Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 2010

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Panorama_of_Rainbow_in_Hawaii_Volcanoes_National_Park.jpg

[edit]

  • It looks very nice too, except for the stretching. I've had similar problems when stitching hasn't worked well or an inappropriate projection is selected. You could restitch or try to correct the distortion manually. --Avenue (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 19:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skatteskrapan from Bondegatan 2010BW.jpg

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination I will try again.Ankara (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 19:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Casa Batlló 12.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Detail Casa Batlló, Barcelona --Böhringer 21:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too overexposed areas --Archaeodontosaurus 17:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. Check the histogram and the curves (highlights) on Photoshop and you'll see that few areas are blown out.-- --DKrieger 09:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support If you have a close look, you will see that only very small parts are blown out. IMO a pretty good image -- --DKrieger 17:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC) , sorry, I dont know what happened to my signature, thank you, Wsiegmund!
*Please sign your review. --Wsiegmund 05:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support A nice image, superb lighting. --Aristeas 09:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is a complicated façade, and the patchy lighting makes it harder to comprehend. The framing appears a bit random, and there are some minor technical issues, with blown out areas and a bit of CA. All add up to an oppose for me. --Elekhh 23:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- A difficult shot. Some parts are overexposed, other are too noisy due to high ISO setting. -- Alvesgaspar 18:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 22:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

File:TortoiseshellCat.JPG

[edit]

