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
Line 11: Line 11:
== August 18, 2013 ==
== August 18, 2013 ==
<gallery>
<gallery>
File:Le monument aux morts de Lesponne.jpg|{{/Nomination|War monument of Lesponne, France --~~~~ |}}

File:L’abri d'un lavoir de Lesponne.jpg|{{/Nomination|A wash of Lesponne, France --[[User:France64160|France64160]] 23:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |}}


File:Marduk Mortuus Mean 17 08 2013 01.jpeg|{{/Nomination|Mortuus, the vocalist of Marduk. --[[User:Vassil|Vassil]] 23:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |}}
File:Marduk Mortuus Mean 17 08 2013 01.jpeg|{{/Nomination|Mortuus, the vocalist of Marduk. --[[User:Vassil|Vassil]] 23:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |}}

Revision as of 23:37, 18 August 2013

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]] 09:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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

August 18, 2013

August 17, 2013

August 16, 2013

August 15, 2013

August 14, 2013

August 13, 2013

August 12, 2013

August 11, 2013

August 10, 2013

August 9, 2013

August 8, 2013

August 7, 2013

August 6, 2013

August 5, 2013

August 4, 2013

August 3, 2013

August 2, 2013

July 31, 2013

July 29, 2013

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 will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} 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

File:Sue_Gardner_at_Wikimania_2013_in_Hong_Kong.jpg

  • Nomination Sue Gardner during her last speech as Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation at a Wikimania. Hong Kong, August 11th, 2013. --Frank Schulenburg 10:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion * Oppose  Neutral Quality is OK (with regard to the resolution but could benefit from masked sharpening to reduce noise on the background), but the shooting position is IMHO too low for a QI portrayal and leads to a very unfortunate photo of Sue Gardner. --Tuxyso 15:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. CR. --Kadellar 16:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Frank is a very good photographer, we all know that. But sometimes I do not understand why human portrayals are reviewed that laxly (compared to macro shots or architecture shots). She looks anywhere but not in direction to the camera (that should be the minimum requirement for a QI portrayal despite artistic shots). --Tuxyso 20:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree, Tuxyso. I'm not reviewing so laxly, I just don't think people have always to be looking at the camera (e.g. this one). Of course it's nice if they're looking, but it's not mandatory. --Kadellar 11:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support To me it's a very good portrait, telling a story besides its technical merit. Sue Gardner's pre-eminent position (as the post she had in WMF, and as an acknowledged powerful woman) is well called to mind by the low-angle shot, and she is looking elsewhere, further—that evokes her departure (this was her last speech as Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation at a Wikimania).--Myrabella (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I am unsure if this was the original intention of the photographer but your argument sounds plausible to me. I've changed to neutral. But I stick to my opinion that the shooting position is not really good for a human portrayal if the main interest lies on the person and not on the context and/or event the person is speaking on. --Tuxyso 14:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Here's my thinking behind the shot: the image captures Sue in a way that's very typical for her – listening to someone in the audience and being super focused and attentive. The low angle – as Kadellar already pointed out – somewhat naturally highlights her position as ED of the Foundation. This one shows her with a friendlier face, although – as someone who knows Sue well – I can tell you that both images capture what I find most typical about her (focused, open, friendly). However, I'm totally ok if people don't like the photos. I'm not here to make a point, I just want to explain what my thinking behind the shots was. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support As for Kadellar -- Smial 07:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Hyacinthoides_non-scripta_LC0140.jpg

  • Nomination Common Bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta), Wittgensdorf, Germany --LC-de 21:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Background is disturbing (please, see the picture with other size)--Lmbuga 21:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
     SupportI cannot understand your contra vote, sorry. This is a detail shot, DoF is OK. Probably LC-de can you reduce the highlights. --Tuxyso 22:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

 Comment I try to explain: Just behind the flowers there is another set of flowers. The composition seems to me not appropriate if the subject is front of some flowers with the same color. The picture is not QI for me. The background is disturbing. Sorry--Lmbuga 19:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  •  Support Not featured of course but QI for me --Christian Ferrer 05:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lmbuga is right there are too many blurred areas --Archaeodontosaurus 10:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Agree with Miguel, another angle (and exposure...) should have been chosen. Alvesgaspar 21:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Castle Combe Circuit MMB C6 Castle Combe Saloon Car Championship.jpg

