Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 2013

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:13-04-13-st-poelten-landhausviertel-627.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Pölten, Austria, Landhausviertel --Ralf Roletschek 08:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    Good but needs perspective correction on the right Poco a poco 08:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC) OK corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 10:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Ok now, but just please, fix the blue CA in the top right --Poco a poco 12:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    Strong CA in upper right part, elsewhere too but to a lesser degree. Biopics 17:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  I withdraw my nomination --Ralf Roletschek 10:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 19:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Alsterblick Hamburg.jpg

[edit]

File:Dikke_teek.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination fat tick --Uberprutser 23:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Disgusting subject, but nice photo :) --Pleclown 18:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
    Niet tot op soort geïdentificeerd. Biopics 17:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    It's not fully in focus. Mattbuck 23:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 19:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Iris_mauve_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Purple iris --Marianne Casamance 19:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeUnsharp, noisy --Poco a poco 20:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Which part is unsharp ? --Marianne Casamance 24 April 2013
  •  Oppose Practically everything. The aperture f / 3.5, is the cause. The identification of the species is highly desired, even for QI. --Archaeodontosaurus 08:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 19:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Chiesa_parrocchiale_di_Botticino_Mattina_est.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Parish church of Botticino Botticino Mattina. --Moroder 22:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Distortion Stretching is too extreme. The top of the tower looks larger than the bottom. --Tuxyso 22:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)  Comment It is, as you can see [here] --Moroder 22:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
     OpposeSorry, but if you look at your own photo you can easily see the the tower is not that distorted. --Tuxyso 22:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC))
     Comment I think Tuxyso is right and the crop don't give possibility to correct distortion --Christian Ferrer 16:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  I withdraw my nomination There is no distortion of the proportions and the vertical lines are perfect but I withrdraw my nomination --Moroder 06:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 19:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:University Park MMB S1 Chemistry.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination University of Nottingham Chemistry Department. Mattbuck 02:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Dark foreground disturbs me --Moroder 10:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
    There's a large building on the right out of shot. I can't really do much about the brightness, as brightening the low levels ruins the colours of the rest. Mattbuck 19:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Crop it --Moroder 11:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    Then it seems top-heavy. Mattbuck 02:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Not done --High Contrast 19:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  CommentI put a bit of light on the foreground. Better?--Hic et nunc 13:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
    How did you do that without ruining the contrast in the rest of the image? Selective editing? Mattbuck 23:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Better now --Moroder 22:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 19:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Diplacodes_pumila_Dwarf_Percher_2013_02_03_14_15.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Dwarf Percher Dragonfly --Alandmanson 07:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose very nice but just few detail and noise --A.Savin 11:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
     Weak support Background noise is not as bad as detail loss due to excessive NR. Not an excellent shot, but a nice one IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 17:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Noise reduction can be done on backround and do not take part on the dragonfly. Masking rule the world :) --Nino Verde 07:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy. --Nino Verde 07:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Too noisy, affecting the detail of the subject. Alvesgaspar 22:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 19:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Nottingham MMB 79 Nottingham to Grantham Line 158788.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of 158788. Mattbuck 01:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose unsharp --A.Savin 09:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't agree, but have sharpened. Mattbuck 13:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
       OpposeI agree. You may have sharpened, but the slight blur of objects gives that a slight 'glow' and sharpening won't fix that completely. . Here's a tip: Photograph in better lighting.--Earth100 13:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      Oh yes, that is a really helpful tip for taking photos inside a train. Thankyou for your input. Mattbuck 14:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
       SupportI partly agree :-) I admit the pic is not crisp sharp, but on the other hand, the subject is clearly depicted, image is well composed, colours look fine, every aspect besides the final bit of sharpness is well done here. Sharp enough in my eyes. --Kreuzschnabel 17:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support good for QI in my eyes. --Ralf Roletschek 14:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support - A very nice photo, probably a fair candidate to FPC... -- Alvesgaspar 22:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    Feel free to nominate if you wish, I can't say I want to go back there personally. Mattbuck 10:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I can't, already two active nominations of mine in the page. Alvesgaspar 12:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Quality just OK now --A.Savin 12:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 19:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Brise-lames à Sète (2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mediterranean Sea and Dellon groyne from the breakwater in Sète, Hérault, France.. --Christian Ferrer 16:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment CA, not sharp. White balance looks like incorrect in case i think concrete blocks should be more gray than blue. Probably fixable (not sure in case of no EXIF) --Nino Verde 16:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC) ✓ Done New version with balance changed.--Christian Ferrer 17:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
    But what about CA and sharpness? By the way the noise on the sky can be cleaned too. --Nino Verde 08:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)✓ Done OK, I'd try to correct how I can. --Christian Ferrer 05:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose due to extremely bright bit on right. Mattbuck 01:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined A.Savin 19:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:2013-04-17_17-58-30-canard-colvert.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Anas platyrhynchos --ComputerHotline 18:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support --Rjcastillo 01:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Blurry too much. --Draceane 06:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
     OpposeWhite parts IMHO overexposured (see annotations), theres a soft blur maybe from overdone noise reduction, and reflections show the entire pic is tilted CW. --Kreuzschnabel 17:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Too blurry. Sorry.--Hic et nunc (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 19:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Loro-Parque-Delfin-Show-2011-01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dolphin show in Loro Parque in Tenerife --Tuxyso 19:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
     Info New version uploaded, thanks to Hic et nunc. Improved sharpness, shadows and blue channel. --Tuxyso 11:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose To me, too strong haloes and probably a bit too slow shutter speed. --Mattbuck 18:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
     Comment I reduced the haloes. For me the pic is techniqually not perfect but okay and it has a real dynamic. So for me it is a QI.--Hic et nunc 07:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Can't vote for own work in QIC. Biopics 17:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 Info It's not my work. Author is Tuxyso. I only made some improvements.--Hic et nunc 11:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
That makes you co-author of the version we are talking about. --Kreuzschnabel 03:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
This was new for me. So I removed my vote and added it as a comment.--Hic et nunc 13:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 18:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Campus MMB Z3 Melton Hall.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Melton Hall. Mattbuck 01:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose clearly under- and overexposed --A.Savin 09:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    It was a dark night and the lights are bright. I think it accurately portrays the conditions. Mattbuck 13:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI agree.--Earth100 13:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Hic et Nunc has uploaded a new version, which has drastically reduced contrast and oddly reduced the filesize by 5MB. Mattbuck 23:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Oh, sorry. My mistake. I uploaded a new version with brighter dark parts, less vignetting, but no change in contrast. And I saved the file in highest possible quality so the filesize increased to 11 MB. If the work is not better than the original file, please revert the versions. --Hic et nunc 14:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 18:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Vista_de_Garachico,_Tenerife,_España,_2012-12-13,_DD_08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Español: Vista de Garachico, Tenerife, España --Poco a poco 17:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Review  Comment Tilted horizon. --Iifar 17:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Poco a poco 22:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice.--Earth100 04:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)  Comment Please see the notes. --Iifar 12:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Poco a poco 19:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Still pretty curved horizon. --Iifar 16:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ New -and last version uploaded addressing the horizon and the dust spot Poco a poco 19:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 18:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