It is black fur after all, perhaps see the full size? --Rehman 03:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did see the full size. Anyway I posted your image for the discussion for you. Let's see what other editors will say, but I cannot change my vote.--Mbz1 07:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I agree with you now, per consensus below. :) Rehman 14:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Signal Hill Tattoo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Signal Hill Tattoo in St John's, Newfoundland--Nilfanion 23:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support nice --Pudelek 16:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 Comment Were ladies allowed to be enlisted in the New-Foundland Regiment in 1795 ? I'm sorry it is not your fault, but the protective plastic glasses and the harsh-yellow earplugs are positively ridiculous and make like if this picture were a joke ... I'm not sure if it is a good reason to decline in QI, but I put it in CR anyway. --Jebulon 17:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 Comment I agree the protective gear is silly looking, but that actually is "part" of the composition. The subject is the modern Signal Hill Tattoo not the historical regiment - and the modern event has such things as women participants and health and safety...--Nilfanion 21:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. --Avenue 13:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Jebulon's comment was useful, it led to Nilfanion's explanation, which I accept. --Cayambe (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Please notice that I didn't decline... But i'm sorry, I cannot promote...--Jebulon 23:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 05:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Swepac FB 465, RV70, with passing lorry.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Swepac vibro plate at roadworks in evening.--V-wolf 18:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The metallic electric (?) box in background is confusing & ruins the composition IMO. Sorry.--Jebulon 17:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Confusing? That was a culture clash for me. It's a perfecly normal electric cabinet they have put up at the roadworks for light and charging of excavators, I thought it was more or less the same all around the globe. --V-wolf 19:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support there are some points which you could make better, but I think the composition is okay (I like the long exposure with the cars in background) and the quality reachs QI status imo, too. --Carschten 14:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the road roller and the box in the background are too distracting for the composition to be QI. Like the cars and long exposure too. Main subject is also good. --Slaunger 18:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Van covered by snow in Boreal California.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Van covered by snow in Boreal California--Mbz1 04:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose no details on shadows. Uninteresting composition for QI standards. --Murdockcrc 06:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree.--Mbz1 06:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support As do I. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The composition could perhaps be improved, e.g. by cropping a third of the dark trees off the top, but IMO this is good enough to be QI. --Avenue 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info I uploaded an original image with no post processing at all. I was in hurry to show to slaunger I saw snow too . Another interesting detail: While taking this image I was standing up to my knees in the snow, slowly getting deeper and deeper.--Mbz1 01:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --QI what is certain: that I do not lend you my car!Archaeodontosaurus 08:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support "Boreal" is a nice name for this place... Is all the world, except Paris, under snow today ? There is (very much) snow over all France, except Paris. It is unfair !--Jebulon 23:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 05:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:M-gorici-sw-9588.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination South-west tower of Goritsky monastery. PereslavlFoto 19:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment The exposition is not very good and beware, there is a ghost on the roof !--Jebulon 22:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilded, ghost, etc. Possibly fixable, though. Rama 17:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The tower itself is NOT directly vertical. "Ghost" is a person working on the roof, so it is a part of reality.--PereslavlFoto 08:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Distorted (at left), unsharp, weird leight. -- Alvesgaspar 18:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • What do you mean - distorted? Where?--PereslavlFoto 21:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "Weird leight" means "weird light"? Where?--PereslavlFoto 21:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      •  Info Weird light all over the building, geometric distortion(tilt) at left -- Alvesgaspar 23:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
        • What do you mean by "weird light", as this is a night photo?! Also, there is tilt at left side, but let us imagine some other position of the camera, without that tilt. Then the tilt will appear on the wall to the right side. The trouble is that the tower and the wall are not vertical. It is a compromise to make the wall less falling. PereslavlFoto 15:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
          •  Info -- The geometric disortion is easily fixable. -- Alvesgaspar 19:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
            • It costs too much to rebuild the wall and the falling tower, to fix those distortions of reality. I cannot. If you thought about recalculation in some graphical editor, any rotation spoils the photo converting straight line of pixels (taken from camera's matrix) into come curved infelicity. And what about "weird light"?--PereslavlFoto 21:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
              •  Oppose The modern house in the background is probably vertical, and it appears very tilted in the image. --Ikar.us 19:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Snow on black tire swing 2010-11-30 3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Snow on tire swing, Denmark, November 30, 2010. --Slaunger 12:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Good, but the tight is crop left and right, IMO. Thoughts ?--Jebulon 17:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Well, the local newspaper liked it, as they have just published it as the picture of today. And tires do not need to breath. Clin. --Slaunger 18:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Technically, this image fits the requirements of a QI. However, it does not meet the value criterium: Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects. I just don't see how a picture of tires covered in snow adds value to Wikimedia or other projects.--Murdockcrc 22:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    •  Support V-wolf's argument convinced me. True, there isn't snow, tire swings (or snowy tire swings, for that matter!) everywhere. The value argument was the only thing holding back my support vote for your picture, so now you got it. I'm sorry to have delayed your QI promotion. --Murdockcrc 07:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Well, did you notice that one swing has less snow on the sunny side of the black tire? It is educational as illustrating heat absorbance of black bodies and heat transport. Moreover, it has an appealing composition, which can make the layman interested in such basic physics subjects. --Slaunger 23:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC).
  • Then discuss.--Jebulon 23:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit tight, but QI IMO, on "value" as well as technical quality. --Avenue 07:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I can't understand the value argumentation. There is neither snow nor tire swings everywhere. Good and clear depiction. V-wolf 09:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 09:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Mitträckestrailer rv70.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Installation of median separators, Swedish national road 70.--V-wolf 16:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment The vehicle at the left is a bit distracting. Also: there is too much of snow here IMO. Would promote if half of it at the bottom would be cropped away. Regards. --Cayambe 21:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed I saved a little room for the poor plant in the lower left corner, should it be even tighter? --V-wolf 20:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, the plant is really unimportant here, it has nothing to do with the subject. But the image is good enough for QI now imo. --Cayambe 23:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Elekhh 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Buste femme nue Iran Suse Louvre Sb 17851.jpg

[edit]

