Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
→‎File:Niagara_Falls_-_ON_-_Skylon_Tower.jpg: Warned user to avoid attacks.
Line 764: Line 764:
***To criticize that to many pictures are going to CR especially if the author is moving them sound very deridingly if we look at Jebulons misson moving basically my pictures here at CR. Often with ridiculous arguments like this above. --[[User:Taxiarchos228|Taxiarchos228]] 12:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
***To criticize that to many pictures are going to CR especially if the author is moving them sound very deridingly if we look at Jebulons misson moving basically my pictures here at CR. Often with ridiculous arguments like this above. --[[User:Taxiarchos228|Taxiarchos228]] 12:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
****Is this what can be called a "personal attack" ?--[[User:Jebulon|Jebulon]] 13:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
****Is this what can be called a "personal attack" ?--[[User:Jebulon|Jebulon]] 13:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
****Wladyslaw (Taxiarchos228), please "[c]omment on '''content''', not on the '''contributor'''. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community ..." ([[:en:WP:PA]]; also see [[:de:WP:PA]]) --[[User:Wsiegmund|Wsiegmund]] 17:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{comment}} Personnaly, I also think the crop looks random. I already talked with Taxiarchos228 about crop, compostion and care of his images and I personnaly think that in many occasions, composition effort is not present and has a negative effect on his pictures. The preceding comments and regular CRisation of the pictures, IMO, are symptomatic of this lack of work on composition. An effort would cleary rise his success rate. [[User:Letartean|Letartean]] 16:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{comment}} Personnaly, I also think the crop looks random. I already talked with Taxiarchos228 about crop, compostion and care of his images and I personnaly think that in many occasions, composition effort is not present and has a negative effect on his pictures. The preceding comments and regular CRisation of the pictures, IMO, are symptomatic of this lack of work on composition. An effort would cleary rise his success rate. [[User:Letartean|Letartean]] 16:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
}}
}}

Revision as of 17:05, 3 April 2012

Nominations

Due to changes in the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 21:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC). Thank you.


April 3, 2012

April 2, 2012

April 1, 2012

March 31, 2012

March 30, 2012

March 29, 2012

March 28, 2012

March 27, 2012

March 26, 2012

March 25, 2012

March 24, 2012

March 22, 2012

Consensual review

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision - Promoted or Not promoted - will be registered at the end of the text and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the image will stay in Consensual Review for a maximum period of 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".

Consensual Review

Use the same format as is already here:

  • Add a heading, eg "===photo title==="
  • Add braces and a size to the image name, eg "[[Image:photo name.jpg|200px]]" (You have to do this, because it isn't in a gallery any more)
  • Change /Decline or /Accept to /Discuss.
  • Add a new line after the 2nd "|"
  • Put a new line before the final "}}"

File:Niagara_Falls_-_ON_-_Skylon_Tower.jpg

  • Nomination Skylon Tower in Niagara Falls (ON) --Taxiarchos228 08:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good.--ArildV 08:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition issue: the foreground is distractive of the main subject (the tower), I suggest a crop until the grass--Jebulon 09:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment From a photographic point of view, yes. But from an encyclopedic point of view, I think the tourist attractions around the tower is interesting and dont destroy the image.--ArildV 10:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I understand what you mean, and I could agree. But the tourist attractions are a bit busy, sadly catching the attention, out of scope (title of the picture) and randomly cropped IMO, and maybe a photographic point of view is more prominent in the QIC page, than the encyclopedic one... It is a good picture anyway, a promotion should not be a scandal ! Let's wait what the others say.--Jebulon 12:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
      • To criticize that to many pictures are going to CR especially if the author is moving them sound very deridingly if we look at Jebulons misson moving basically my pictures here at CR. Often with ridiculous arguments like this above. --Taxiarchos228 12:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Is this what can be called a "personal attack" ?--Jebulon 13:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Wladyslaw (Taxiarchos228), please "[c]omment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community ..." (en:WP:PA; also see de:WP:PA) --Wsiegmund 17:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Personnaly, I also think the crop looks random. I already talked with Taxiarchos228 about crop, compostion and care of his images and I personnaly think that in many occasions, composition effort is not present and has a negative effect on his pictures. The preceding comments and regular CRisation of the pictures, IMO, are symptomatic of this lack of work on composition. An effort would cleary rise his success rate. Letartean 16:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Two_Indian_women,_Umaria_district,_Madhya_Pradesh.jpg