File:2013-04-17_18-26-20-canard.jpg

[edit]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 06:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Amanita muscaria20100914 292.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Young fruiting body of Amanita muscaria. --Bff 09:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 13:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Could've been sharper and imo too harsh flashlight, sorry --A.Savin 18:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per A.Savin --Archaeodontosaurus 07:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The picture is small, not sharp, has no beautiful background and the flashlight is harsh --Manuela 05:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 06:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

File:2013-04-25_21-09-18-ecl-lune-mosaic.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: 2013-04-25 lunar eclipse --ComputerHotline 11:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality for me --Grondin 15:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Small size, little detail. Biopics 17:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support good for QI. --Ralf Roletschek 10:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Do you mean not good enough for something else? Biopics 13:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose picture is small and not sharp --Manuela 05:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 06:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Sombra en Viru Bog, Parque Nacional Lahemaa, Estonia, 2012-08-12, DD 14.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Shadow of the Commoner "Poco a poco", Viru bog, Lahemaa National Park, Estonia --Poco a poco 13:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose because of the shadow --Iifar 07:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    I have shot this picture because of the shadow! great. Poco a poco 08:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    i think, we can discuss, for me its  Support QI. --Ralf Roletschek 01:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC) --Ralf Roletschek 01:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
     Comment I think the problem is the verticality of the picture that increase the presence of the shadow and make an imbalance with the rest of the image and especially with the tower. For me, you must crop about 1900px of the sky and 1500px of the low part. The result will be an horizontal picture with less omnipresence of the shadow. --Christian Ferrer 17:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good as self portrayal of a landscape photographer, bad as photo of "Parque Nacional Lahemaa, Estonia" as implied by the description --Tuxyso 17:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, I agree there, the main element in this picture is my shadow, so I updated the description Poco a poco 21:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
    •  Question Have you got an idea for another filename? I could rename it for you. --Tuxyso 07:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks, but I did it on my own, Poco a poco 19:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO QI now. Probably you can use it on your profile page :) --Tuxyso 07:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    Thsnks for the hint, I followed it and as soon as I reach the 50 FPs I will include this subpage in Commons:MOP :) Poco a poco (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Grondin 06:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the picture is sharp, but the composition is awkward, sry --Manuela 05:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment The sky i overexposed.--Grondin 21:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK --Rjcastillo 04:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 06:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Sender-Hesselberg.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Transmitter mast on the Hesselberg, Germany --Kreuzschnabel 18:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 13:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange angle, blown highlights, chromatic aberration. --Iifar 18:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality is okay and I like the angle.--Hic et nunc 14:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sun blows out the subject of the picture --Tristan H 1:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The sun has been included in the pic on purpose for effect – of course it would blow out some detail at the very spot is is shining through, but I took care to keep the rest of the mast clearly visible, so I don’t really understand that point. --Kreuzschnabel 03:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Because of the angle, I do that sometimes, but it's not the most encylopedic way, so it's worse to describe something. --Kadellar 16:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 06:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

File:KgKuaiKandazon_Sabah_Monsopiad-Cultural-Village-DansePerformance-12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Young Kadazandusuns performing a traditional danse at Kg. Kuai Kandazon, Penampang, Sabah --Cccefalon 19:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 19:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    Very grainy and not sharp, especially the lady. Biopics 06:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose There is much noise all over the image --Manuela 10:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 00:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:13-04-29-ice-06.jpg

