:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment - It needs quite a lot of darkening. Mattbuck 12:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Adusted white balance and equalized colours to avoid dulling of tower already in shade. --Scotch Mist 13:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    Now it appears to be purple. I'll have a go myself later. Mattbuck 11:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    Adjusted colour balance (less purple) and uploaded new image. --SM1 (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    Yours still seemed purple. Uploaded my own version, which I think is better. Mattbuck 11:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    Although overall still seems quite dark to me have uploaded a new version of the image after adding some contrast to balance the apparent loss of 'visibility' of the tower itself. --SM1 (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    I think your version has too much contrast personally. Maybe we need someone else. Come on people, DISCUSS! Mattbuck 13:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 Oppose Noise in the shadows, looks over-processed, too much contrast. --Danrok 22:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Understand earlier comments on darkness and contrast, which to me are more about individual preference than the intrinsic quality of the image, but "noise in the shadows" I don't understand and if it exists would appear to be independent of either darkness or contrast so am now not sure whether this image should be withdrawn altogether or not - perhaps you can identify areas of shadow noise via annotations and propose how these might be rectified if possible? Thanks --Scotch Mist 19:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed? Adusted contrast\brightness and attempted to address possible noise issue but without feedback can only hope that the balance achieved now satisfies all previous concerns? --Scotch Mist 10:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Campus MMB K3 Business School North.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nottingham Business School. Mattbuck 12:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline I assume the education is so harsh, they are all ghosts there? --AzaToth 21:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    It's business studies, they all died of boredom. Mattbuck 21:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred people. --Danrok 17:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    The blur is intentional: it was a 30s exposure, and I purposely waited for people to come by. It's not meant to be a plain night photo, it was part of a ghost-walking series I did. Mattbuck 12:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Castle_in_Lipnice_nad_Sázavou,_tower_Samson.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Castle in Lipnice nad Sázavou, tower Samson --Ria 14:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - an overexposed area in the sky, but good quality and good enough for QI --Carschten 15:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Overexposed area is imo too big for QI, also there is notable CA. --Ivar 16:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose due to overexposure. Mattbuck 16:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Nymphaea flower Botanical Garden Munich Nymphenburg IMGP1538.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Nymphaea flower in Botanical Garden Munich (Nymphenburg) --Nikodem Nijaki 08:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --JDP90 15:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, but IMO we should identify the flowers in these pictures, not just Nymphaea. Let's discuss it in CR. --Kadellar 12:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    Yes should be identified. This file is in the category Unidentified Nymphaea. -- JDP90 12:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, I saw the category. --Kadellar 12:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    As far as I know it is a cultivar of Nymphaea Alba L. --Nikodem Nijaki 09:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Can someone make it sure please? It'd be enough, wouldn't it? --Kadellar 16:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    I can see only white and red variants; here it seem much yellow. Is it due to the evening lights? -- Jkadavoor 06:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 06:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Nymphaea sp.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nymphaea odorata --JDP90 18:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 10:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks underexposed to me, please discuss.--Jebulon 09:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
✓ Brightened up -- JDP90 17:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 Support Good now IMO. -- JLPC 19:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 06:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Estación_de_tren_São_Bento,_Oporto,_Portugal,_2012-05-09,_DD_03.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination: Scene of the Battle of Valdevez (12th century) work of Jorge Colaço, São Bento train station, Porto, Portugal --Poco a poco 17:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Comment More information needs to be added regarding the art. --AzaToth 17:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Poco a poco 18:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Green fringes arunt the stone parts --AzaToth 10:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me, good caption --Archaeodontosaurus 12:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • CA corrected Poco a poco 12:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Tilt and geometric distortion (fixable), reflexion on the left (not so, I'm afraid) -- Alvesgaspar 22:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 08:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Varde_-_Restaurant_Sillasens_Hus.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Varde: Restaurant Sillasens Hus --Taxiarchos228 05:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose posterization in overexposed sky --AzaToth 17:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment the coulds are white, everything is exposed fine --Taxiarchos228 21:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Looks partly overexposed sky to me. --Ivar 16:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
    • maybe it looks to you, but it isn't in fact. Any idea how to make a shot with this light conditions avoiding the "overexposed impression"? You had to underexpose. This couldn't be the solution, could it? --Taxiarchos228 19:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Image histogram shows me the same thing, so it's not only impression. --Ivar 19:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
    • it's no problem for me to darken this image, but the result is that the sky would get grey. I am not sure if this looks really better and particularly fits more to the real on-site light conditions. --Taxiarchos228 15:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support, QI for me. The small area of overexposed sky is okay, because it's very difficult to prevent. The quality is good. (Vielleicht doch die Belichtungszeit etwas verkürzen und mit der RAW-Datei versuchen, Himmel und Gebäude nachträglich anzupassen) --Carschten 13:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support per Carschten -- Jkadavoor 06:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral - I honestly don't know which way to lean on this one. I tend to hate all overexposure, but it's not too bad... I don't know. Mattbuck 12:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per AzaToth. Biopics 11:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 13:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Carschten 13:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-06-30 23-11-01-eclairs.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lightnings over Belfort, France. --ComputerHotline 06:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Purple fringes in the lightings. The left tree is shaky and should have been cropped. The filename is bad --AzaToth 21:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The tree might be cropped, but it must be shaky: 15 pictures of 20 seconds during a storm! Title is ok: date and subject in French. --Kadellar 12:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support picture and filename are ok. --Ralf Roletschek 19:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Poor framing, terrible quality. Alvesgaspar 09:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
    • "terrible quality" ?!? I think the quality is relatively good, so could you constitute where do you observe such a bad quality? --Carschten 22:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment HDR errors in the tree and a disturbing corner (see annotations). If it's fixed, I'll support because it's a nice image. --Carschten 22:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Sorry but I really don't think the quality is good enough. Besides the HDR errors in the tree and the disturbing corner (none of them fixed), we also have a poor crop below, an overall lack of detail and sharpness (due to de-noising?) and a disturbing geometric distortion. Alvesgaspar 22:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor quality. Biopics 11:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Cool Weather Calls For Socks And Sandals.jpg