  • Nomination Two Indian women, Umaria district, Madhya Pradesh, India. --Yann 11:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Nice, but poor detail (see teeth): Noisy and poor DOF (f/4)--Lmbuga 11:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The DOF is short on purpose, to focus on the left woman. Also please consider the resolution. Yann 19:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, When I see the image with 682 × 1,024 pixels I can't see details of the mouth and eyes of the woman of the background, but I'm not sure, I only said a comment, sorry--Lmbuga 20:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 Oppose Poor DOF (second woman) and also, poor detail: the teeth and the face of the first woman. Discuss--Lmbuga 21:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I think a discuss is required; we have not enough people photos here. Jkadavoor 06:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Girl_on_bullock_cart,_Umaria_district,_MP,_India.jpg

  • Nomination Girl on a bullock cart, Umaria district, Madhya Pradesh, India. --Yann 11:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Very nice subject, but I don't like the composition. Bad control movement? (head of the girl is not sharp). To me, the background is disturbing because it's blurry and lack of quality--Lmbuga 11:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The background is blurry on purpose, to focus on the cart. Also please consider the resolution. Yann 19:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 Oppose See above. The resolution is low than 9 or 10 megapixels. I can't see the image with 2 megapixels. Sorry--Lmbuga 21:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean, the resolution is nearly 8.5 Mpixels. Yann 15:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Dokumentationszentrum_Reichsparteitagsgelände3.jpg

  • Nomination Nuremberg: Documentation Center Nazi Party Rally Grounds --Taxiarchos228 10:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 18:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate light. In shade. The branches are disturbing. Sorry, but it's what I think, and I think that other perspective or light is possible--Lmbuga 00:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Armure roi Bohême puis empereur Ferdinand Ier Vienne.jpg

  • Nomination 1526 armour for King of Bohemia (later Emperor) Ferdinand I, Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna, Austria. Please see file description page for complete caption in French and German--Jebulon 10:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Nice and good quality--Lmbuga 10:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
A white background would look better IMO. --Kadellar 15:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I've tried, it is not my opinion.--Jebulon 19:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose black backgreound with a very dark object are to low contrast, there are more possibilities except black and white, we have more than two colors --Taxiarchos228 07:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • ...Lol. Some opinions are sometimes completely distorded by personal motives, and I don't care of them. I can play this little game too, if really needed. Let see what others say.--Jebulon 10:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, Taxiarchos is right, let's say clear background instead of white background. Something like ivory or vanilla (or whatever). It's because of the contrast, the subject doesn't really stand out. --Kadellar 16:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Jamides_bochus_by_kadavoor.jpg

  • Nomination Jamides bochus, mating (retouched by Aleks G) -- Jkadavoor 06:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose-Antennae blurred(all four). Probably excellent for VI--Gauravjuvekar 07:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong and unnatural edges--Lmbuga 09:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • They are in a wrong angle (as in the image I had given as other version) so I try to insult them a bit expecting they a make a short flight and land somewhere nearby. But to my surprise, they climbed on my finger and continue their job. :) It was difficult to hold the camera in one hand and take a shot; so not much sharpness. :( I've no problem with the decline but didn't understand 'unnatural edges'. --Jkadavoor 05:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, You can see two notes in the image. I don't know if the correct words can be "unnatural edges", perhaps could be better "rare edges". When you want, you can delete the notes--Lmbuga 09:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem; I understand. It may be an issue developed by sharpening. I hope Aleks G will take care of it, if possible. Jkadavoor 15:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Vidnoe Church of the Nativity of Theotokos 01.jpg

  • Nomination Church of the Nativity of the Theotokos, Vidnoe near Moscow. - A.Savin 19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 13:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distortion, sky a bit dark for me. --Kadellar 14:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Kadellar--Lmbuga 15:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong WB, too yellow.--PereslavlFoto 19:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Porto_de_Puerto_del_Carmen-8.jpg