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination --Ralf Roleček 10:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vorfrühling_in_Brilon_Blauer_Krokus,.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Deutsch: Blauer Krokus im Vorfrühling --Siegfried von Brilon 23:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline *Not enough resolution and sharpness...--Earth100 11:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    Very small, but above 2MP so within guidelines. I think it's ok, but would have preferred a wider aperture. Mattbuck 11:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Flowers are not sharp especially considering the small imagesize --Manuela 17:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 00:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:SV Mattersburg vs. FC Wacker Innsbruck 20130421 (34).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Austrian football player Thomas Löffler (FC Wacker Innsbruck) --Steindy 23:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 09:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not crisp enough for the small size. Biopics 13:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
1600² is not small. --Ralf Roletschek 11:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 Comment I guess more sharpness is hardly possible under the conditions given. Still there’s severe CA visible on the ball. --Kreuzschnabel 16:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 OpposeObviously high ISO (those data are missing, no EXIF), picture is comparatively small (1600×1600 is ca. 2.5MP, just above the limit), CAs on the ball, no QI to me --Manuela 07:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CAs on the ball can be easily removed. Basic EXIFs (for Lightroom I suggest the use of Metadata Wrangler - you can select which metadata are added) should not be removed from a photo because the data are interesting for other photographers and for a assessment of a photo with regard to the camera settings and focal length. Although sport photography is difficult (and expensive) this photo is no QI for me, because the context of the shooting situation (500mm, 1/1000, ISO 1250) is unknown and sharpness & noise level are not good enough with regard to the tiny image size and the cutted ball in not optimal. --Tuxyso 14:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 00:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Wolfau - Volksschule (01).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Elementary school in Wolfau (Burgenland, Austria), built 1910. --Steindy 19:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion No Exif data, no geotagging --Manuela61 04:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Manuela, I take my right to anonymity to complete and therefore remove the exif data. It's something no one on when and where I was requesting this respect. The exif data have nothing to do with the photographic performance. The geo data I have added. Thank you! --Steindy (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 Support That is not a reason to decline an image --Moroder 14:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 Support Good quality --Christian Ferrer 06:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 SupportO.k. for me now. But what have the Exif data to do with anonymity? --Manuela61 04:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 00:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Colombo April 2013-5.jpg

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination

File:Tagetes_patula,_Burdwan,_West_Bengal,_India_19_01_2013_1_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tagetes patula --JDP90 08:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support OK --A.Savin 09:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Red channel completely blown on the blossom leading to loss of detail, oversharpened edges, unnatural look --Kreuzschnabel 09:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support It's OK to me. --Florstein 21:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 00:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:2012.08.11.-17-Viernheimer Heide Viernheim-Kleine Koenigslibelle-Maennchen.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kleine Königslibelle (Lesser Emperor), Männchen (male) - Anax parthenope. Eating fly. --Hockei 11:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion A very similar picture is already promoted --Manuela 21:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me, Manuela's motivation is no reason to decline it --Moroder 22:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me, idem than Moroder --Christian Ferrer 17:51, 04 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 00:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:13-04-23-reiserad-RalfR-06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bicycle, Detail --Ralf Roletschek 13:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Composition not really interesting --Manuela61 21:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support "Interesting" is no reason to decline QI, I'd just ask to improve description --Moroder 23:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very low DOF for a static technical image. Also description fails. Biopics 05:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  I withdraw my nomination --Ralf Roletschek 10:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 00:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Père-Lachaise_-_Division_65_-_Durand-Fornas_11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grave of Durand-Fornas. --Coyau 18:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment OK, but, a bit unsharpness. imo --Rjcastillo 01:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC) not done --Rjcastillo 15:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Done what??? --Coyau 16:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)  Support Fine with me. --Iifar 16:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment There's a little black corner. I think a better crop would be useful.--Hic et nunc 13:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    Fixed. --Coyau 15:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice composition. A little out of focus on the top but this defect is negligible.--Grondin 21:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 00:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Anas_platyrhynchos_female_juveniles_JdP_2013-04-28_t185230.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mallard hen (Anas platyrhynchos) hiding ducklings under her wings. --Jastrow 16:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Great sharpness but  very disturbing elements in foreground, sorry --Poco a poco 18:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Er, that's because the hen is hiding. The reeds are there on purpose (see another view). --Jastrow 18:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Same problem there. I understand the difficulty of the shot but I just review the result, go for "discuss" if you want to have more opinions on this Poco a poco 18:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Calling for discussion then. The subject is the mother duck hiding. If she was shown in plain sight it wouldn't be an accurate representation. I'm not saying the reeds were difficult to avoid. I'm saying they're here on purpose. --Jastrow 18:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. --Iifar 05:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Idem. --Christian Ferrer 11:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The composition is poor and very noticeably so. This is ultimately a picture of half of a duck regardless of whether it's "hiding" or not. --Tristan H 1:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Er, it's not half a duck. The only part of the duck you can't see is the feet, because the hen is sitting. It is hiding. If you look closely at the space between her breast and the ground, you'll see a duckling. If you didn't notice it first, the mother duck did a good job of it. Jastrow 07:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the composition is not compelling to me --Manuela61 13:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Florstein 21:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice composition, but the nearest part of the animal from the lens is out of focus (f/5 aperture is not sufficient).--Grondin 18:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined A.Savin 00:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Furnadoia_de_Seceda_y_Resciesa.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Cable car on the Mount Seceda in the Dolomites --Moroder 23:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Very nice, but I recommend a perspective correction (see left side) Poco a poco 07:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the review, but imho if there are frequent exeptions for vertical perspective of buildings, they might apply also for trees. In this case with the correction I would loose the rocks on the left which ad sense of space to the picture --Moroder 08:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree somehow with your comments and maybe it would loose appeal as FP, what it will become, but from the pure QI point of view I am not convinced and would like to hear others' opinions Poco a poco 17:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice and good quality. --Iifar 05:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the cable car cabine is out of focus and does not stand out from the background --Manuela 05:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. The sunlit portion of the cable car is sharp enough, and the sun beam provides enough contrast to my tast. In don't see any perspective problem, but it may be my terrible space perception. --Jastrow 08:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support as above. Tomer T 13:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't know if I am allowed to make a second vote, so I write this as comment. The dark parts of the cabine are noisy. --Manuela 04:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Manuela. Biopics 05:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak support It’s not crisp sharp, with glaring reflections (kit lens?), and it’s really a bit noisy. Maybe the author can afford a better lens once a few dozen more have been promoted :-) I like the composition though. --Kreuzschnabel 16:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I gave this 350$ lens to my niece for birthday 700 promoted QI ago when I bought a couple of 2500$ lenses but now that this image was promoted FP with 24 support, 0 oppose votes I'll trade the cheaper lens back from her ;-)--Moroder 05:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is a difference, a featured picture need not be a QI --Manuela61 07:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Pardon me, we talk lenses not QI --Moroder 16:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support 24 support votes on FP can not all be wrong, surely QI IMO -- Arcalino 17:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 00:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Altes_Rathaus_München_-_Festsaal_003.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Zurich-Window of the old townhall in Munich. --Mummelgrummel 07:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support OK --A.Savin 17:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Far from QI. Noise is everywhere. --Selbymay 15:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Too noisy. May be a Valued Image though. --Kreuzschnabel 04:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support ok to me. --Ralf Roletschek 11:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy indeed. Biopics 13:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as others, too noisy Arcalino 17:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined A.Savin 00:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:2012.09.22.-42-1-Kreith-Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blaugrüne Mosaikjungfer (Southern Hawker), Männchen - Aeshna cyanea. --Hockei 18:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Bad crop, bit bright. --Mattbuck 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
     Info This picture is not cropped. I just cut a bit on the left site. It is a part of a picture series and a continuation of this one. --Hockei 07:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    I think it's worth to discuss. --Hockei 09:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the background is too agitated, the wings should not be cropped --Manuela 05:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 Comment Please note my information above. The wings are not cropped! --Hockei 17:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 Comment You should have chosen a slightly farther view so that the wings are complete visible on the image --Manuela 04:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, it was a misunderstanding. --Hockei 16:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 00:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Cistus albidus, Castelnau-de-Guers, Hérault.jpg