  • Nomination Castle Combe Circuit. Mattbuck 17:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • OK  Support --Rjcastillo 17:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. First, the image is unsharp. Second, there are too many distractions in the background and third it needs to be cropped (too much track and not enough car.) Royalbroil 01:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    The subject is sharp. Mattbuck 16:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 04:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice lively an dynamic shot. Good quality. --Dirtsc 17:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Not a really great shot, but meets QI criteria. -- Smial 08:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- I'm with the opposer: the quality (sharpness, composition) is not really enough to pass the QI bar. Alvesgaspar 21:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Columna_de_la_Victoria_de_la_Guerra_de_la_Independencia,_Tallinn,_Estonia,_2012-08-05,_DD_02.JPG

File:Heroés_trujillenses_I.jpg

  • Nomination Heroes trujillenses. Parque Fuerzas Armadas Nacionales --Rjcastillo 12:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose f/11 is definetly the wrong decision here, f/5,6 would have resulted in a less distracting background, in addition the lighting is poor, sorry --Poco a poco 15:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Not featured but enough quality IMO --Christian Ferrer 20:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Agree with Poco a poco. Alvesgaspar 21:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Almpferd.jpg

  • Nomination Horse eating grass in the Bavarian Alps --Avarim 19:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support --Rjcastillo 20:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree. title and description. This should include taxa naming for animals (See Commons:Language policy) --Moroder 20:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    You're right Moroder, but only it's a horse (Equus caballus) and a good picture IMO  Support--Lmbuga 21:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Name added in description --Avarim 05:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)  Support Now, but I'd suggest also to put the name of the breed or horse type (Haflinger?) in the description + geotag. Thanks --Moroder 08:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 21:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Jagstquelle_im_August.jpg

  • Nomination The spring of Jagst river, Germany, in a dry summer --Kreuzschnabel 17:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JLPC 17:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's tilted CW. Too tight at top IMO--Lmbuga 21:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- No tilt that I see. But the framing is too tight on top and the light is not the best. Alvesgaspar 21:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Cam_Paradise_Reserve.jpg

  • Nomination (Renominated) River Cam in Paradise Fen nature reserve --Heuschrecke 22:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Greens are oversaturated. Strong oversaturation (see note)--Lmbuga 00:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    The new version is better, but CAs and IMO oversharpened. Let's other users think: "Discuss"--Lmbuga 14:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Hårstadnebba_and_Langrabbpiken_above_Dalavatnet_in_Litldalen,_Sunndal,_2013_June.jpg

  • Nomination Dalavatnet in Litldalen, Møre og Romsdal, Norway, in 2013 June. --Ximonic 11:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support --Christian Ferrer 11:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, perhaps I'm not right, but the shadows are a bit clear and the blues -see note- are too much saturated (oversaturated), unnatural IMO--Lmbuga 23:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Charbonnage du Hasard 21.JPG

File:Charbonnage du Hasard 21.JPG

  • Nomination The colliery Hasard located in Cheratte in Belgium: Tower of Well No. 3 view from the buildings well No. 1. Bourgeois.A 10:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Sorry, unfortunate light, all the subject is in shadow. The two vertical lines of the foreground are disturbing--Lmbuga 23:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    I do not see the problem, it is a particular aesthetic. Bourgeois.A 09:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    It's only mi opinion, others users can think: "Discuss"--Lmbuga 14:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
     Info I improved the picture Bourgeois.A 13:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

File:East_Stonesdale,_Keld,_North_Yorkshire.jpg

  • Nomination East Stonesdale viewed from Keld, Swaledale, North Yorkshire --Kreuzschnabel 17:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Do you see the possibility to darken the bright areas and especially the sky a bit? --Dirtsc 19:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    I don’t see any reason to do so. The sky was overcast by fine clouds, hence the bright light. --Kreuzschnabel 21:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
     Comment I'd like to see more opinions. I like the image, but maybe it's too "overexposed" for a QI? --Dirtsc 20:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support There are a few dozen pixels possibly clipping, see interim version, but these are imo negligible. -- Smial 08:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Mammoet_skelter.jpg

