Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 2009

• 
  • Nomination Partnachklamm --Richard Bartz 03:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion very nice --Böhringer 11:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Koala --Erik Veland 01:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Too small. Lycaon 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC).  Comment But very cute ;-) --Tony Wills 11:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination squash bug --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline I don't like the flash. --Eusebius 12:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Solar glory--Mbz1 14:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn Photographer shadow with halo? -- carol 02:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you for your question, Carol.Yes, it is my shadow, but the rainbow circles is solar glory not halo. One cannot see shadow in a halo. One way or another halos are centered around the sun. With solar glory the sun is behind a photograpger. The glory moves with my camera as you could see here File:Solar glory moved with my camera.jpg. It is always located on anti-solar point. If two people are standing next to each other, both of them could observe only their own shadow inside the glory. While for a halo there should be the ice crystals in the atmosphere, for a glory there should be water droplets. Glories are observed much more rare than halos do.
    Hans, please do not ask me to crop the shadow of the photographer from this image :). It is impossible to take an image of a solar glory with no shadow in this particular situation.Thank you.--Mbz1 03:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    Nice subject, but sharpness and fine details are missing a bit (looks like too strong noise reduction to me) --Siebengang 12:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you for the comment,Siebengang. I honestly do not remember what post processing was done to the image. It was 7 months ago I guess. Of course the glory was seen because of the steam, and steam cannot be really sharp IMO. Anyway, if you feel the quality is not good enough, please do decline it. It's OK. Thank you.--Mbz1 14:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    I am declining this image -- impressive as it is to have an honest reason for a photographer with an angelic like halo, the image is over-saturated. I will look for it instead on EPOD (if it hasn't already been there).-- carol 10:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC) 
• 
  • Nomination: Church in Siewierz. --Lestath 18:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Castle in Siewierz. --Lestath 18:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Ground bracelet supplied with DEC mainframes. Adamantios 22:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Rather noisy. --Eusebius 11:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: A map on a flower. --ComputerHotline 09:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review  Neutral Looks good to me, but I guess the flower should be identified. --Eusebius 10:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Craticulina sp --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 17:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion OK, though small. Lycaon 20:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Combestone tor
    Image creator is User:Herbythyme--Mbz1 00:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Shadow of the photographer should be cropped. Lycaon 10:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you for review, Hans. I've cropped the shadow.--Mbz1 13:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    OK for me now. Lycaon 20:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Long live the strike! --Eusebius 16:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion This image is the modern France that I saw in the Rhone, nestled in and written upon the centuries old architecture which is not so illustrative of the people there. -- carol 01:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    The "centuries old architecture" is a concrete wall from the 70s, delimiting an area for dogs to do what they have to do ;-) --Eusebius 06:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Crocus --Böhringer 11:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review  QuestionWhy a so short DOF ? --Coyau 19:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Mist in the Moselle valley --Berthold Werner 08:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review I never could resist the mist.
    Please sign. Lycaon 08:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    ? --Berthold Werner 11:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    I think Lycaon is requesting that the promoter of the image sign the promotion. Should this be moved to CR to allow the non-resistor of mist more time to comply with the reasonable request? -- carol 01:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    I thought the whole comment was from Lycaon --Berthold Werner 07:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Storm in Pacifica--Mbz1 04:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Disturbing vignetting. Lycaon 10:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Pyrocumulus cloud--Mbz1 04:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Oversaturated IMO. Lycaon 10:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A boat at the mouth of the River Trym in Bristol. Mattbuck 00:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks OK to me. Lycaon 10:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Zassenhaus coffee grinder --Siebengang 16:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion good. Lycaon 16:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Aereal Ropeway Masada --Berthold Werner 12:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion The quality is fine.--Mbz1 22:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination First Church, Dunedin, New Zealand --Benchill 07:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Impossible perspective, cropped at top. Lycaon 16:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem in the evening --Berthold Werner 12:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice.--Mbz1 22:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Cadillac Coupe deVille --Berthold Werner 10:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Statues of the west portal of Strasbourg's cathedral. --Coyau 21:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Statues of the west portal of Strasbourg's cathedral. --Coyau 21:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Model of Jerusalem in the Late Second Temple Period --Berthold Werner 14:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination A caterpillar hanging in a forest -- Prashanthns 16:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • WARNING: third template parameter added – please remove.
• 
  • Nomination Cervus nippon --Σ64 15:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Overexposed. --ComputerHotline 19:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Silesian Beskids in winter - view from Moravian-Silesian Beskids --Pudelek 11:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Schuppen slate roof in Strasbourg. --Coyau 15:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    looks alright ~~~~
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Avoriaz (french mountain resort) --Pline 14:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: The Festung Marienberg in Würzburg. --High Contrast 15:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review  Info Resolution is at the limit (2 Mpx) --Berthold Werner 17:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
     Comment Looks oversaturated, but I'm not sure about that. --Eusebius 15:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination La Piscine, art and history museum in Roubaix (Nord - France) (Author Camster2) --Pline 14:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Noise, color fringes --Ianare 03:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Concertgebouw in Bruges (Belgium) on a frosty day. -- MJJR 20:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Composition. The long shadows are interesting in the foreground but distracting on the building. -- carol 03:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Church of the Holy sepulchre, Jerusalem --Berthold Werner 14:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Lovely composition, unfortunately it's too dark --Ianare 03:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    The darkness is part of the composition because Christians believe, this is the place where Jesus was cruzfied and burried. --Berthold Werner 10:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Dominican Basilica of the Holy Trinity in Kraków. --Lestath 18:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Can you please add Geo location --Berthold Werner 10:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Done. --Lestath 11:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC) OK --Berthold Werner 11:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)  CommentVaults are quite blury (due to perspective correction I suppose), and overexposed walls and archs on the left. --Coyau 14:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Chapel in Kernavė. --Lestath 20:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Stones of shame. --Lestath 20:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Aletsch Glacier, Switzerland --Tobi 87 20:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline noisy. --Eusebius 12:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Lake Miyagase, Kanagawa prefecture, Japan. --Σ64 14:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very nice, good details. --Eusebius 12:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Miyagase Dam, Kanagawa prefecture, Japan. --Σ64 14:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline I think that the strong distortion ruins it, but other reviewers may think otherwise. --Eusebius 11:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Historic Hodgins House in Winona, Minnesota. -Jonathunder 18:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Nice composition, but noisy shot (maybe too late in the day ?) --Coyau 09:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Tenement house detal. --Lestath 18:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline A bit unsharp, quite visible CAs. --Eusebius 11:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Danube in Regensburg at night --High Contrast 12:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Disturbing geometry, the cathedral towers are not vertical (and probably not rectilinear). It might be possible to correct that. --Eusebius 11:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Moon behind tree. --Kprateek88 15:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review  Comment This is a nice composition. Unfortunately the tree is not really sharp. --JuliusR 09:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Efferia aestuans in Portage, Michigan --IvanTortuga 06:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Insufficient DOF. The object of interest (the fly) is not sharp. The guidelines say: "Every important object on the picture should be sharp, considering the idea of the image." --JuliusR 08:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dome of the church Santa Caterina, Livorno, Italy --Lucarelli 23:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice picture. Quality looks good to me. --JuliusR 08:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A waterfall in a hotel atrium. --Bdesham 17:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion This is ok. --Berthold Werner 10:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Restonica stream, Corsica (France (Author : Altagna)--Pline 17:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Love the view and the lighting, everything is crisp as well. --IvanTortuga 22 January 2009
     Comment Nice picture. I've been in this area a few times. You captured its beauty as it is. --JuliusR 08:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Inside the Salbert fort. --ComputerHotline 11:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline I think it's tilted to the left. Perspective correction would do great things here. --Sfu 08:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Men playing board game. --Jedudedek 13:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Sharp, nice moody lighting --Ianare 01:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Shanghai Pudong skyline --Zzhang 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline noisy & out of focus @ full resolution --Ianare 01:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination RF anechoic chamber. Adamantios 22:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice picture, light ok, very good illustration of the subject--Lucarelli 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Historic Balfour House in Rochester, Minnesota. -Jonathunder 18:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Shrine of the book, Jerusalem --Berthold Werner 14:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination The Dniepr river in Kiev --High Contrast 12:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Excellent resolution, good composition although it would be better without the tree in the bottom right. TimVickers 18:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Black mamba (Dendroaspis polylepis) TimVickers 02:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Very noisy in the dark parts (but not only). What happened to exif data ? --Coyau 19:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Yaesu VX-2R handheld amateur radio transceiver. --Adambro 15:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Not sharp enough for a studio pic and poor crop. Lycaon 14:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A closeup of the Dome of the Rock --Berthold Werner 12:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Most of the dome in shadow, obscuring details. TimVickers 18:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Chersones. Greek court --Butko 13:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Great Synagogue in Plzeň (Pilsen) by night --Pudelek 12:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Helichrysum italicum spp serotinum (Curry plant) in Cíes Islands, Spain. --Drow male 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice image with mature and immature flowers in focus as well as a pleasant Depth of Field. Not sure if the noise reduction was needed and it would be nice to have at least the genus of fly identified. -- carol 01:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Chata Skalka mountain hostel, Moravian-Silesian Beskids --Pudelek 11:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion red person a little distracting, otherwise good --Ianare 19:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Part of stained glass windows in St. Vitus Cathedral, Prague --Pudelek 11:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks good for a stained glass window. Geotag would be nice. --Eusebius 12:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