  •  Neutral for now. Seems sharp enough to me. I'm a bit puzzled by the white edging visible along parts of the shady side and bottom of the object - maybe a sharpening artifact? --Avenue 22:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The “white edging” mentioned by Avenue at the bottom of the bust looks to me like the artifacts caused by a free-form select with a path that doesn’t follow the contours of the object exactly enough. Maybe doing the free-form selection of the bust again with a new selection path and then using a smooth/soft selection margin (? I don’t know how this is called in English, the German PS edition calls it „weiche Auswahlkante“) before sharpening would fix these problems? --Aristeas 07:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for review. You all are right (Carschten too, in a way). I'm pretty sure this figure is sharp enough, but as noticed by Aristeas and Avenue, 1) the masking work and 2) the artificial blur, are not careful enough. I'll be back with this picture I have to rework, but for now,  I withdraw my nomination--Jebulon (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lankatilaka temple 02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lankatilaka temple, Polonnaruwa, Sri Lanka.jpg --Bgag 23:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose too hard chromatic aberrations --Carschten 18:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment CA acceptable IMO. I wish a discussion regarding the (tight) crop left and right, IMO.--Jebulon 11:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    So you think the picture should be decline with other reasons - and that is why so set discuss status o.O --Carschten 11:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    No I don't think so, I'm not sure. I'm interested by other opinions.O.o --Jebulon 17:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    ah, okay o.o :-) --Carschten 17:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    My poor friend, nobody wants to give another opinion...O.O--Jebulon 23:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Rally Finland 2010 - shakedown - Patrik Sandell 1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Photographers taking photos of Patrik Sandell at Rannakylä shakedown in Muurame. --kallerna 11:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good. Alofok 14:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't really like the composition of this one. Mattbuck 19:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose composition not QI . --Elekhh 05:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 05:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Euston railway station MMB 17 390048.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 390048 departs Euston. Mattbuck 22:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - Good. --Cayambe 18:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Too tight crop. --Elekhh 07:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Elekhh --Carschten 12:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:VespaScooterRouge.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Red Vespa --Nico&Co 21:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Great angle, and I love the colour contrast. However the over-exposed highlight on the trim is just too strong, sorry. --Avenue 13:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The crop on the right seems too tight, too. --Avenue 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support A highly reflective surface on a sunny day is expected to have this sort of lighting effect. It is an accurate representation of the subject, using correct camera settings. --Ianare 23:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Sometimes it can be helpful to use "incorrect" camera settings, e.g. to expose for the highlights, and then adjust for this later. I'm not sure I would call ISO 800 the correct setting for this subject, anyway, but I was judging the result, not the technique. --Avenue (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great composition and colors. Do not mind the reflection, but too noisy for my taste. Could easily have been avoided by using lower ISO and longer exposure. --Slaunger 19:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - noise generated by ISO800 for a 1000th of a second shot is rather a waste of a great composition. Mattbuck 01:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment would be nice to retake the picture with another ISO --Mbdortmund 04:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Mattbuck 01:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Some standard blood testing equipment on Swedish vårdcentral.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vacuette tubes and other stuff at a Swedish health centre.--V-wolf 17:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support The out-of-focus stuff is a bit strange and noisy, but I love this. Mattbuck 23:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the crop of the box below. Let's discuss.--Jebulon 17:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the crop as is is better than if it were cropped to show the entire corner. Mattbuck 04:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice colors, but DOF too shallow and the image is too noisy. Photographs like this should be always taken with a tripod and manual settings (ISO 100, f8.0 - something like that) --Carschten 10:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 10:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Dynapac CA 151.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Road roller Dynapac CA151.--V-wolf 11:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