[edit]

File:Cool Weather Calls For Socks And Sandals.jpg

  • Nomination: Portrait of a middle-aged male naturalist) null 17:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I feel the image is a bit too yellow, and there are some strange discolorations in the hair and beard, otherwize good QI --AzaToth 21:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yellow cast removed, coloration appears to be reflected ligbt --Oddman47 23:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose models positioning doesnt appear to be natural, and the composition within the frame is too central with no focal point Gnangarra 06:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Taxiarchos228 18:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Yellow Spider Flower Cleome viscosa.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Cleome viscosa -- Jkadavoor 06:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. JPEG artifacts --AzaToth 17:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support A discussion is needed IMO. -- JLPC 10:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --JDP90 16:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough Poco a poco 08:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Sufficient quality. --Jebulon 13:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I must agree with Azatoth here, the background is lovely but the subject isn't the best quality. That said, there are several light/black spots in the background. Mattbuck 11:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a plant profile; showing buds, flowers, young beans altogether. I have so many similar works; most of them are transferred to here from my Flickr account by some other people to use in Wikipedia and Wikispecies. Seems they are useful. (Quality is a different matter though.) -- Jkadavoor 07:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Quality could be better, crop too tight at right side. --Ivar 06:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per AzaToth (your old problem) + crop on the right. --Carschten 22:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed the "crop at right side" by Phoenix7777. -- Jkadavoor 06:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose only just meets minimum size requirements, while it may be best available for use we are looking for whether its upto the standards set by COM:WIAQI IMHO there isnt suficient detail in the subject, Gnangarra 06:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Carschten 22:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:2012-07-11_Гатчинский_Павловский_собор.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pavlovsky Cathedral in Gatchina, Russia --Art-top 19:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In line with observation on my talk page, I just corrected the image perspective. --Art-top 20:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective is good now. Nice light and colours. --Slaunger 06:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Smial 08:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. --Florstein 21:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Blåvandshuk3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blåvandshuk --Taxiarchos228 18:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Tilted horizon. --Danrok 19:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Tilt can be corrected. --JDP90 08:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted horizon. Biopics 11:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • corrected --Taxiarchos228 11:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JDP90 12:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support, good to me. --Florstein 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support paßt scho. -- Smial 08:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 10:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Guildford railway station MMB 06 458010.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Guildford railway station. Mattbuck 13:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Unclear subject for me. The train should be in the foreground, not hidden and cropped. --Zyxist 17:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I tend to include all train numbers in filenames/descriptions, it doesn't necessarily mean that that's the subject. In this case, I should probably have put a better description. Mattbuck 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decsription fixed. Mattbuck 19:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose About 2/3 f-stop underexposure. If corrected I would support. -- Smial 08:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    Duly brightened. Mattbuck 17:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp. I can hardly see the text. --Makele-90 20:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 09:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)