     Info Done --Pudelek 12:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Diagram of renal corpuscle -- Albertus teolog 08:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Correct and good quality illustration. Lycaon 08:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Wapta Falls is a waterfall located in Yoho National Park. --High Contrast 17:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks good enough to me. --Eusebius 08:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Reflections of Earth fireworks show at Epcot. --Bdesham 03:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Per previous oppose. Nothing has changed. Lycaon 13:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hameldon Cross.
    Creator of the image is User:Herbythyme
    --Mbz1 03:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion OK for me. Lycaon 08:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Church in Łódź. --Lestath 20:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Overexposed in the upper-right corner, not very sharp, presence of noise or artefacts (I'd say camera-generated artefacts, but not sure). --Eusebius 08:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Stained glass in Roman-Catholic Catedral of St. Mary in Lviv. --Lestath 20:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Ok imho --Berthold Werner 12:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination An assortment of tea bags. --Bdesham 04:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline I really don't like the reflections on the left part of the picture (although I'd be unable to do better). I'm also unsure about the visual rights issues... --Eusebius 15:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The St. Gotthard Pass --High Contrast 19:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks very good to me. --Eusebius 15:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Fortress Josefov (Pevnost Josefov), Czech Republic --Pudelek 12:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Nice composition (in spite of unfortunate wire), but quite noisy. --Eusebius 15:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Interior of St. Anna church, Jerusalem --Berthold Werner 10:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Main Post Office, Bydgoszcz, Poland. --Sfu 21:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion It's fine. --Lestath 11:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dome of the Rock, seen from the Mount of Olives --Berthold Werner 15:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion The main subject of the image look very good.--Mbz1 03:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dinner in the dark --Tony Wills 12:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Macro and action. Very nice.--Mbz1 03:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Xanthoria parietina with hoar frost. --Lycaon 14:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Beautiful image!--Mbz1 03:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Castle in Pieskowa Skala, Poland --Kirq 17:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Low resolution --Lestath 10:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Folgefonna's ice front Bondhusbreen, Norway --Kirq 17:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Low resolution --Lestath 10:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination City Gates of Chersones --Butko 13:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline For me this photo is much too bright. --Kirq 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
     Comment I agree with that. The histogram shows that most of the picture is very bright.--JuliusR 09:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Municipal bath in Chersones. VI-X century --Butko 13:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Like the previous one this picture is also very bright. You can see that by looking at the histogram. --JuliusR 09:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A guard outside Prague Castle - winter uniform --Pudelek 12:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion I like this picture. Imo the composition is perfect. --Kirq 17:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Warmblood in Switzerland --Böhringer 21:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very nice picture with very clearly build perspective and horizon. --Kirq 18:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Lake in Cíes Islands, Spain. --Drow male 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Noisy, due to the long exposure. Interesting movement of the stars. --Eusebius 10:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
     Comment Noisy and the movement of the stars do not seem to add some value to me. With a longer time of exposure the stars could have made an interesting picture! --JuliusR 09:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, New Mexico --JuliusR 15:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Detailed geological valuable--Böhringer 21:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Krippe --Böhringer 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Ok for me --Berthold Werner 14:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Tumb of Francis II of Brittany. --Eusebius 15:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline The point of of focus seems to be on the wall or the angel in the background. --Berthold Werner 14:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Two Papilio Machaon. --ComputerHotline 12:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion that's good --Böhringer 22:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Snowboard figure at the 2008 Shakedown. --Acarpentier 01:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion that's good --Böhringer 22:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Professional Dutch pool billiards player Niels Feijen --Tmv23 17:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline QIs must be the work of Commons users. --Eusebius 10:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia --Böhringer 07:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Everything seems fine to me. I like the use of DOF. --JuliusR 21:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Eastern Bearded Dragon sunning on a rock WikiWookie 03:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks ok to me. A bit of CAs in the corners, but still ok. --Eusebius 10:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Detail of a Provençal Nativity scene. --Eusebius 21:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline I like the figures in general but the unsharp figure in the front is distracting and the choosen white balance seems to me a bit to cold. Sorry. --JuliusR 21:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Polar bear Knut at the age of 2 years (Zoo of Berlin) --Aconcagua 14:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Unsharp. --Eusebius 10:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Firewood in Ammengg --Böhringer 20:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review  Comment Sky is a bit noisy. --Eusebius 16:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Merchants National Bank in Winona, Minnesota. --Jonathunder 01:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Crop. -- carol 10:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Plzeň hlavní nádraží (Plzeň main station) by night --Pudelek 13:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Black-crowned Night Heron --Acarpentier 00:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Neutral I think quality is ok, but I don't like the composition. --Eusebius 21:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    Composition is a matter of taste. I strive to ever get a bird photo this good—looks good - Peripitus 09:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, New Mexico --JuliusR 06:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Its so fuzzy. --ComputerHotline 09:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, New Mexico --JuliusR 06:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 09:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View from Dominus flevit church on Jerusalem. --Berthold Werner 14:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good composition and colours --Böhringer 22:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Polar bear Knut at the age of 2 years (Zoo of Berlin) --Aconcagua 14:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Paws cut off. --Leyo 23:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination sunset, Lake constance --Böhringer 06:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Gorgeous. I don't know about qualifying for QI, but I think that a small cw rotation would improve it. -- carol 10:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)  Info Precisely because it is gorgeous. Rotation is done --Böhringer 22:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)  Comment FP material? Gnangarra 14:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Spermophilus beecheyi pair Howcheng 02:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review  Comment Background a bit noisy. --Eusebius 10:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Signal bell in Chersones --Butko 17:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good composition size at 2000px is only just enough Gnangarra 14:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Firecraker, exploading in the air. ABF 18:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks good IMHO. --Leyo 16:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: How a glow stick works Pbroks13 02:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review  Question What is the reason for re-nomination? --Leyo 21:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Info All problems from the previous nomination have been fixed. Pbroks13 10:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
• 
  • Nomination: English actor Graham Cole in London. --Adambro 21:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Review  Comment I think focus is behind is head, not on his face/eyes (see left shoulder). --Eusebius 21:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Grosshesseloher Brücke, Munich, Germany --Richard Bartz 14:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Just at minimum size (duh), however, does show train, bridge and river nicely. -- Klaus with K 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Storr on Skye -- Klaus with K 08:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion There are a lot of dust spots in the sky on the right, otherwise a good image.--PieCam 14:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)  Info Please do not mistake the midges, part of the Scottish wildlife, for dust. -- Klaus with K 16:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    Support after that clarification. --Leyo 21:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Wooden Building, Bregenzerwald --Böhringer 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Eucalypts in the early evening. Peripitus 03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Park in Świerklaniec. --Lestath 22:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Plzeň hlavní nádraží (Plzeň main station) by night --Pudelek 20:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Tower at the castle of "Nordkirchen", Germany ABF 12:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Physiphora alceae --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 08:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 18:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ch. Megacephala feeding --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 08:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 18:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Anthomyia sp --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 08:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 18:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Lichen on rocks. --JalalV 15:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Nantes cathedral: rib vaults and keystone. --Eusebius 22:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Looks good to me. --Coyau 18:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: White/cream slime mold --Tony Wills 05:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review * Question I realy like the image... Is there any way to get the mold identified so the picture's page can be complete? J.smith 21:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC).* Comment I have replied on your talk page :-) --Tony Wills 01:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Vauban tower in Port-en-Bessin --Eusebius 20:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice work --Acarpentier 01:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A Cartesian theater. Pbroks13 00:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Awesome and well done. J.smith 16:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Bone cross-section Pbroks13 02:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Detail of a hôtel particulier in Dijon. --Eusebius 20:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality, nice composition. Lycaon 21:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dead tree near sunset. Peripitus 03:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Not sharp enough, unnatural colors. --Leyo 17:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    Sharpness I agree with - something wierd is going on with the base of the tree - as for the colours though they are completely natural for a sunset lit dead tree I think - Peripitus 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Snowboard figure at the Shakedown 2008. --Acarpentier 20:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion OK for me, but if you have a larger version you can anticipate Lycaon's comment... :-) --Eusebius 10:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Cygnus atratus ABF 18:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Head is out of focus. --Eusebius 10:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination HIGE hovering in ground effect of Helikopter --Böhringer 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline Spot in the bottom left hand side corner. --Leyo 21:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• • Nomination Excelent coverage of ICT4D topic. Cant be Valuable image, so submitting here.--Kozuch 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Out of QI scope --Leyo 01:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Part of stained glass windows in Kutna Hora, St Barbara's cathedral --Pudelek 20:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline JPEG artifacts visible. --Lestath 22:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hoar frost --Böhringer 21:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Correct exposure, DoF and details. --ComputerHotline 19:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Ciconia ciconia. --ComputerHotline 16:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Vanessa cardui. --ComputerHotline 16:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Tenement house in Katowice. --Lestath 19:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline While the image is nice there is a perspective problem - the building is leaning backwards - Peripitus 06:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Courtyard (Druhé nádvoří) in New Royal Palace, Prague --Pudelek 17:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline  Question Is that building really curved like that or is it the projection? -- Estrilda 21:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
     OpposeDistorted image - try a different panorama projection ? - Peripitus 06:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Snow on a branch ABF 18:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Wrong version uploaded? This one is much too small. Lycaon 21:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Octopus marginatus hiding in shells. --Nhobgood 18:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Correct details. --ComputerHotline 18:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    Upscaled: ineligible. Lycaon 20:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A standard drum set --Pbroks13 08:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Not too fond of the thick labeling lines, but for the rest very nicely done. Lycaon 21:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Swiss brewery --Leyo 01:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Proper quality. Lycaon 20:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Saldome --Leyo 01:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Nothing changed since last decline. Lycaon 21:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    Oops, didn't see that, sorry. --Leyo 23:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Rural Tea Grower in China. --JalalV 09:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline DOF, sharpness, overexposure (hat), CA as well as compositional problems. Lycaon 21:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Black-crowned Night Heron --Acarpentier 04:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Wonderful - Peripitus 11:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
     Question Why so small? It is very good though. Lycaon 20:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    -Here's a larger one. --Acarpentier 00:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    Now even better ;-). Lycaon 01:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Cetonia aurata. --ComputerHotline 16:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline Harsh flash lighting. Needs much slower exposure (not 1/2000sec) with less flash - Peripitus 02:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Manuelin window of the chapterhouse. Convent of Christ, Portugal. -- Alvesgaspar 22:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: National Express East Coast British Rail Class 43 at London King's Cross railway station. --Adambro 17:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Christmas lights in Urbana, Illinois. Exposureblended from 5 shots. --Dschwen 20:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC) And this is tough to decide why? --Dschwen 21:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Possibly as we're still hung over from Christmas. Good use of wide dynamic range - Composition gives a feeling of an island of Christmassy glitz in the midst of the cold...well done - Peripitus 02:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Onopordum acanthium flower and closed buds - Peripitus 11:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Correct colors, details and DoF. --ComputerHotline 11:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Cynara cardunculus flower drying in summer - Peripitus 11:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Correct colors, details and DoF. --ComputerHotline 11:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Computer security researcher Alexander Sotirov --AlexanderKlink 23:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Very noisy background --BáthoryPéter 02:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Church of St. Mary in Kraków. --Lestath 19:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Castle in Siewierz. --Lestath 19:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: Church in Gliwice. --Lestath 19:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Capl in cathedral in Katowice. --Lestath 13:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very nice. --Acarpentier 17:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Schoppernau im Bregenzerwald --Böhringer 23:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Meets QI requirements IMHO. --Leyo 01:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Snowboard figure at the Shakedown 2008 --Acarpentier 00:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion sharp --Mbdortmund 02:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mosaic of photos ofthe Moon. --ComputerHotline 16:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline Two bad stitching lines are visible about halfway up the moon. --PieCam 20:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Silesian Library. --Lestath 23:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good perspective and exposure. --PieCam 20:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mostar, Stari Most (Old Bridge). BáthoryPéter 00:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Great picture. --Acarpentier 03:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Unidentified Zygoptera. --ComputerHotline 17:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline Unidentified indeed. Lycaon 01:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• • Nomination Sunset in video. --ComputerHotline 12:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline Out of QI scope. Lycaon 01:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Convent of Christ, Portugal. Southern entrance to the church. -- Alvesgaspar 23:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination: roman Cross 13.Jh --Böhringer 23:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Review needed
• 
  • Nomination Ferenc Török, hungarian film director. -BáthoryPéter 11:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Estrilda 21:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Steel Latice Electricity Pylon --Muhammad 13:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline Rather flat light and tilted? --Estrilda 21:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Flamboyant gothic portal of the church of São João Batista. Tomar, Portugal. -- Alvesgaspar 23:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Great quality --Acarpentier 05:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Basilica of St. Francis in Katowice. --Lestath 19:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very good quality. I wonder why it wasn't promoted the first time -Alvesgaspar 20:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dunes at De Haan, Belgium -- MJJR 22:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good. Lycaon 18:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• • Nomination Video of a sunset. --ComputerHotline 17:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline Good idea, nice motif, but the discreet autoexposure jumps ruin it. This should be reprocessed from the raw images to get rid of the lightness jumps. Piece of cake using imagemagick. --Dschwen 19:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC) -- @Dschwen : It's not the autoexposure. I have only modified the Time Value (Tv) sometimes. --ComputerHotline 19:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
    Same thing, it is adjusted in steps, not continuously. You'd have to go back to the original pictures and adjust the brightnesses accordingly to get rid of the jumps. --Dschwen 21:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Part of stained glass in St. Barbara Church, Kutna Hora, Czech Republic --Pudelek 17:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion good work --Böhringer 23:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Main altar in St.Barbara's Cathedral, Kutná Hora, Czech Republic --Pudelek 17:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very good quality and composition -- Alvesgaspar 12:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Winter - Fog Panorama --Böhringer 23:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion very nice result, good DOF I would suggest next time approach the location from a different direction to avoid your foot prints, might even be worth a run at FP Gnangarra 12:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Altar in St. Peter and Paul Catherdral in Gliwice. --Lestath 22:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very nice picture. A bit soft but well within QI standards -- Alvesgaspar 11:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Castle in Gliwice. --Lestath 22:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline Too noisy and posterized (the sky) and too soft. The attempt to minimize noise didn't work well -- Alvesgaspar 11:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dinning-all of the Convent of Christ, Portugal. -- Alvesgaspar 15:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment little tilt to right --Pudelek 17:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC) -- I don't think so, maybe the effect of the shadows plus a bit of lens distortion -- Alvesgaspar 10:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)} difficult to say, what ist distortion and which lines are not rectangular in reality, for instance some lines on the left wall. I like the atmosphere --Mbdortmund 13:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Window of the chapterhouse, Convent of Christ, Portugal. -- Alvesgaspar 15:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline slight tilting to right, to correct would loose the bottom of the window decoration which is already right on the image edge. Gnangarra 12:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC) -- From this position I think it is not possible to show the bottom part of the decoration. I'm nominating a different version above -- Alvesgaspar 22:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Church of thr Convent of Christ, Portugal. -- Alvesgaspar 15:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment At least three stains in the sky --Simonizer 00:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)-  Done -- Alvesgaspar 10:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
    nice composition sky ok now Gnangarra 12:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Street performers --Böhringer 21:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Its a nice composition with a soft focus, definitely QI. Personally I'd like to see the background people engaged in the performance rather than facing away Gnangarra 12:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Elk calf hidden behind high grass. --Leyo 02:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline IMHO the grass covering the face detracts too much, unlike File:Elchkalb im Gras.jpg Gnangarra 12:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Aqueduct in Caesarea maritima, Israel --Berthold Werner 16:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline composition subject doesnt dominate the image Gnangarra 12:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mountain hostel "Andrzejówka", interior --Pudelek 18:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good enough -- Alvesgaspar 13:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mountain hostel "Andrzejówka" in winter, Góry Suchy moutains, Sudetes --Pudelek 18:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline * Comment Slight CA (probably acceptable) in the trees on the right, some noise on the walls around the windows. --Eusebius 15:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC) -- Little detail, due to overall noise -- Alvesgaspar 13:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Brintesia circe. --ComputerHotline 14:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Comment could use an English description including species identification in the description, and identification of the plant. Otherwise well done, would support. --Florian Prischl 19:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    I find the background too distracting, the butterfly does not detach itself from it. --Eusebius 10:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensual review