[edit]

File:Wolfau - evangelisches Bethaus (01).jpg

[edit]

CAs are visible at the roof of the right house. --Tuxyso 07:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting! I don't see it and the right house is indeed the main subject. Thank you, I understand. The mission is clear... --Steindy 19:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination Thank you Biopics! Thank you Tuxyso! --Steindy (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stained glass window in Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Luxembourg.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stained glass window in Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Luxembourg --Pudelek 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very Good --Rjcastillo 03:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry to disagree, but it's very unsharp (especially given the small size). --Selbymay 08:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support As an option (file updated). --Aleks G 23:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 06:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Notonecta maculata MHNT.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Notonecta maculata swimming --Archaeodontosaurus 07:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Very good--Holleday 09:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not as crisp as most of your other work. Biopics 13:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    The problem is that the animal is in the air and water. To see the hair, light passes through the water. And the animal was not patient --Archaeodontosaurus 17:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That's indeed a problem. A polarizing filter might help. Biopics 05:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 06:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Boerengans (Anser anser forma domesticus) 04.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Brooding Anser anser domesticus forma--
    Famberhorst 05:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me.--S. F. B. Morse 06:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown back and size on the limit. Biopics 08:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment plumage back overexposed. Can you correct it?--Grondin 18:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice image but still overexposed at the back Arcalino 17:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 06:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Political System of Germany.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Organigram of the political system of Germany (important: please do also notice the German version of this picture as well as the other organigrams based on this graphic: [1][2][3][4]!) Greetings 111Alleskönner 01:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Review "Federal Diet"? Surely that can't be right. And what's the big section sign in the circle for? Mattbuck 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    Let’s move this to Discuss to save space. – „Federal Diet“ is certainly a false-friend accident, „Federal Parliament“ would be a proper term. As for the § sign: in German that sign used in legal texts only, especially in printed law, so it would mean "legislature" here. --Kreuzschnabel 17:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Why CR? Below originality/complexity threshold. Just some boxes and text (not judging content). Biopics 08:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Uhm, sorry, I'm German and I'm pretty sure that this organigram is completely correct. For the term "Federal Diet" see en:Bundestag, where it is also translated as that (for the word "diet" see en:Diet (assembly)). Concerning the "§": As Kreuzschnabel said it: this sign means legislation. Allrounder (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it is above the threshold of originality, and in any case, so what? We regularly accept old paintings photographed by Commoners, which have even less originality. Nice diagram. --King of Hearts 08:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Maximum 8 days in CR.

  •  Support as KoH Arcalino 17:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support A clear synthesis Borvan53 17:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose in my eyes a SVG cannot be a QI. --Ralf Roletschek 13:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   -- B.p. 12:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_Nuestra_Señora,_Núremberg,_Alemania,_2013-03-16,_DD_06.jpg

[edit]