 Support A bit bright maybe, but good. Mattbuck 23:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose The composition is an issue IMO. Let's discuss it! --Kirua 23:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 Question Should I crop it more? --V-wolf 13:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 Support looks good to me --Carschten 09:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 Support The background is disturbing, in a way. But otherwise, it is normal, and relevant for the subject, which is clear, sharp and well taken. Furthermore I think this is an useful picture.--Jebulon 17:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   ----Jebulon 17:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Icicles on motel's roof in Tahoe, California.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Icicles--Mbz1 03:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC). Nice ice :-) Needs a perspective correction on the left side, easy to do. --Cayambe 18:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    Thank you for review. I am not sure how to fix it. It should be rotated?--Mbz1 03:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC).
     Comment No, e.g.: edit>transform>distort in PS. I've uploaded a 'corrected' version over the original file. If you don't like it, please revert it. I'll promote the image if you accept the 'new' version. Kindest regards, --Cayambe 16:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    Your version is fine. Thank you for working on the image.--Mbz1 19:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Ok now. --Cayambe 19:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose I thought it was about the car. --kallerna 15:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • What was about the car?--Mbz1 17:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose dont like composition, sorry. --Swissalps 22:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
And what exactly a new user does not like in the composition ? Any suggestions on improvements? --Mbz1 04:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Pyramids of Giza and boat pit.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination All pyramids of Giza and the boat shaped museum. --kallerna 11:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose too grey --Carschten 18:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would like to hear another opinion. --kallerna 13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • strike vote because of my new version --Carschten 14:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • My  Support for QI. I know the wether in Kairo: the image isn't grey, it is simply dusty air. --Alchemist-hp 22:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • hast du meine neue Version gesehen oder die alte bewertet? --Carschten 14:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It was your new version. It looks much better. --Alchemist-hp 15:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • okay, denn jetzt denke ich auch, dass das Bild nicht mehr grau ist. --Carschten 15:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks QI to me. Maybe we don't like the dusty (polluted?) air on the image, but the matter of fact is that a photographer has to capture the reality. If the air in Cairo is dusty, then you did a good job portraying that fact into the image. --Murdockcrc 19:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I remember the sky near Kairo as dusty as on this image and the light in the desert of Giza like on the photograph. --Aristeas (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas 07:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Dronte dodo Raphus cucullatus.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Raphus cucullatus (Dodo), wax and plaster model of an extinct species ca.1660. Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris.--Jebulon 00:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI and useful --Llez 06:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, I like this artwork a lot, but the lack of any detail in the grey patches on its back and especially the upper part of the wing is unfortunate. --Avenue 10:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Good point, you are right. It was a bit overexposed (through a glass, see the original file), and I tried to improve a bit, but...--Jebulon 18:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, I can see that the lighting was difficult. --Avenue 16:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI to me. --Cayambe 07:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Cayambe. --Aristeas 08:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 07:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Coast path DSC 8920.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination South West Coast Path, app. between Treligga and Pendogget, Cornwall, UK --DKrieger 21:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support perhaps a bit noisy but I really enjoy the atmosphere!--Kirua 17:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nice place indeed, but there is a slight tilt, the noise needs a discussion, and the tight crop below too. Let's have other opinions, please.--Jebulon 17:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • --DKrieger 18:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) minor update
  •  Oppose It think it is too noisy and the crop below is indeed unfortunate. --Slaunger 19:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Great view but I dislike the crop and the white parts are a bit overexposured, sorry --Mbdortmund 04:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 Weak support per Kirua. Noise isn't too hard imo and otherwise a nice image. I think the composition is good as it is --Carschten 10:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