File:Chrysomya eating.jpg

• Nomination Feeding Chrysomya albiceps --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 20:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• Promotion Probably wrongly identified (too downy thorax). Lycaon 20:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  Keep on CR until id has been cleared. Lycaon 13:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  Correctly identified and updated description and image page
•  Support Lycaon 11:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Great. --Kosiarz-PL 18:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 19:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Bihoreau Gris 2.jpg

• Nomination Black-crowned Night Heron 2 --Acarpentier 23:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Nice catch! --Specious 04:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not the best composition. Lycaon 13:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose the other one is better IMO, and it is a tad too small ... Ianare 15:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 19:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Iran saffron threads.jpg

• Nomination Saffron threads, by Rainer Zenz --Bdesham 18:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Excellent DOF, excellent educational value and the background does an excelent job of brining out the color. --J.smith 20:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm not exactly excited by the shadow which doesn't properly fits the threads. Lycaon 19:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment The shadow is just a slight distraction, although it could be better (maybe no shadow at all?). Also, the photo should be cropped tighter, just to the edge of the saffron threads, I think. If this is done, then I would support, because the sharpnes and DOF is excellent. --Florian Prischl 17:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support ok --Beyond silence 01:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support QI --Acarpentier 20:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 19:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Melbourne Yarra River from Alexandra Avenue - Nov 2008.jpg

• Nomination Yarra River, Melbourne --Leyo 16:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good! --Eusebius 13:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not at all. What about dirts on the sky? --Kosiarz-PL 20:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I had not seen the spots so I remove my support until they're gone, but "not good at all" would be quite a severe review here I think! --Eusebius 09:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• The buildings are very... blue. The dirt should be easy to fix. --J.smith 09:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a new version of the file with the dust spots removed and a bit a "warming" to the color. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. J.smith 09:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • You didn't remove all dirts. There is one left on the right. --Kosiarz-PL 16:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support edit. J.smith 09:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose big stain in the sky --Simonizer 00:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support sharp --Beyond silence 01:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Simonizer. Lycaon 01:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   Lycaon 21:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nantes - rempart sud du château.jpg

• Nomination Southern wall of Nantes castle. --Eusebius 12:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support It is not captured whole of the building, though, I think one of the good composition as QI. _Fukutaro 15:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I disagree, composition is not good. It makes it unclear what the subject here is - the wall is not really visible, the corner tower is obscured, and the moat is completely out of an interesting viewpoint. --Florian Prischl 18:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Beyond silence 01:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support There is a little bit of pink edges (CA) towards the left, but quality is in generally good enough. -- Estrilda 21:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   Lycaon 21:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Larus delawarensis flight

• Nomination: Larus delawarensis in flight --Ianaré 23:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Review
•  SupportCorrect exposure, no fuzzy, it's awesome. --ComputerHotline 10:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
•  OpposeNot sharp enough for the smallish (downsampled?) size. Lycaon 19:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment Cropped but not downsampled. They only fly close and steady enough when it's windy and cloudy, very annoying. --Ianare 21:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    •  Comment I know. They are rumoured to be an easy catch ;-). Lycaon 06:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Good find. Seems a hard shot to take Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lycaon. I know this was probably not an easy shot, but it is just a little too unsharp. --Florian Prischl 17:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Ok for a Quality Image (I don't think it would succeed a Featured Picture nomination). — Diti Diti 15:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)~
•  Oppose I agree with Florian Prischl. -- Estrilda (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose -> draw -- Lycaon 21:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Skiathos 2 wisnia6522.JPG

• Nomination Skiathos, Greece. --Wisnia6522 16:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support It's OK --Pudelek 10:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose JPG artifacts, C/A. _Fukutaro 15:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Beyond silence 01:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too strong chromatic aberration. Lycaon 01:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Compression artifacts are to prominent. --PieCam 20:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 10:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Pieride1-1 (by).jpg

• Nomination Pontia daplidice --ComputerHotline 13:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• Promotion out of scope for QI, self made images only. Gnangarra 12:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC) ---- I have created this image.