File:Planta_eólica_de_Fröttmaning,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2013-02-11,_DD_02.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Wind power plant Fröttmaning, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 15:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn Not really sharp, nice composition though, why f/20 --Moroder 19:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    f/20? good question, cannot say. What is not sharp? I think that the subject of the picture (the wind generator) is pretty sharp Poco a poco 20:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment IMO the blades are not really sharp but the vegetation is blurred. I was told that that depends on high f values. In digital photography imagers become less sharp with high f numbers. Maybe we can ask others opinion?--Moroder 22:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It is fact that higher f-numbers guide to lower quality due to higher light diffraction. If you don't need DoF as highest priority, then you shouldn't use f-numbers higher than 8 or 11. So far the theory. As said, I don't know why I used f-20, but what I see is that the center of the generator is pretty sharp but the blades are not. This is not due to diffraction but rather due to the lower shutter speed (1/100). The blades moved the center didn't. Poco a poco 23:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment 1/100 was not good a choice to show motion blur. The result is "no meat no fish" (not very good sharpness with marginal motion blur). Higher shutter speed was necessary for freezing the blades and to get good sharpness with bigger aperture. In good light conditions motion blur could be added with ND filter. --Iifar 16:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination Will not argue, wrong settings anyhow Poco a poco 18:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cerkiew św. Jana Teologa w Mostowlanach.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Orthodox church of St John the Evangelist in Mostowlany, eastern Poland --Boston9 09:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 09:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilt, missing sharpness --A.Savin 09:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilt and too much noise in sky. --Rjcastillo 14:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Tilted, Should I rotate it for you, Boston9? --High Contrast 19:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 07:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Sea Mills Bristol Omnibus C8320 UHY360.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Preserved Bristol KSW6B bus -- Geof Sheppard 07:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 09:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - overexposed cloud, green cast. Not enough sharpness for a resolution just above 2MP. --A.Savin 11:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as for A.Savin. -- Smial 02:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 07:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:P-abramov-sm-8260.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Academician Sergey Mikhailovich Abramov. --PereslavlFoto 16:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Focus is on the microphone, not on the eyes and the hand watch is overexposed. --Tuxyso 20:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Wrinkles are well visible, we had such images as QI, as far as I remember. Let's wait for more comments.--PereslavlFoto 22:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 07:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:P-abramov-sm-8278.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Academician Sergey Mikhailovich Abramov. --PereslavlFoto 13:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Focus is on the beard and tie not on the eyes. --Tuxyso 20:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Beard and eyes are on the same line, in my humble opinion. This image is so sweet to me, so I'd like to get another remark.--PereslavlFoto 22:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 07:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:P-abramov-sm-ukhlinov-lm-8281.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sergey Abramov and Leonid Ukhlinov are opening the learning center of Free Software in Pereslavl. --PereslavlFoto 13:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose f4 is not sufficient. Only the eyes of the right person are sharp, the heads of both persons have not the same distance to the camera. --Tuxyso 20:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC) If that is so much important, I still have a little hope to read the 2nd review. And if noone reviews, your comment will draw a line a bit later. --PereslavlFoto 22:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Iifar 07:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:P-abramov-sm-amelkin-sa-8288.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sergey Abramov signing the papers of the learning center of Free Software in Pereslavl. --PereslavlFoto 13:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Quality is OK, but the photo is CCW tilted. Was it intended? --Tuxyso 20:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Exactly, tilted line of the background adds some dynamics to the scene, and the main people must be shown straight. Also, this is a corner view.--PereslavlFoto 22:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 07:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Gmünd-Einhorn-Tunnel-Tunnelkamin.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ventilation chimney of the "Einhorn" tunnel, Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany --Kreuzschnabel 17:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion The sky is washed-out, the chimney looks tilted although this might be an optical illusion --Manuela61 11:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    It certainly is an optical illusion since the ground has a steep slope so it’s quite a few metres higher behind the tower than in front of it. The sky is just the one I got when I took the photograph which is perfectly sharp and rich of detail IMHO. May I ask for CR even if it’s generally not considered good behaviour to do so oneself? --Kreuzschnabel 16:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there a problem with your account, I cannot see the full resolution image? --Manuela 07:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done New version uploaded --Kreuzschnabel 00:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 SupportO.k. the picture is sharp enough and exposed correctly --Manuela61 17:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Ikar.us 10:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_Nuestra_Señora,_Núremberg,_Alemania,_2013-03-16,_DD_11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church or Our Lady, Nuremberg, Germany --Poco a poco 16:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Perspective distortion, image underexposed --Manuela61 11:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC) sry the wrong picture it is not underexposed but the distortion is true therefore declined --Manuela61 11:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    I wanted to show it from the bottom. For this kind of pictures a distortion in the perspective has always been accepted Poco a poco 13:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
     Support How else would you compose an image like this? Forced perspective correction would make it look very unnatural since the upwards-view parallax would still be there. No problem with PD here. QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 21:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. The distortion is wanted an artistic effect. -- Arcalino 17:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI in my opinion. --NorbertNagel 20:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  OpposeThe strong converging lines interfere greatly. --Steindy 21:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    Interfere what? I haven't understood your argument. Please, have a look into this page Poco a poco 09:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
    I am the artistic design note, even if it has nothing to do with encyclopaedic photograph. --Steindy 20:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
EV is none of the criterias for QI evaluation (although I don't agree in the case of a church photographed from the bottom and so showing an imposing view of it). We have this EV discussion oft enough at FPC and it brings nowhere. Poco a poco 08:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support The distortion makes this image interesting. I support its QI-badge. --High Contrast 19:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Ikar.us 10:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Lenteroos (Helleborus orientalis) 04.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Spring Rose (Helleborus orientalis)--Famberhorst 18:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Bit of camera shake I think? I'm leaving towards oppose but would like a 2nd opinion. Mattbuck 11:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Comment
    • Photo was taken with a tripod.--Famberhorst 18:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support There is some minor motion blur, however it’s QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 00:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Kreuzschnabel. --Rjcastillo 16:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 07:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:13-04-20-bremen-by-RalfR-046.jpg

[edit]