  •  Oppose per above--Jebulon 17:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop. --kallerna 10:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice apart from crop at bottom. --Avenue 08:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Avenue 08:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Hamandir Sahib (Golden Temple).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Harmandir Sahib or Darbar Sahib informally referred to as The Golden Temple is the holiest shrine in Sikhism. --Oleg 16:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support good --Carschten 17:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose "This media file is uncategorized."  Support now. Good big size, althought not the sharpest photo. --kallerna 06:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • does this really need discuss status? It took me maybe thirty seconds to add even just two categories... --Carschten 13:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Carschten, thank you for adding categories - I appreciate it! Kallerna, I apologize - this is my first submission of images and I was unaware that images must have categories (similar to articles) - I'll do so from now on. If I understand correctly, if any issues that are raised are taken care of it should allow revisiting the decision that was made based on a fact that is now taken care of. Kallerna, do you stil oppose? Thanks. --Oleg 17:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - very good. Felix Koenig 18:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Elekhh 20:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I added a geolocalization. Please correct if wrong. Thank you.--Jebulon 17:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

File:ST1 Hedemora 01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Filling station ST1, Hedemora, Sweden (slightly longer exposure than the version nominated yesterday).--V-wolf 20:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support very good for me --Pudelek 21:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, still too dark for me. The exposure is right on the lamp, but too dark everywhere else. Photos like this need to be HDR IMO. --kallerna 09:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment HDR photos look like digital cartoons imho.--V-wolf 11:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support night time photographs arent required to be HDR, it technically good for a night time shot Gnangarra 13:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Neutral because I agree totally with Kallerna and V-wolf. I'm not a fan of HDRs, the most aren't very useful. But it's a fact that everything apart from illumination is underexposed. That's why I abstain. --Carschten 13:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Chipping Sodbury MMB 02 primula vulgaris.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination primula vulgaris near Chipping Sodbury. Mattbuck 12:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment -- Something wrong with the white balance or just the green light reflected from the leaves? -- Alvesgaspar 19:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    I think the WB is fine - from what I remember that is the colour they were. Mattbuck 18:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • {{Oppose}} I like it, but too green (as Alvergaspar)--Lmbuga 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment - OK, degreened it somewhat, is that better? Mattbuck 21:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree now. Good--Lmbuga 03:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Trees_covered_by_snow_in_Boreal,_California.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Trees covered by snow--Mbz1 02:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Sharp when looked at 100%. Look particularly at the trees on the far left. They are very unsharp. --Murdockcrc 19:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree.--Mbz1 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Changed two orthographical errors from the first review. Added a note on the image to illustrate the point. --Murdockcrc 15:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The errors are fixed.--Mbz1 17:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 Support Yes, errors effectively fixed, great landscape! You have my vote. --Murdockcrc 18:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose heavy distortions. I'm not really delighted of the lightning, too, but that's a matter of taste. --Carschten 14:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Where do you distortions?--Mbz1 16:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
All the trees are falling more or less to the right --Carschten 20:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The trees are grooving up on a very, very steep hill.--Mbz1 21:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
But then there aren't distortions but a strong cw tilt. At the moment the hill looks straight... --Carschten 13:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
There's neither distortions not a tilt. If you are to look at the young trees in foreground, they are OK.--Mbz1 16:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok IMO, althought the composition is bit dull. --kallerna 06:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Monte San Salvatore LCD.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of Monte San Salvatore, as seen from Piazza Luini, Lugano, Switzerland. --Murdockcrc 13:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion This is already QI, but I contest the promotion.
     Support Really nice.--Gaeser 16:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose Much too small. Such a motif needs the required resolution. --Ikar.us 00:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Obvious promotion error against the rules, which IMO demonstrated that we need a formalised delist process. This one I think should just be simply reverted, given that is fresh. --Elekhh (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Has been replaced with a highres of the same image. --Elekhh 21:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Strongly agree with Elekhh. Makes much more sense to delist a QI than a FP. -- Alvesgaspar 22:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clarifying and uploading the correct version. But the quality is not good enough: unsharpness, strong chromatic aberration and geometric distortion. Sorry, but I keep the oppose vote. -- Alvesgaspar 19:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Hi Alvesgaspar. Could you please elaborate on the geometric distortion? thanks --Murdockcrc 07:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
        • The buildings are leaning towards the center. Alvesgaspar 09:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Alvesgaspar, I appreciate your technical input very much but let me please remind you that this picture was already promoted as QI by another reviewer. If this picture is being discussed on this ad-hoc delisting process, it is on grounds of the low-resolution problem this image had, which has already been corrected. I strongly disagree with your position on opposing this image on other grounds apart from low-resolution. If you did not like the picture, you had the time to oppose it during the nomination voting period, which may I remind you, already passed. --Murdockcrc (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question I don't understand. Is this nomination or review a way to delist this picture as QI ? In my opinion, it is a question of fact. Even if this picture has been previously elected as a Quality Image, if it doesn't meet the requirements, we only have to record this, and delist, without a vote.--Jebulon 23:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
          • As Elekhh explains below, this in an informal process since we don't have the possibility of delisting QIs. I just wanted to help with my opinion. Alvesgaspar 17:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • We don't have a formal delist process, and this present approach is also informal (i.e. no rules or previous consensus on this). I suggest moving this discussion to the talk page. --Elekhh 07:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hi. Thank you all for pointing out this mistake. This was indeed a mistake of mine while exporting the file from its original TIFF. In the meantime, I have uploaded the same picture but in the original resolution. Please indicate if this corrects the mistake or if I have to register this new image as another candidate for QI. Thanks. --Murdockcrc 19:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Monte San Salvatore LCD2.jpg