•  Comment Thomas Bresson from flicker is user:ComputerHotline.J.smith 21:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Neutral due to the bad file-name. Otherwise, this is an awesome image. J.smith 21:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support File name consists in the name of the author, the vernacular name of the species in French and a mention of the license: it is ok for me... --Eusebius 14:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   Tony Wills 21:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Bihoreau Gris.jpg

• Nomination Black-crowned Night Heron --Acarpentier 16:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Promotion * Support looks good --Mbdortmund 20:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too small subject for the file size. Lycaon 21:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  I'll just post a larger version soon --Acarpentier 23:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Question This is more of a question of the use of English words by French-Canadians than it is of this image: What definition of the word "soon" are you using here? -- 02:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support as is. Shot looks nice, and while I would like to see a higher-res version of the file, this is currently within our requirements. Also, I don't see any obvious compression artifacts that would point to over-compression, so I think the MB size is appropriate. J.smith 08:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Weak support Even though this is a very good shot (no noise, great focus), a higher version would have been way better —mainly because of when a crop [will be/is] needed. Diti 14:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Ianare 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment With such a layout, with the two edits, it is really not clear who supports/opposes which version. --Eusebius 10:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment Second version is not a nomination but an illustration of the IMO proper crop. It is then too small for QI, which is my point for the original version anyway. Lycaon 11:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)-

Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (promote) Acarpentier 14:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment I was going to suggest that this nomination be withdrawn until the larger version can be uploaded. -- carol (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment Sorry Carol if I don't take you very seriously it's just that I never really understand the deepness or pertinence of your questions/comments. ;) Maybe it's because I'm French-Canadian he? Just joking... by the way you forgot to sign your previous question (02:33, 25 December 2008). --Acarpentier 00:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• My comment was as pertinent as it was not deep? The lack of depth of my question is easily known if I admit that I have not looked at the image at a size more than the thumbnails here and my questions were based solely on the photographers text that is here. Yes, at least that shallow. Pertinence is great. It is very frustrating to manage these "crack" candidates or those entries which get altered while the voting occurs -- or other little ways to step over the lines that the rules tried to draw and most frustrating are the entries from the photographers who know where these cracks in the rules and conduct of this review system are.... -- (sorry about the signature) carol (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Again I don't get the point of what you are trying to contribute here... Can you tell me what are you doing here on Commons Carol? --Acarpentier 23:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is the Quality Images Candidate Consensual Review considered to be "the Commons"? I answered your question with a question (a type of answer I loathe) because I am interested to know that you know what question you are asking. What am I doing here? I suspect that Ty Coon of Yoyodyne, Inc. just didn't understand the license. -- carol (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ok it's going nowhere and wasting wiki resources. I'll just ignore you from now, since you don't bring up any constructive/intelligent comments/changes. --Acarpentier 02:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Rewording your question to be more specific and easily understood would have been a way to not "waste wiki resources". I spent many of the minutes since you asked whatever question you asked thinking about how wikipedia would be different if the bias was for the users of the software whose license inspired the free-ness. Unless Internet Explorer can now have its user-agent modified, it would have easy enough to accomplish. Taking the time and acquiring the resources to hack exif information is less easy than simply using the software. Competition would return to natural competitors and perhaps monopolies would start to cease. Don't blame me for wasting wiki-resources; on occasion, I have had to answer problems with "the world is not fair" but that is a lose/lose situation that I really try to prevent from occuring. It takes more than one person to prevent it though. It also takes more than one person to waste time and resources in an exchange like this.... -- carol (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Info I see the image was 'promoted' on the 29th December. I don't want to be awkward here but that was not done properly as that was not 48 hours after the last 'entry' here as per the CR rules. But a bigger problem is that a new version has been uploaded (over top of the nomination) since then, and strictly the new version should be re-submitted to QIC review as it hasn't actually had any votes. I think the best solution is to simply extend this review process and see whether people think the new version is an improvement. --Tony Wills 19:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing this Tony, I didn't really realize but still I prefer fixing my image by updating them while the nomination to avoid adding too much page for noting on here... I consider it a waste of space. For the 48 hours, it was valid. The edit(Eusebius 10:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)) waz done after the 48hrs, so it should not count? Or I'm wrong? But seriously, all of this is not very important. I'm more into learning photography than understanding every of these process. I just process pics here to encourage myself continuing to submit these while giving them to the community. Anyway, thanks for supporting them and notify me if I do something wrong ;). --Acarpentier 04:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

CR is a discussion process, rather than a voting process. Nominations are closed when discussion has tapered off (indicated by no discussion after 2 days), if a nomination isn't closed then discussion can continue for up to 8 days - the 48hours is not the time when it must be closed, just the minimum amount of time with no new discussion before it can be closed :-). Best to leave QICbot to do the promotion, otherwise you must go and check all the right processes are followed manually --Tony Wills 21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC) (NB this comment was added after nomination was closed!)

• •  Comment Previous votes are now redundant I guess. Lycaon 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support New version looks good to me --Tony Wills 20:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Should've been like this from the start. Nice. Lycaon 20:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Confirm my  Support of this crop. I think the crop is an improvement. J.smith 21:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support your local crack candidate. -- carol (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC) This vote does not count -- reviewer never looked at the image. -- carol 23:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   Tony Wills 21:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Shakedown_2008_Figure_2.jpg

• Nomination Snowboard figure at the Shakedown 2008 --Acarpentier 18:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose Excessive downsampling. Lycaon 22:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  Okay, wait I'll update it with better version. --Acarpentier 00:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  Done. ;) --Acarpentier 04:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I like it. Quality is good, photographs are out of focus but it seems unavoidable to me. Qualifies for the "movement control" gallery. --Eusebius 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

   Comment I'd probably try to correct vignetting, but it's personal taste. --Eusebius 14:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 10:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Sint_Salvatortoren_R01.jpg

• Nomination Bruges (Belgium): rooftops and cathedral tower. -- MJJR 21:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 11:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Distracting branches (with CA) on the right side (could be removed by cloning, I guess). --Eusebius 19:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done: I removed the distracting (?) branches and corrected the CA on the others. -- MJJR 16:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • OK. Vignetting could be an issue as well, I don't know. --Eusebius 17:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
      • There is a slight vignetting indeed (which could easily be removed with Photoshop), but I don't think it's really disturbing. -- MJJR 21:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
        • And why don't you remove the vignetting? Nice composition. Without vignetting it would be a good picture. --BáthoryPéter 10:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
          •  Done ...as you like. -- MJJR 15:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Much better --BáthoryPéter 16:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 10:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Small orange ball slime mold 01.jpg

• Nomination I think this is the best illustration of Lycogala epidendrum on wikimedia --Tony Wills 10:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Meets QI requirements IMHO. --Leyo 14:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Why so small? Lycaon 20:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The image is small because the subject is very small so the image is cropped to 70% of 4MP image to emphasise subject --Tony Wills 11:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Well enough. Lycaon 12:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   Lycaon 21:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Slime mold sporangia 01.jpg