File:Södra_Hammarbyhamnen_May_2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Emelie and Lotten --ArildV 08:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Image is not crisp, the houses in the background are somehow washed-out, the composition is not compelling, no geotagging data --Manuela 21:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC) T
  • Review The main object is very sharp and crisp (much sharper than required here). The background is deliberately not in focus (200mm and f/2.8 = limited DOF)! There is no reason whatsoever to have the background in focus. It is a points to isolate the main object from the background. And the photo have camera location.--ArildV 17:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
     SupportGood quality. --Christian Ferrer 04:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
     OpposeThe background is not out of focus (what would be o.k. of course), but it looks somehow weird, washed-out with CAs and somehow artificially, I have now idea what happened because the lens is fine --Manuela 07:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
     Weak support Generally I say it’s QI but I agree with Manuela on the weird soft look of the background. Either poor JPG quality has been tried to cover up (there are many artifacts visible following edges), or some sharpening algorithm has tried to sharpen a deliberately out-of-focus background. --Kreuzschnabel 00:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice view, but Weird oversharpening of artifacts, not only in background. -- Smial 02:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 07:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Loreley (ship, 1996) 016.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Passenger ship Loreley in cologne --Rolf H. 13:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Image quality is good, but there is a very similar picture nominated --Manuela 10:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
     Comment sorry, I don`t understand your reasoning. It's not the same picture. --Rolf H. 11:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
     Support That is not a reason to decline an image--Moroder 14:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
     Comment I agree with Moroder, that is not a good reason to decline it but for me the houses are a little too much noisy. --Christian Ferrer 11:40, 05 May 2013 (UTC)
     CommentAccording to the guidelines you should not even upload similar pictures, or did I get that wrong? --Manuela 04:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Wrong, here this is not Featured pictures candidates, this is Quality image candidates. --Christian Ferrer 11:52, 06 May 2013 (UTC)
     Comment What’s happened to the sky? Looks as if a heavy thunderstorm is coming up. --Kreuzschnabel 16:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
     Comment it´s the sky at the westside at 7:15 a.m. --Rolf H. 16:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy and quite a bit of CA. Biopics 19:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Some small problems with corner sharpness, f/5.6 or f/8 would have been better. CA and noise exist, but not disturbing. Overall QI. -- Smial 02:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Iifar 07:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:2013-04-30_14-38-21-ocelle-caligo-3f.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Rosette of butterfly (focus stacking) --ComputerHotline 13:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Opposezoo image needs better identification (species level please). Biopics 13:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 06:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:2013-04-30_15-34-10-Papilio-cresphontes.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Papilio cresphontes --ComputerHotline 12:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Flash light is a bit harsh especially on the leaf in the front, but OK for QI. --Tuxyso 12:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Left critter is OOF. Rjcastillo 14:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 06:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Trifolium April 2013-4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Flowers of White Clover -- Alvesgaspar 19:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Review