  • Nomination Buildings. Port of Puerto del Carmen, Tías, Lanzarote, Spain 8--Lmbuga 19:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Juraría que está un poco torcida, mira los balcones de la derecha. Por lo demás todo bien, has pillado a la gente en sus balcones in fraganti jje. --Kadellar 14:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    No sé qué balcón has mirado. Te agradezco que mires diez balcones y me marques con una nota alguno que esté significativamente torcido con respecto a los demás, indicando al mismo tiempo cuantos has mirado. Yo he encontrado uno torcido, pero he mirado más de diez. ¿Corrijo ese balcón o mantengo lo que aparentan los otros? Yo no veo torcida la imagen. Si tú la ves torcida, yo la corrijo, pero indícame lo que en la imagen es o debería ser "derecho". Indícamelo con una nota--Lmbuga 20:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)}
    To me the image is not tilted (please, in English: There are other users, but you can speak spanish when you want)--Lmbuga 20:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    I think that this image must be in the discuss zone because there aren't a objection to be QI, but the comments can seem a objection--Lmbuga 00:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Vertical are verticals, and even if the light not optimum, I think it could pass (if the dust spot in the right corner above is removed ;)--Jebulon 14:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Sydney_Spider_Wasp.JPG

  • Nomination An Australian spider wasp (Cryptocheilus bicolor) --99of9 12:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Legs not in focus--Gauravjuvekar 11:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)  Support That's fine. Although could have benefited from a higher F number. --Gidip 02:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
     Support Not perfect, but as Gidip--Lmbuga 09:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Aswan_Nile_R03.jpg

  • Nomination Aswan (Egypt): the Nile and part of Elephantine Island -- MJJR 21:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Moonik 07:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    It's a little bit tilted (see the pole behind the boat). Easy to fix. --Kadellar 14:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Fontaine de l'abbaye (Saint-Savin, Hautes-Pyrénées, France).JPG

  • Nomination Saint-Savin Fountain Florent Pécassou 16:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good, with a very good light. Maybe a bit tilted (verticals are fine, not sure for horizontals...), QI anyway.--Jebulon 17:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, jpeg artifacts; for me this should be symmetric or a completely assymmetric view, but not close to symmetry. --Kadellar 14:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Kiosque de l'Empereur Bois de Boulogne Paris 16e 001.jpg

  • Nomination Pavilion of the Emperor in Bois de Boulogne, Paris, France. --Moonik 11:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 07:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I like the image but there's an unfortunate crop at the top of the kiosque. We need more opinions. --Kadellar 14:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
     Info I nominated two other versions of same photo, with a wider crop --Moonik 07:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Gare Les Coteaux - Saint-Cloud 003.JPG

  • Nomination The entrance in the former railway station in Saint-Cloud, France. --Moonik 09:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Nice.--Jebulon 12:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    IMO you should crop a little bit one the left side, to get a better symmetry. Also, noisy and a bit unsharp because of using f.9 and 1/15 s rather than wider f number and quicker exposure. --Kadellar 14:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New file is uploaded with the crop more symmetric. Thank for advice for the exposition parameters. It was a cloudy evening and not a lot of light. --Moonik 07:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Fontenay_le_Comte_-_Tour_Rivalland_(2).jpg

File:Betula pendula male catkins.jpg

  • Nomination Male catkins of the Silver Birch. --DimiTalen 17:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality for me. --Jkadavoor 06:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose The catkins of the right side is blurry(perhaps the image must be cropped). Poor detail to me--Lmbuga 11:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Larosterna_inca_(Inca_Tern_-_Inkaseeschwalbe)_Weltvogelpark_Walsrode_2012-010.jpg

  • Nomination Inca Tern at Weltvogelpark Walsrode. --Fiorellino 15:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 12:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, noise and, in plumage, too much chromatic noise--Lmbuga 20:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough, in my opinion.--Jebulon 14:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Litoria fallax qtl1.jpg