• Nomination Following the great acclaim my previous 2 slime molds have been greeted with :P, I present another :-). These are only a couple of mm long. --Tony Wills 00:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support I like it! JalalV 09:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Why so small (minimum minimorum)? Lycaon 20:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Either as a result of intelligent design or evolution I expect. --Tony Wills 00:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Or looking at it another way: The image is small because the subject is very small so the image is cropped to 70% of 4MP image to emphasise subject --Tony Wills 11:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Well enough. Lycaon 12:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   Lycaon 21:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Prague - panorama from Hradčany.jpg

• Nomination: Prague (Praha, Prag) - panorama from Hradčany --Pudelek 15:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Review  Comment well stitched, good light balance only concern is the composition in that there is no focal point other than that I'd support. Gnangarra 12:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> draw Lycaon 21:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Cathedrale bourges interieur.JPG

• Nomination Inside of Saint-Étienne Cathedral, Bourges, France. --KoS 21:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 17:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too soft, DOF is just not enough. What about using a tripode and a smaller aperture? -- Alvesgaspar 02:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose The camera is not in the nave axis, and bias is too small to be perceived as a deliberate effect. Vertical lines are really vertical only somewhere in the left side of the choir, which is disturbing. I like the light, the colours and the oppressive effect of by the uncorrected perspective. --Eusebius 21:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 11:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Sedlec Ossuary - the Schwarzenberg coat-of-arms.jpg

• Nomination Sedlec Ossuary - the Schwarzenberg coat-of-arms --Pudelek 20:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support It's OK. --Lestath 22:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Top of the portal is cropped, I would have shot a little bit higher. --Eusebius 10:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with Eusebuis, the top is missing Gnangarra 08:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 14:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Swampy But Pretty Bog In Fiordland NZ.jpg

• Nomination A wetlands boardwalk on the en:Milford Track. --Ingolfson 11:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Under min size requirements (1.83Mpx - should be 2Mpx min) - Peripitus 23:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
•  CommentAlthough some would have you believe otherwise, there is no strict size limit, just a guideline. Anyway 1600x1200 (1.92Mpx) is just a 4:3 ratio version of the suggested 1600x1250 "minimum" and is for practical purposes "sufficient". So what about reviewing the merits of the picture? :-) --Tony Wills 11:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
•  CommentI've always taken the guideline of 2 megapixels is normally the lower limit, but for 'easy to take' images, reviewers may demand more as indicating that, unless there is a compelling reason as to otherwise, images should not pass at under 2mpx. Even at this current resolution the image is soft - Peripitus (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree, the limit is low by today's camera standards. Let's not dilute it even further. --Dschwen 02:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like the composition but not enough to over come the technical aspect of size. Gnangarra 08:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 14:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

File:De_Haan_duinen_R03.jpg

• Nomination Dunes at De Haan, Belgium -- MJJR 22:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Meets QI requirements IMHO. --Leyo 13:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose But not enough contrasty and poor DOF --BáthoryPéter 17:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support At the given resolution the DOF is fine. --Dschwen 02:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support good composition, dof fine for me Gnangarra 08:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

File:360°Gipfelpanorama Gapfohl.jpg

• Nomination Skiing in Vorarlberg --Böhringer 22:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Nice work --Acarpentier 00:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Nice pano, but the horizon is a bit wavy. Also there is no blending across the 360 deg boundary. This should be fixed brfore it gets promoted. --Dschwen 05:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

   Comment I think the colour match between the ends of the image is remarkably good and your personal high standard of panos is making you look for perfection, this is quality images not perfect images :-). But I would mention the noise and artifacts in the low valley cloud, near each end of the image, about one third the way up from the bottom ;-) --Tony Wills 10:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  Given that cross-boundary blending is performed automatically by hugin I'm not asking for much. The wavy horizon is the bigger issue. --Dschwen 13:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment The wavy horizon is the result of very difficult to photograph the sun and by the 360 ° degrees. The sun here [[1]] is much higher. You see no sun and the horizon is also wavy --Böhringer 14:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No, the wavy horizon is the result of insufficient guide points in the panorama stitching process. It has nothing to do with the sun. 360 deg panos are difficult to correctly assemble if you are not using horizontal guides on the horizon line. I'd be happy to try it myself if you make the original images available to me. --Dschwen 16:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • oh, thank you. I look to see if I still have the original pictures. Should I use the images to the wiki invite? --Böhringer 16:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Aeh, was? Ich schick Dir einfach mal meine E-Mail-Adresse. --Dschwen 22:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Erleichterung, Erleichterung endlich in de; meine direktmail: fredy.boehringer@samas.com l.g. --Böhringer 09:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   Tony Wills 11:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Ice12 (by).jpg

• Nomination: Ice in forest. --ComputerHotline 12:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Review out of scope QI is for self made images Gnangarra 12:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  AFAIK, ComputerHotline = Thomas Bresson ;-). Lycaon 12:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
   Comment image licensing says its was sourced from Flickr and awaiting review Gnangarra 13:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC) -- @Gnangarra : I upload my on Flickr AND on WikiCommons. --ComputerHotline 12:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  then the sourcing shouldnt be from flickr nor should it need to be reviewed Gnangarra 08:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral ComputerHotline's weird flicker-stuff aside, the filename is problematic enough for me that I can't support this image. However, it's a good picture so I won't oppose. J.smith (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support, 0 oppose -> (no decision after 8 days - move to unreviewed) Tony Wills (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Pompei und Vesuv.JPG

• Nomination Vesuvius and Pompei. --High Contrast 12:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Nice. --ComputerHotline 11:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not so sharp, a tourist's head in the foreground, edges of the Vesuvius do not look good. --Eusebius 19:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

 Comment There is some sort of halo effect along the edges of the mountain at this scale and on the image page, but it is not present when looking at the full image, so is presumably an artifact of the automatic scaling software --Tony Wills 09:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

 Comment I was talking of the full-size picture. It's just a little bit out of focus, I guess. --Eusebius 21:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose The tourist's head does it for me, gives it a 'snapshot' feeling. Lycaon 21:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Info I chased away the tourists and straightened out the tilt, see new version.

   Comment I don't think the fuzzyness of the background image of the mountain is a problem it just puts the ruins in context --Tony Wills 07:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

   Comment I think two images for one nomination is too many... It's still unclear for me whether my vote will be attributed to the original picture or to the edit. About your remark on the fuzziness of the background: I would agree if the ruins were very sharp, but it's not the case (even after the downsampling of your edit, in which the Vesuvius looks better). I guess I'd just like more DOF. What were your settings? EXIF info is absent from both pictures. --Eusebius 21:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  Vote counting is simple, votes before the addition of a new image apply to the original, voters after the addition had better specify what they're voting for ;-). It is often nice to see modifications side by side to compare. Also I would not upload a modified image over top of someone elses image that was currently being evaluated! If the author of the original likes my modifications, they should re-upload it over top of theirs and mark mine for deletion as a duplicate. :-)

  PS having the backdrop out of focus to emphasise the subject has a long photographic pedigree ;-) --Tony Wills 10:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  I may be simple-minded but no, I don't think vote count is so simple, and QICbot has been puzzled in the past when two images appear in a single nomination. If people vote for both images depending on the date of their vote, how many images can be promoted/declined in a single nomination? --Eusebius (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  QICbot no doubt just promotes the first image, and QICbot no doubt just promotes/declines one image per nomination. But QICbot is just an assistant, QICbot is not the master, QICbot is fallable ;-) Humans can correct for QICbots short-comings. (Or to put it another way QICbot doesn't define the process :-). I expect that if the author and reviewers like the modified version we can work something out, if not, the default will be to decline both :-) --Tony Wills 11:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   Tony Wills 11:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Male Mallard quack.JPG