 Support QI quality, IMO. --Yerpo 06:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  •  Oppose I'm not convinced this is T. repens. Might also be T. hybridum but seeing the leaves would shed more light. Biopics 13:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't have a good depiction of the leaves. Maybe this one helps. I will try to take a shot of the leaves later. -- Alvesgaspar 14:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 06:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Asarum splendens.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Asarum splendens. Mottled leaf for in (semi) shade.--
    Famberhorst 05:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Moonik 07:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    Nothing real crisp. Plenty artefacts. Movement unsharpness? Biopics 07:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
     Comment
    Photo was taken with tripod--Famberhorst 05:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose Nothing really sharp in this picture, sry, tripod does not guarantee a sharp picture --Manuela61 16:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree with Manuela61. --Dirtsc 11:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 I withdraw my nomination --Famberhorst 07:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Maria_Geisenheim.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Virgin Mary on a house corner near the Dome in Geisenheim, Germany --Kreuzschnabel 19:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support OK --Rjcastillo 20:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
     OpposeSry to disagree again but the subject is very small given the size of the entire image (6MP), and the background is very busy --Manuela61 15:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Background busy? Do you suggest to tear the sculpture off, place it before a nicer background, take the shot, then put it back on the house? Sorry, I really don’t understand that point. I find it much more interesting to show such a thing within its surrounding than isolated from it. --Kreuzschnabel 02:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I suggest a longer focal length or better image resolution+crop --Manuela61 06:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO this photo is very good esepcially regarding the level of detail. I think it is a good idea to show the sculpture in its original context. The framing with the two windows is also convincing. --Tuxyso 08:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support as Tuxyso -- Arcalino 08:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support as Tuxyso --Dirtsc 11:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support as Tuxyso -- Smial 20:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support as Tuxyso --Steindy 21:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:ESC2013_-_Ireland_-_Dancers_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dancers for Ireland's Eurovision song 2013: Ryan Dolan - Only Love Survives. Photo by Albin Olsson--ArildV 10:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support - Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blurry for me, not so sharp as it could be. 2.8 is great but focus must be very precise due to the very shallow dof. --Kadellar 22:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Can I oppose on grounds that it's Eurovision? Nothing that comes out of Eurovision could be quality. Mattbuck 10:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Kadellar --Manuela61 16:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Village_du_Barroux_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Village of Le Barroux, Vaucluse, and Mont Ventoux --Marianne Casamance 08:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Tilted, CA, blurry,low cost camera? --Moroder 11:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    :what is the relationship with the cost of the camera? I use rhe same one for "Le_Barroux_-_Fontaine_3.jpg" --Marianne Casamance 11:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 Comment Thats probably de reason for CA and blur. The tilt can be corrected. It's a pity because the composition, and lights are good --Moroder 12:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The camera is the Kodak Z950, and the IQ is not sufficient, sry, --Manuela61 16:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Bruegge View from Rozenhoedkaai.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bruegge View from Rozenhoedkaai, FP but not a QI --Arcalino 11:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Too soft and in need of perspective correction (reflections do not match). Biopics 11:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    its ok for QI.  Support --Ralf Roletschek 11:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
     SupportI see no reason for any perspective correction. This could damage more than it would improve. Maybe a bit soft but QI.--Hic et nunc 14:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
     Support Good. --Christian Ferrer 04:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
     Support --Dirtsc 18:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
     Weak support Great shot but a bit blurry. Don’t see any noticeable CA. --Kreuzschnabel 02:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
     Support QI for me.--Grondin 19:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:13-04-21-dagebuell-by-RalfR-028.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dagebüll, Germany, Ferry "Schleswig-Holstein" --Ralf Roletschek 10:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Malchen53 08:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
     OpposeToo soft (e.g. lettering on the ferry). Biopics 18:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
     Support There is absolutely no problem with the sharpness. Overall sharpness is very good (especially with regard to the high res) --Tuxyso 21:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is definitely a problem with sharpness here. You may want to check your monitor. Biopics 07:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI fo me --Moroder 08:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support for mee too --Hic et nunc 10:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI fo me too --Christian Ferrer 18:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:13-04-13-st-poelten-landhausviertel-505.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Pölten, Austria, Landhausviertel --Ralf Roletschek 15:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment remove dust spot. See note. --Rjcastillo 19:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC) OK corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 17:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Support --Rjcastillo 18:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
     OpposeNeeds perspective adjustment. Biopics 18:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
     Support I don't see a real possibility to adjust perspective distorsion without corrupting the rest. For me QI.--Hic et nunc 14:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support as Hic et nunc -- Arcalino 08:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support IQ is o.k. for me --Manuela61 15:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Drayton Park railway station MMB 11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: 3rd rail electrification at Drayton Park railway station. Mattbuck 22:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Review Too much sharpened? The track looks like a saw. --Steindy 20:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    I understand what you mean, but I don't see it in that image. Mattbuck 19:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    You may want to wait a bit longer till the image has fully loaded. I can't see any jagging here. Biopics 07:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 06:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Bristol MMB «P0 Cabot Circus.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cabot Circus, Bristol. Mattbuck 22:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Missing sharpness. --Steindy 20:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    I should probably have used a wider aperture, the focus is correct on the umbrella which is perfectly sharp. Mattbuck 19:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Main object "inside the Glass house..." is correct in my eyes. --Ralf Roletschek 22:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Iifar 06:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Ovella._Galiza.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination White sheep (ovis aries aries), Oroso --Lmbuga 11:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Species needed, sorry. --Kadellar 19:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I thought that all the sheeps was Ovis aries, but this sheep is a domestic one and it's ovis aries aries--Lmbuga 23:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
      • OK now, thanks for the research. --Kadellar 19:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 14:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support IQ is o.k. --Manuela61 15:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Sortie_Soupapes_dégrippées_07-04-2013_-_Peugeot_203_-_clignotant.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sortie Soupapes dégrippées 07-04-2013 - Peugeot 203 --Pleclown 11:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Missing proper description/categorization. Biopics 13:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC) This isn`t a reason for a contra. Good Picture -->  Support --Ralf Roletschek 13:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yes it is:Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Image_page_requirements. Biopics 23:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    Have you seen that the description have been updatged since your first vote ? Pleclown 12:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC) and the title of the picture is enouth description. --Ralf Roletschek 13:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support--Grondin 12:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Sortie_Soupapes_dégrippées_07-04-2013_-_Peugeot_203_-_feux_arrières_et_pot_d'échappement.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sortie Soupapes dégrippées 07-04-2013 - Peugeot 203 --Pleclown 11:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Missing proper description/categorization. Biopics 13:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC) This isn`t a reason for a contra. Good Picture -->  Support --Ralf Roletschek 13:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yes it is:Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Image_page_requirements. Biopics 23:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    Have you seen that the description have been updated since your first vote ? Pleclown 12:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Grondin 12:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Bristol MMB B7 SS Great Britain.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The SS Great Britain. Mattbuck 01:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Picture is not sharp, the title is misleading --Manuela 10:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    In what way is the title misleading? Mattbuck 11:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    title does not matter, for me its QI  Support --Ralf Roletschek 14:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Rjcastillo 18:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness is not breathtaking, but ok -- Smial 03:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Azure Window 2009.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination The Azure Window in the west of Gozo island. -- Felix Koenig 17:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very nice. -- Christian Ferrer 17:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Blown highlights and sharpening haloes. Biopics 20:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
     Support Pour. -- Christian Ferrer 04:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • weak  Support 1/2 f-stop darker would be better. -- Smial 03:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Please don't use these templates, it is confusing for the bot. (corrected)--Jebulon 10:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support--Grondin 12:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Franzensburg_Schlosspark_Laxenburg.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Franzensburg castle in Laxenburg, Lower Austria. -- Hendric Stattmann 13:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion WOW! Good quality. --Steinsplitter 14:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It needs a slight perspective correction. There's minor CA too. --Kadellar 15:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Cloud in the center overexposed. Needs perspective corrections. See notes.--Grondin 14:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment OK thank you for the proposed corrections. I will work on this, please allow a little time, as I am quite busy in my job right now. --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have now corrected perspective, tried to fix the remaining CA (as good as I could, I know it's not 100% perfect). The overexposed cloud was not possible to fix, it's blown out. IMHO a cloud has the right to be white... :-) -- Hendric Stattmann 08:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the rework. Perspective is now ok, CA is better but not so much. I don't oppose to QI but I don't support. --Kadellar 22:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with the cloud, but I'd retouch them (retouching has been done since the invention of photography) and noone can go there to check it ;-) --Moroder 09:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --High Contrast 14:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:13-04-21-dagebuell-by-RalfR-062.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination port of dagebüll, Germany --Ralf Roletschek 12:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is frowned upon.(see guidelines). Biopics 12:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    No need to withdraw. Just some advice to spread you next nomination batch a bit more... Biopics 15:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    QI --Taxiarchos228 21:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • weak  Support Good quality, but file description unsufficient. -- Smial 02:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Arcalino 19:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 21:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Stoke-on-Trent railway station MMB 18 221139.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 221139 at Stoke-on-Trent. Mattbuck 10:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose lacking sharpness; magenta CA --A.Savin 12:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    It doesn't appear to be unsharp to me. I can fix the CA if you give me a week or so - moving house so everything's a bit hectic. Mattbuck 10:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    My help is snoring in bed, so here you go. CA removed, sharpened. Mattbuck 22:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  OpposeThere is a clearly visible scratches on the windshield, and the wiper. --Steindy 18:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    Scratches? What do you mean? Mattbuck 19:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    OK, so there's a scratch on the windscreen... what do you expect me to do about it? Reality is at fault, not the photo. Mattbuck 19:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    Is he seeing the jalousie holder? But it's not on the wiper. Or the shadow of the powerline? That's on the wiper of course.  Support --Ikar.us 18:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    Look carefully! The scratch goes through the windscreen, so he can not be on the windshield. --Steindy 21:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  SupportThe thing marked as a "scratch" is clearly a part of the train (its partly covered by the wiper). --Dirtsc 18:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support The "scratch" is a duct for the inner shade (there’s another one on the other side). Good quality. --Kreuzschnabel 09:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Battersea Park railway station MMB 06 377145.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 377145 at Battersea Park. Mattbuck 01:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Picture is not sharp --Manuela 10:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    The subject is in focus. Mattbuck 11:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO the dark areas are too much dark, (maybe too much contrast, I don't know), otherwise I support --Christian Ferrer 13:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blurry. --High Contrast 00:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  OpposeThe whole picture lacks sharpness probably due to shaking, there are CAs eg at the edges of the handbag --Manuela61 06:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 23:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Covent Garden tube station MMB 01 1973-Stock.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Covent Garden tube station. Mattbuck 01:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Review Picture is not sharp --Manuela 10:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    You're unlikely to get a better photo given the conditions. Mattbuck 11:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
     SupportTaking into account the prevailing light conditions a very good picture. --Steindy 18:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  OpposeUse a tripod or a camera with better ISO capabilities, the image is very noisy too --Manuela61 06:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    You're not allowed tripods on tube platforms really - too small a space, too in the way. Mattbuck 22:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Some  Underexposed and noise, but aceptable for me --The Photographer 20:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support aviable light and traffic, tripod ist really not there usuable. QI in this situation. --Ralf Roletschek 22:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 23:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Philipp Wendler, Kapfenberger SV (01).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The footballplayer Philipp Wendler from Kapfenberger SV. --Steindy 19:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline How were your camera settings? The noise level is quite high for a still portrayal with good daylight. --Tuxyso 20:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    As always in sport mode, because it is also asked to no recording. The picture was taken during warm-up. A sports field is just not a photo studio. --Steindy 21:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    It makes no sense to discuss with users about quality, who have no experience with such photos. Sorry that I disturbed the operation here. Grounds --Steindy 22:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    It is a still photo under time pressure, not a shot during the game. It has nothing not do with sport photography but mastering the camera and autofocus. See my in detail comment in German on the discussion on my userpage. A very similiar situation as random shots of guests e.g. during a wedding - no studio lightning but also no ISO 2000 or more. --Tuxyso 05:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    Oh I understand. The speed ​​of movement from guests of a wedding is nearely the same, as the footballer during the warm up. Thank you for your qualified statements... --Steindy 08:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose No movement at all, person looks directly into the camera - no need for short exposure and high ISO. --Tuxyso 13:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    The arguments are always curious. Tuxyso will make the picture clear intentionally bad. --Steindy 16:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   -- Biopics 08:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