  • Nomination Eastern Dwarf Tree Frog. --Quartl 16:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose noisy, unsharp --Carschten 17:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC) -
  •  Comment I applied some noise reduction. Please note that this is a tiny frog, smaller than your thumbnail. I had to use a very small aperture here to get some dof. --Quartl 17:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Sowas habe ich mir schon gedacht. Mit der Entrauschung sieht es schon besser aus, dennoch wirkt der kleine Frosch nicht wirklich richtig gut fokussiert... Bin mir sicher ob es ein QI ist. --Carschten 18:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Let's discuss, maybe my voting is too harsh. --Carschten 10:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Endearing, but the eyes aren't sharp enough. The image is 1,924 × 1,482 pixels, but the subject is too little to me (I know that this criteria is not correct, but perhaps it can be important). Not noisy to me, but there are important zones that are a bit unsharp and the subject of the image is too little--Lmbuga 14:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 16:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Ortsschild - Ortsende - Mörfelden-Walldorf - Stadtteil Walldorf - Frankfurt am Main 15km - 01.jpg

  • Nomination City limit sign, end of Walldorf, Mörfelden-Walldorf, Hesse, Germany - 15km to Frankfurt. --NorbertNagel 21:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. --Moonik 08:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose CA, not really sharp --Carschten 13:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
     Comment I uploaded a new version: Sharpened and CA removed. --NorbertNagel 14:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
     Support meets QI criteria --Taxiarchos228 18:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
     Support OK for me -- MJJR 21:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)*
     Weak oppose chromatic aberrations and I don't like the composition: too much space at top (centered subject).--Lmbuga 14:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC))
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Gauravjuvekar 14:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Mont de seura chedul Cir.jpg

  • Nomination The Chedul valley in Gröden.--Moroder 16:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Amazing. QI! DimiTalen 17:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO, composition is wrong. Sky and mountain shouldn't fill 50% each. I don't know if detail should be better, though it is a very distant object. Sorry, but we need more opinions. --Kadellar 13:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 17:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Herten_-_St._Josef.jpg

  • Nomination Rheinfelden: Saint Josef Church --Taxiarchos228 09:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Some areas slighty overexposed, but QI for me --Moonik 14:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Slightly overexposed areas indeed, too strong shadow almost in front, tree too dark at right (no details visible), disturbing road sign just in the middle (not your fault). Very good composition though. I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 16:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon. --99of9 07:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon.--Lmbuga 16:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 17:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Herten_-_St._Josef_-_Langhaus.jpg

  • Nomination Rheinfelden: Interior of St. Josef --Taxiarchos228 09:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 12:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose good, but needs correction of tilt and perspective before promotion IMO.--Jebulon 14:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support good but only without distortion. --Ralf Roletschek 18:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    • ??? Don't understand your meaning. Maybe you mean correction instead of distortion ? But Perspective correction is a mandatory, please read the guidelines. Don't use your vote to make a point, please.--Jebulon 19:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
      • What do you call correction, I call distortion. A distorted image for me isn't QI. --Ralf Roletschek 09:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
        • This is not the right place for such a debate, which is closed for a long time...--Jebulon 19:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Jebulon--Lmbuga 14:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 17:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Fungo - Volvariella gloiocephala.jpg

  • Nomination The mushroom Volvariella gloiocephala, near Castelleone di Suasa, Italia. --Accurimbono 18:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality, but shows up rotated in full resolution for some reason?.. Needs to be reuploaded, perhaps. --Óðinn 19:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Rotation fixed.--Accurimbono 19:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question How does the lower part of the image contribute to the composition? Is the brown object a part of the fungus? --Gidip 16:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Answer to the comment: It is the brown soil and a brown dried leaf (exactly it is a dried leaf of Aesculus hippocastanum), they are part of the grass in which this mushroom grown. Being the soil and leaf not the main subject of this shot, they are not included in the DOF. The dried leaf on the bottom right counterbalance (IMHO) the mushroom that it is slightly on the left side, therefore I haven't remove the leaf during the shot neither cropped out. --Accurimbono 06:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The brown leaf is very distracting to me, and there is too much soil under the mushroom making a somewhat unpleasant composition. Really calls for tighter crop at the bottom. Gidip 02:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Important overexposed zones--Lmbuga 22:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 07:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Trier_Liebfrauen_BW_2012-03-26_16-18-15.jpg