• Nomination Male Mallard. Diti the penguin — 21:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Correct exposure details and DoF. --ComputerHotline 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not sharp enough (viz. tail), unfortunate light (shadowed head) and unexciting (central) composition. Lycaon 01:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose jpeg artifacts. --Lestath 11:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support great shot. Technical issues are very minor and unnoticeable at reasonable review sizes. J.smith 00:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As per Lycaon --PieCam 14:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   Tony Wills (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Bohinj Bitnje Cerkev Marijinega vnebovztja 08062008 15.jpg

• Nomination Church "Assumption Day" at Bitnje near Bohinjska Bistrica in the municipality Bohinj, Julian Alps, Gorenjska, Slovenia. Duchamp 21:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Nice atmosphere, maybe it need a little perspective correction but still ok for me. --Acarpentier 01:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think there are JPEG artefacts around the border of the roof and in the clouds. --Eusebius 11:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree, the file is far too compressed. I would expect a file size of 1.5 to 2MB for a picture of this resolution. Too much quality lost. --Tony Wills 21:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 10:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Black soldier fly.jpg

• Nomination: Black Soldier fly --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Review
•  Support Correct details. --ComputerHotline 11:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Please remove dust spots. Lycaon 23:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw Eusebius 13:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Kokawadera-N0176.JPG

• Nomination Wooden buddhist temple --Uu7 10:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Interesting. -- JalalV 13:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Needs perspective correction. Lycaon 23:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  I quite like the slanted uprights, gives it real character :-). Unfortunely, due to the close crop, correcting the perspective means you would need to loose the near post or do some creative cloning to fill in missing pixels. There are also deep shadows that hide deatils of the building. Nice picture though :-) --Tony Wills 11:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

   Comment I think the chosen point of view forbids perspective correction, geometry should be left as is. --Eusebius 21:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support high res, shapr --Beyond silence 11:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 13:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Dijon - Hôtel Aubriot - figurine de soutènement 2.jpg

• Nomination Detail of a hôtel particulier in Dijon. --Eusebius 22:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Très bien. --Acarpentier 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC).
•  Oppose What is new from this - "File:Dijon - Hôtel Aubriot - figurine de soutènement.jpg"? Lets make all 3M commons images QI!--Kozuch 21:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  I don't understand your comment. Could you please elaborate? --Eusebius 21:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  What is the sence of having 2 very simlilar quality images? BTW, I dont think the image is somehow special - neither scope, nor technically. If the window would be cropped out, I would consider it sufficient maybe.--Kozuch 23:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks. I don't think there is a notion of scope for QIs, but I guess you're right about the window. Do you think this version is better? --Eusebius 06:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Photograph is Ok. Dont confuse QI with VI --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  Please have a look at the crop I've pointed. I think it might be actually better and I consider withdrawing this one. --Eusebius 07:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  I think the nominated one gives a beter idea of the size. --Berthold Werner 16:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Info QI is not a competition, there can be many almost identical photographs of the same thing. One purpose of QI is to encourage people to submit high quality photos that are their own work. There is no need to remove old QIs when a better photo is found, nor to remove them when technology improves and they are no longer up to the current 'standard'. --Tony Wills 20:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  But if after all a crop is better than the whole picture, why not nominate/promote the crop instead? This has been done several times already. --Eusebius 21:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, that is basically a point of composition and therefore quality. If the composition is poor then the original is probably not QI. But in the general case there is no reason that a wider view showing the context, and a closeup of the same object can not both be QIs. My note was more directed at the comments by Kozuch :-) --Tony Wills 21:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC).

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 10:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Eichenberg 01.JPG

• Nomination Eichenberg, Bodensee --Böhringer 00:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Correct exposure, colors and details. --ComputerHotline 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy sky. --Eusebius 10:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy sky or perhaps artefacts trough sharpening(?). --Berthold Werner 12:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 12:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Buteo regalis 02.jpg

• Nomination Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis), Falconry at Obernberg (Austria) --Aconcagua 19:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Correct exposure. --ComputerHotline 09:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unsharp, diffraction (or CA?) on edges. --Eusebius 10:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not sharp indeed. Lycaon 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 09:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

File:ComputerHotline - Souci (by) (1).jpg

• Nomination Colias crocea on buddleja davidii flowers. --ComputerHotline 17:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support I think quality is ok --Böhringer 21:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Below size limit. --Eusebius 10:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So if it was 5 pixels higher you would find it ok? :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If it complied with the guidelines, I would review it. --Eusebius 06:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Small and oversaturated. Lycaon 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose other then the size problems, the name is inappropriate and destructive to our search and organizational tools. J.smith 07:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 09:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Juppentracht 08a.JPG

• Nomination OTRS verified; Traditonal costume of Bregenzerwald --Böhringer 21:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion * CommentI really like the motive of the picture. But there are parts of extreme overexposure which does not make it a QI for me.--JuliusR 17:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I don't know who made this comment, but he should adjust his screen. The histogramm definitifly shows there is no overexposure! --Berthold Werner 15:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Sorry for not signing. I have no idea what kind of histogramm you are looking at. I see the following: click me --JuliusR 17:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So look here: File:Temp_BW.JPG. Blue goes near to left side, but there is still a small space. I also inspected some of the marked points, my program gives nowhere 255,255,255 as color. And if there are some, it's still acceptable IMHO. --Berthold Werner 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Okay, if that is the case, I retreat my critique. Can you tell me what tool you used to generate the histogram? Mine seems to be not datailed enough for such checkings. Thanks for the discussion. I am always willing to learn something new. --JuliusR (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I use FixFoto --Berthold Werner 15:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment I would agree, that from the shape of that histogram some were indeed over-exposed, even if subsequently processed to bring them back below 255-255-255. But minor overexposure of a few pixels is usually not a problem for QI. NB en:GIMP can give you seperate RGB histograms (and lots more) and it is "free" as in GNU :-) --Tony Wills 19:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 07:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Katowice - Katedra - Prawy ołtarz boczny 01.jpg

• Nomination: Cathedral in Katowice. --Lestath 16:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Review
•  Question Isn't it a picture of a modern work of art? I'm unsure about possible copyright issues. --Eusebius 10:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   Comment It's OK. It's in public place - sth like freedom of panorama and we have on the wikipedia tons of pictures with situation like that. --Lestath 23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

   Comment according to Commons:Freedom of panorama#Poland it says in public places specifying roads, squares and gardens this is inside a church does FoP apply? Gnangarra 15:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   Comment In Poland it concern public places. It is public place and there are no restrictions. --Lestath 16:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> draw. Eusebius 07:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Katowice - Katedra - Chrzcielnica 01.jpg

• Nomination: Baptismal font in cathedral in Katowice. --Lestath 16:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Review
•  Question Isn't it a picture of a modern work of art? I'm unsure about possible copyright issues. --Eusebius 10:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

   Comment It's OK. It's in public place - sth like freedom of panorama and we have on the wikipedia tons of pictures with situation like that. --Lestath 23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

   Comment according to Commons:Freedom of panorama#Poland it says in public places specifying roads, squares and gardens this is inside a church does FoP apply? Gnangarra 15:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   CommentIn Poland it concern public places. It is public place and there are no restrictions. --Lestath 16:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> draw. Eusebius 07:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Kernavė - Hill forts 01.jpg