  • I supported once, will do it again. And, BTW I was right - the misunderstanding shouldn't become a point of delisting.--Gaeser 19:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Would have been better I think if you would have uploaded the highres on the top of the lowres image, not as a separate file. Otherwise we still need to delist the first promotion and discuss separately the new version. --Elekhh 22:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Ok, I have substituted the original low-res file with the new one. I hope this solves the issue for this nomination. --Murdockcrc (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
      • That's good with me. Still not sure about the best way to close this without the bot messing up something, maybe just move this discussion to the file's talk page? --Elekhh (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support - schaut gross genug für mich aus. --Swissalps 22:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

  •  Support --Frankkas 11:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Neutral it's QI and it isn't too bad that I would immediately support a delisting, but today I wouldn't support it because of the poor quality (heavy distortions and chromatic aberration, noisy too) --Carschten 13:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 11:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Tondu railway station MMB 07 150252.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 150252 arrives at Tondu railway station. Mattbuck 14:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose - While the quality is good, the station is backlighted, the signalman is in the shadow, and 150252 is too distant. The intersection of two tracks, one disused, is well-depicted, but may not be notable. Wsiegmund 17:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Notability is not a criteria for Commons. So, if the image were called "Tondu Junction" or something that would be better? Because technically the station is behind the camera, I was standing on the footbridge. Mattbuck 19:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    "Value" is a criterion. A notable junction would have more value, in my opinion, but no such claim is made. I'll change my evaluation to discuss. Perhaps others will see it differently. In the file description, please mention the junction of the tracks. Also, please identify the structure left of the tracks that I thought was part of the station, if that is possible. Wsiegmund 22:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    File description amended. No offence as to your value judgements, but I don't see much value in most of the images which come through here - generic streets or buildings. At least this one includes some transport infrastructure and could be used to illustrate something about signal boxes, the Maesteg Line, Tondu station, etc. Mattbuck 14:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Carschten 20:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Kirua 12:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 10:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Bokeh in text.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Shallow depth of field presented in text. --PetarM 15:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment There is a spot to be removed IMO.--Jebulon 15:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Its on paper, no need. Removed anyway. --PetarM 22:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
     Support Yes I've seen it was on paper. It is much better now, isn't it ? Thanks for removing. QI for me.--Jebulon 23:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Easily reshootable, not that good. Why just that "t" is highlighted? Bit noisy, dark and the sharp part is not horisontal. Should be more like this IMO. --kallerna 13:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 Info kallerna, did you read text...and than you ask why just T is highligthed (try wikipedia ---> bokeh, DOF) ? Should be more like ... ? Really, why ? Have you heard for diagonalization. I dont copy others, so no, its shouldnt be like ... WB is good, since is shot at nigth reading ligth. --PetarM 10:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB seems off, underexposed, noisy. --Carschten 12:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support good for me. --Kirua 16:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Would be good for me if the image 1) was not that dark and 2) the color was not just brown but more like the color of ordinary paper (neutral/grey or, even better, beige, chamois, or something like that, but not brown). Can you fix this? --Aristeas 08:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per kallerna --Archaeodontosaurus 07:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Ulm - Altstadt - Ulmer Münster - Südschiff - Ansicht aus OG des SO-Turms (2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination South nave of the Ulm Minster. I know the image is not perfect from a technical point of view, but it is rather difficult to take a photograph from this point of view (not regularly accessible!). --Aristeas 19:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    • A perspective correction would help, IMO.--Jebulon 01:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I will try … --Aristeas 12:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