  • Nomination Germany, Trier, Church of Our Lady, main portal --Berthold Werner 17:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good enough. --Selbymay 22:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose upper half is unsharp --Carschten 20:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Carschten and perhaps too tight IMO--Lmbuga 22:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 07:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Allosmia nest in snail shell 2.jpg

  • Nomination Osmia (Allosmia) sp., female closing a nest built in an empty snail shell --Gidip 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 18:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient depth of field, too tight crop. Not QI for me. --Accurimbono 10:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 05:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I don't like the reflection of the flash. Insufficient depth of field--Lmbuga 22:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose--Low DOF--Gauravjuvekar 13:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Gauravjuvekar 13:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Campus MMB H2 Melton Hall.jpg

  • Nomination Panorama of Melton Hall. Mattbuck 12:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support I'm not a panorama expert but this is a striking image. --Saffron Blaze 13:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Notable perspective distortion at both sides. --Iifar 14:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I noted that as well but thought it did not detract significantly from the image quality. Regardless, should be easy to fix. Saffron Blaze 14:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Iifar--Lmbuga 14:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Passer_montanus_ringed_by_Landsort_Bird_Observatory-2.JPG

  • Nomination A Eurasian Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus) ringed by Landsort Bird Observatory. --Calandrella 20:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Bad crop. Makele-90 21:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    please let's discuss, for me it is a good crop. --Ralf Roletschek 11:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    Ralf, what is the man behind doing? --Kadellar 11:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't knew. He is looking to a phone, a device? Looking for the number of the Bird? The main object is in focus, the background is well unsharp, i like it. --Ralf Roletschek 13:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
If he's kind of a scientist and studies birds (specially this sparrow), I find this is a great composition. If he's not related to the bird, I am not so sure. --Kadellar 18:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Man playing with his cell phone or camera. I don't see nothing related to the bird. Perhaps Calandrella could shed light on the matter. Makele-90 11:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I can indeed! The man is indeed one of the people working for the bird observatory with ringing the birds (yes, you could call that a scientist) and thus relevant for the subject. At this very picture, however, I am not sure what he is doing - perhaps he is examining a photograph of his own of the bird, or possibly doing nothing bird-related at all (such as checking his cell-phone). Perhaps a tighter crop would be better? Calandrella 23:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support after Calandrella's explanation. --Kadellar 09:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak support--Subject is excellently focused, the tag on its right leg is important but crop could have been better(a slightly changed angle would have included the entire bird and the man behind)--Gauravjuvekar 09:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose--Subject is focused, but not excellently focussed. The middle left of the image it's not important and this left part is in the image: Bad composition. Also bad composition because the subject is, in part, out of the image--Lmbuga 14:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 06:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Weiblicher_Akt5.jpg

  • Nomination Female art nude --Taxiarchos228 07:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  SupportGood quality for me, even with the foot cropped. --Kadellar 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  OpposePlease, let's discuss about this cropped foot...--Jebulon 16:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support the cropped foot isn't importnat. Nice and QI for me. --Alchemist-hp 19:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support QI with the cropped foot, it isn't important. --Ralf Roletschek 06:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment To me, it is...--Jebulon 13:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose cropped foot--Lmbuga 22:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Idem. Alvesgaspar 14:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Idem. --T137 21:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 06:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Žale-7.jpg

File:Žale-7.jpg

  • Nomination Jože Plečnik Žale (Cemetery), Ljubljana, Slovenia --Mihael Grmek 11:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality, nice symmetry, well balanced exposure --Superbass 10:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The same distortion and CA as when it was already declined last February. No changes have been made. --Kadellar 18:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I sharpened the image and tried to corect the perspective (re-stiched the images). I shot this with ultra wide lens to get rid of trees in front of the building. For now that is the best that I can do. --Mihael Grmek 12:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 06:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)