• Nomination Old hillfort mounds in Kernavė. --Lestath 20:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Withdrawn
•  Oppose Overexposed sky. --Eusebius 08:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

   Comment Over-exposed skies can be repaired without affecting the important parts of the image, which seemed (seamed?) to be very nice. (Moving this to CR.) -- carol 01:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

   Comment If you know a nice way to do that I'm interested (although I wonder how sky features can be invented from a solid white zone if you're not an artist). If this image gets corrected I'll retract my opposition, but for now it's not. --Eusebius 07:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  I don't know if I reduced the clouds enough to rid this image of the over-exposure problem. More reduction would require an artist making the image something that it was naturally not. My image is of four layers from the top down:1) sky completely masked; 2) mask made from the saturation part of a decomposition into HSL or HSV and color inverted and value levels lightened (gamma increased); 3) same saturation mask not color inverted and value levels darkened (gamma decreased) and 4)sky color (this time, a gradient was not needed or used). Often there is a lot more detail in the clouds than the eye can see and a saturation map can find those details. (There is a tutorial for this at my web site, or there was one there before I was able to determine that we were not working together). -- carol (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  Well, thanks for the lesson. I'd love to see the tutorial, actually. However, I think that even though the image looks better, it still looks overexposed. Plus, there are some strange problems (like blending/stitching errors) in the branches (in the original picture). I maintain my opposition. --Eusebius 15:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  http://carol.gimp.org/gimp2/photography/sky/compose/ It is interesting how much more we did when we were working together and not trying to remake photoshop (I really did not like the app when I tried it.) I also am embarrassed now by the results shown in the image. Did you know that an artist who makes metal cast sculptures like this has to sell five of them to make a profit? That image was taken purposefully, as I was trying to see all of the works by artists who had public art in this location where, since I was wrongly relocated to and we do not work together any longer. -- carol (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

   I withdraw my nomination Sorry, I did this image same time ago and I forget about errors. Now I agree and withdraw my nomination. --Lestath 17:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Tent_rocks_MG_3255.jpg

• Nomination Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, New Mexico --JuliusR 15:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Looks a bit out of focus in the foreground. --Coyau 15:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   Comment The blurry foreground seems to be an area of uninteresting detail anyways and the interesting details are quite sharp. -- carol 01:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  1/3 of the picture (1/2 of the suject) is out of focus. If it is uninteresting, then crop. --Coyau 13:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support It is actually abiding by the rule of thirds though, especially the way that you have described it. It should become interesting to see more votes for or against this image. -- carol (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I certainly don't think that all of a picture must be in focus in general, but in this case I think it would have been better (and possible) to have a deeper DOF: out-of-focus parts do not contribute to the composition. Plus, the sky is a little bit noisy (or shows some other kind of grain). --Eusebius 15:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks a lot for your discussion, no matter if the image is promoted or not. Helps me a lot in getting an idea, what I can do better the next times. --JuliusR 08:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 22:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Hornviper 01.jpg

• Nomination Hornviper --Böhringer 21:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support I like this image very much!--Mbz1 16:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose But it is unsharp, and a little bit noisy (and centred). --Eusebius 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I would question whether the white balance was correct, there isn't much to go by, but one reference point is the eye-ball slit, which I would expect to be pure black (and isn't). In GIMP you could use that eye to set the grey-point and get a more likely colour scheme. Another thing that some people will worry about is the very over exposed red channel - fortunately, as far as I can see, this is mainly from the background, which is out of focus anyway so doesn't matter as much. --Tony Wills 11:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose small DOF, out of focus --Ianare 07:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   carol 15:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Cathédrale Saint-Caprais Agen Interieur3.JPG

• Nomination: Inside of Saint-Caprais Cathedral, Agen, France --KoS 01:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Review
•  Support Looks good, even if the windows edges are overexposed (I guess it's difficult to do it better). --Coyau 14:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC
•  Oppose I agree that it is a difficult shot, but I'm concerned about the level of noise. Sensibility does not show in the EXIF info, but at 1/8 s it must be quite high. Composition is also unsure, we'd expect centring but it's not the case (could be corrected). --Eusebius 15:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw Eusebius 10:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Chufut_Kale3.jpg

• Nomination Çufut Qale, Bakhchisaray, Crimea --Dmitry A. Mottl 12:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Neutral Beautiful shot! But most of it is unsharp, sky is a bit noisy and there might be JPEG artefacts in the stone (not sure about it). --Eusebius 11:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• скучаю за крымoм. спасибо за фото.--Mbz1 22:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sharpness is lacking. Lycaon 22:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 11:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

File:My dear mother 2.JPG

• Nomination Clock face of the church at Buckland in the Moor which has "My Dear mother" in place of numbers around the clock face.
  The creator of the image is User:Herbythyme --Mbz1 15:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose tilted --Ianare 01:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I thought about this too before I nominated the image, but then I did some investigation, and now I do not think the image is tilted. It rather was taken under an angle. May I please ask you to take a look at this image of the same church .
  As you could see taking picture under an angle was the only option for a photographer, who wanted to show what is written on the clock, and IMO he/she did the job quite well. I would also like to add that I found only very few images of this unusual clock and they all look kind of tilted. Here's, for example one more image from Commons File:The church at Buckland in the Moor.jpg taken with a much better camera. Thank you.--Mbz1 06:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• But if you look at the cropped version, the window sill is at an angle which could be fixed very easily ... It's a little hard to tell on the images if the tower is at an angle - narrowing at the top, but I think the window and rock layers should be level regardless. Would like to see what other people think. --Ianare 02:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment. I rotated the image. I tried few different angles of the rotation. I still believe that because the only option to take this image was to position the camera under an angle to the tower (due to the church design) the window will always looked as it is tilted, when in reality it is not IMO. --Mbz1 04:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   Eusebius 11:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Mts.Akaishi from Mt.Utsugidake 01 en.jpg

• Nomination Akaishi Mountains, Honshu, Japan. --Σ64 15:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support There is a smudge (could be a bird) above the first "a" in Tekaridake and there is a dust spot and another smudge which I saw in the other version. It is so close to perfect and crazy amounts of beautiful.... -- carol 01:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius 16:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Bristol MMB «43 River Avon.jpg

• Nomination The River Avon in Bristol from the banks at Sea Mills. Mattbuck 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Nice clouds--Mbz1 04:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very noisy sky and CCW tilt. Lycaon 10:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment If there is a tilt, it's by less than 1 degree and I don't know which way - I don't think there are any clear uprights/horizontals to measure against. The signal is tilted yes, but I don't think that's solely because of the camera. Mattbuck 16:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy. --Eusebius 12:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   [[[User:Eusebius|Eusebius]] 16:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Lilium asiatic hybrid - unopened flower - city park launceston tasmania.jpg

• Nomination: Lilium asiatic hybrid - unopened flower - Peripitus 12:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Review
•  Support Correct exposure, DoF and colors. --ComputerHotline 17:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Wait until it opens and then identify it. Lycaon 14:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

   CommentWould that I could - I'm about 1,500 km away from this one now, and neither the signage, brochure nor curator could identify any of the particular hybrids they are growing - Peripitus 06:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment I would say it is identified well enough, if you can't tell from a photo what exact species it is, then it doesn't matter. The photo can be used to illustrate all those look alike species! But! in this case the red channel is severely over-exposed, loosing detail from the bud and giving it a plastic look, so not QI. --Tony Wills 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> draw Eusebius 16:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)