      •  Oppose on perspective grounds after no change for several days. Mattbuck 15:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I had absolutely no time this week. This happens, doesn’t it? Now I have tried a perspective correction, but it’s to late?! OK, if you think so ... --Aristeas 20:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment I changed to discuss, I don't have the skills to judge this image.--V-wolf 20:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Thanks for giving the image another chance! — Again: I’m sorry that I could not respond earlier to Jebulon’s discussion. But I had much urgent work to do last week (and didn’t know that before), and the perspective correction needed much time and several attempts. Now I think the image is at least better. What do you think? (Please take into consideration that it is a rather difficult shot: the room from which this photograph has been taken is not regularly accessible, only with special guidance, and it is not possible to use a tripod etc.) --Aristeas (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Composition maybe not perfect IMO, but QI otherwise, good perspective correction.--Jebulon 23:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Hint regarding composition: I had to press the camera agains the window-sill to stabilize the camera (a tripod was not allowed); therefore I could not vary the composition much. --Aristeas (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support sehr gut, I like even the composition. Felix Koenig 19:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment regarding the composition, my question is : need of a crop left and right, or not ?--Jebulon 17:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
      •  Comment I will crop it at the left and right side, if you think it is better then. But as nobody has answered to Jebulon’s question for some days , I’m not sure about it and have just left the image untouched in order to preserve as much information as possible … --Aristeas 08:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support now it's fixed. Mattbuck 08:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Elekhh 20:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Lifeguard August 2010-3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lifegard and kids -- Alvesgaspar 00:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Bad lightning, too hard shadows --Carschten 12:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC) -- I disagree, the photo was taken in late afternoon -- Alvesgaspar 12:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    you disagree that there are hard shadows??? --Carschten 13:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    •  Info -- No, I disagree that the lighting is bad. New version uploaded (horizon, dust spots, noise) --Alvesgaspar 13:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support An obvious QI to me.--Jebulon 16:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I don't like the composition + too dark. --kallerna 17:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The people work fine in this composition as near silhouettes, so the shadows don't bother me. Maybe I would feel differently if they were facing the camera. The composition could be slightly better IMO (e.g. with people placed per rule of thirds), but the shoreline makes a nice diagonal. Good enough for QI. --Avenue 23:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support imo QI --Mbdortmund 00:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   -Elekhh 05:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

File:South Wharf Foot Bridge.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Night view of South Wharf foot bridge, Melbourne Donaldytong 14:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI for me. --Makele-90 18:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Nice subject, difficult shot. But very noisy in sky, and strong CA. Please let's discuss.--Jebulon 23:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose Us Jebulon. Beautiful picture, but noised, tilted (see left areas) and, for me, the image have a little distortion (but I'm not sure)--Lmbuga 18:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 Neutral The titled left areas mentioned by Lmbuga should be fixed, of course. I would accept the noise in the sky and in the lights because it’s a night view. But maybe someone could denoise the image a bit? I remember there were special applications/filters for that job, and this beautiful image deserves some work. --Aristeas (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 Comment New version. I'm not sure if it's better, it's very dificult to me. (I think that I can't vote)--Lmbuga 03:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good work with the "teamwork" of shot and improvements! --V-wolf (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - I like this now. Mattbuck 08:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -Elekhh 05:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Unryuin Kyoto17s4290.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Satorinomado Window of Unryuin in Kyoto--663highland 13:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  SupportVery good! The same with the missing geolocation data. --Kuli 13:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose Good composition but too overexposed areas --Archaeodontosaurus 17:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
     OpposeUs Archaeodontosaurus--Lmbuga 20:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 Comment I agree with Archaeodontosaurus APTOC 03:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Sockpupet. --Elekhh (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Elekhh 01:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