File:ДВОРЕЦ "БЕЛЬВЕДЕР" на Бабигонском холме 2006 09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination ДВОРЕЦ "БЕЛЬВЕДЕР" на Бабигонском холме 2006 09 --Anna Anichkova14:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Здорово. Только Бабигонский, а не Бибигонский. ;) --Florstein 15:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Jpeg artifacts. Please add English descriptions to your candidates, if it is Бабигонский, it should be renamed too. --Kadellar 15:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support please dont rename it. and i dont need english description, russian is for me better. --Ralf Roletschek 16:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support It is a very good image. An English description would be highly appreciated but renaming this image is not necessary. --High Contrast 21:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - not because of the file name, but per Kadellar + unsharpness. --A.Savin 23:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not opposing because of the filename, but if it should say Бабигонском холме, it should be renamed, because it's not correct. Русский язык - красивый и важный, но сейчас люди в мире нормално не изучают его, а англисский язык. Я понимаю описание ;) I'm opposing because the lack of sharpness and detail due to compression artifacts. The colour of the image is very nice. --Kadellar 00:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Спасибо, я всё учту, я пока не очень разобралась... --Anna Anichkova 19 May 2013
  •  Oppose Nice composition but very blurry and lack of detail (look at the trees), i suspect too heavy noise reduction. Not a QI for me due to technical reasons. --Kreuzschnabel 04:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Nice composition, but also lack of fine detail. --Iifar 09:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin and Iifar. --Carschten 12:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Загрузила новую расширенную и исправленную версию. Спасибо всем за внимание и обсуждение --Anna Anichkova 29 May 2013
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Biopics 08:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Cigogne et trois poussins, Tunisie mai 2013.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Ciconia ciconia (nests) in Tunisia --Dyolf77 15:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Sorry, chromatic aberrations (see note), owerexposed areas, too tight at right and a bit blurry IMO--Lmbuga 17:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    •  Comment I tried to fix CA, the cropping and sharpness. Anyway thanks for reviewing! --Dyolf77 18:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Better, but I'm not sure if it may be QI--Lmbuga 19:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not that obvious, but there are still strong CA; I have feeling of blur, too; underexposed (missing contrast), wrong white balance, too much empty space around the cornered nest. --Carschten 12:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    •  Comment I just uploaded a colorcorrected and CA-reduced Edit-Version. --Martin Kraft 10:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      •  Support much better! Still a bit blurry and the composition is "doubtful" IMHO, but QI now. --Carschten 21:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Biopics 08:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)