File:All pyramids of Giza panorama 2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panorama of All pyramids of Giza. --kallerna 11:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Great!! Quality and valuable. Much more than a simple IQ for me. --Kirua 14:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks heavily cw tilted (or wraped) too me. --Berthold Werner 14:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support sufficient to QI --Archaeodontosaurus 08:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support --Pudelek 14:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support In deser it will be hard to make it more sharp. APTOC 03:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Sockpuppet -- Alvesgaspar 09:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Elekhh 01:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Colonial Building, St John's.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Colonial Building in St John's, Newfoundland--Nilfanion 23:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Ok. --kallerna 16:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too tight crop imo --Carschten 15:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 Comment Agree with Carschten... I can't wote "for". APTOC 03:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Sockpuppet --Elekhh 01:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question WHile like the image and the compositin is ok, though a perspective distortion on the right side of the building my question that another image of the building shows the building as being a grey where as in this image its a sandy colour, it unusual to have such a significant colour variation which one is closer to the natural color? Gnangarra 13:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Carschten--Lmbuga 01:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Elekhh 01:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Tenryuji Kyoto31n4592.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of Tenryuji's ohojo in Kyoto --663highland 13:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline
    • Very good! Can you add geolocation data? --Kuli 13:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Perhaps good, but not very good to me: Poor clarity, poor luminosity and poor contrast (see the central area). Overexposed areas --Lmbuga 21:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
       OpposePer Lmbuga. Then discuss --Jebulon 11:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    •  Oppose And it's tilted. (I'd also appreciate geocode.)- H005 13:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --H005 18:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Umayyad Square, Damascus.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Umayyad Square, Damascus --Bgag 01:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Promotion -- Support Frankkas 11:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- The image is distorted, as if skewed in the vertical direction -- Alvesgaspar 13:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support What I see is not distortion but perspective and this gives the picture an interesting composition. -- Xorx 12:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm talking about the buildings, not the avenue! -- Alvesgaspar 12:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Yann 09:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Reinheim Festungsturm.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Reinheim Festungsturm, Germany by LoKiLeCh; nom by --JuTa 18:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Ok, but too much minor flaws: partially bit overexposed, lacks detail and composition. --kallerna 09:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    There is no overexposure. It is a bit low on details, but the benchmark resolution here is 2MP. --Dschwen 15:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    ? The image has more than 2MP (4,823,856 px). --Aristeas 19:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
     Support QI but please take care of your captions: no geocoding and we do not know what I look! --Archaeodontosaurus 08:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
     Support Maybe not the greatest image ever (composition a bit boring IMHO), but QI to me if you add geocoding. --Aristeas 08:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
     Oppose Overexposed. Andy Dingley 20:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 Oppose The sky looks noisy to me.--Jebulon 00:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose Sorry, to me, poor detail--Lmbuga 02:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 00:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Lottery stalls, Hedemora julskyltning.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lotteries at at Swedish christmas market.--V-wolf 23:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support - Nice glow, good composition and quality. Motion blur on people in background is tolerable IMO. --Avenue 11:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    Weak  Oppose - I'm not convinced by the composition, the bright area top right irks me. Let's discuss it. Mattbuck 08:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much going on. --kallerna 12:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question How do you mean? Some people buying lottery tickets. A lot less activities than many beach or street photos shown here previously (N.B. Just for curiosity, feelings are difficult to show in text, and no harm intended).--V-wolf 20:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I just mean that there's too much stuff in the frame. Less is more. ;) --kallerna 11:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question Do you think it would be better if I cut the upper third? --V-wolf 11:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm talking about the buildings, not the avenue! -- Alvesgaspar 12:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Actually I don't like the composition. The left part shows very much that doesn't matter, and to the right it's cut off. Sorry, doesn't work for me. -- H005 17:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Elekhh 21:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)