  • Nomination Mammoet skelter with moped engine --Uberprutser 21:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good but you could add some contrast and reduce the slight CW tilt. --Tuxyso 21:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    * I think there is more then enough contrast and no tilt to worry about. I assume you are talking about the horizon level. Tilt is usually used when pointing the lens up or down. btw, the ground is not flat. It's parked at a slightly bend corner. --Uberprutser 00:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    It's ok to me. Mattbuck 16:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Kaluga 2013 trolleybus 01.jpg

  • Nomination AKSM trolley in Kaluga, Russia. Photo by Kaluga.2012. --A.Savin 18:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion The composition doesn't feel quite right. It's not wide-angle enough to show the full context of the wires, but too wide to just be of the bus itself. Mattbuck 16:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Enough quality, trolley bus is entire --Christian Ferrer 12:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • And sharpness, colors, contrast... are very goods, I don't understand why this picture can't be QI, it is! --Christian Ferrer 18:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support As Christian Ferrer. --Dirtsc 17:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Grosmont railway station MMB 04.jpg

  • Nomination Grosmont railway station. Mattbuck 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Magenta cast (see clouds) --Kreuzschnabel 15:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I could not find the right white balance then or now. If you want to decline do so, but I'd ask that whoever does have a go at fixing the colours themselves, because I honestly can't figure out how. Mattbuck 19:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Get RawTherapee. It’s more than a RAW developer, it also handles JPEG files well. – New version uploaded, I put this into CR to get some more opinions since I won’t vote myself. --Kreuzschnabel 10:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Kreuzschnabel is right,  Support this version --Christian Ferrer 19:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 21:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Columna_de_la_Victoria_de_la_Guerra_de_la_Independencia,_Tallinn,_Estonia,_2012-08-05,_DD_08.JPG

File:Ford_A_ver_2.jpg

  • Nomination Ford A --Villy Fink Isaksen 19:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Corrected --Villy Fink Isaksen 17:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    Flot billede. Førerens moustache passer også godt til bilen :-) --Slaunger 18:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose - overexposed. Mattbuck 19:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    Tried to fix overexposed --Villy Fink Isaksen 11:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    Remapping the white point is not a fix. Mattbuck 21:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, all your images of the ford are good pictures IMO, but the blue of the sky of this image seems unnatural: too yellow, perhaps? --Lmbuga 19:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    new attempt adjustment whitebalance --Villy Fink Isaksen 17:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

File:K_563_i_remise.jpg

  • Nomination K 563 in roundhouse --Villy Fink Isaksen 19:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Corrected --Villy Fink Isaksen 17:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Dirtsc 19:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - overexposed. Mattbuck 19:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    Tried to fix overexposed --Villy Fink Isaksen 11:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    You remapped the white point - that doesn't fix overexposure, it just makes it grey instead of white. Mattbuck 17:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    No, I have maked an adjustment in the raw file: setting down the exposure. --Villy Fink Isaksen 19:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    Even if you did so, the image still suffers from overexposure. The brightest pixels will be found in large areas - given images should normally include some points which are #FFFFFF and some which are #000000, this means that the image is overexposed. Mattbuck 21:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Alfarei_Badia.jpg

  • Nomination Farmhouse "Alfarei" in Badia --Moroder 17:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Dust spots. --Mattbuck 16:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    Cleared dustspots --Moroder 18:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Educatieve doe- en beleeftuin van It Fryske Gea nabij De Alde Feanen. 03.JPG

  • Nomination Garden Structure benefit of insects and butterflies.--
    Famberhorst 07:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Dirtsc 15:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose - the flowers just don't look right. Lack of fine detail causing oversharpness I think. Mattbuck 16:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Aragonit_-_Fluorescence.gif

  • Nomination Fluorescence of Aragonite --Llez 05:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Posterisation due to file format. --Mattbuck 16:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, JPEG was better, but animation is only possibble as GIF, and unfortunately you have a (unavoidable) loss of quality in transforming a JPEG into an animated GIF! --Llez 17:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Evangelische Kirche Lorsch 2013.jpg

  • Nomination The Protestant church of Lorsch, Southern Hesse. -- Felix Koenig 16:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Further vertical correction necessary (especially at the left). --Tuxyso 06:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    It seems ok to me. Mattbuck 09:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Retford railway station MMB 09.jpg

  • Nomination Retford railway station. Mattbuck 07:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Neutral Blurred IMO, sorry --Christian Ferrer 14:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    I don't see what you mean. Mattbuck 16:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC) I Change to neutral, the right is too much blurred and also there is a spot, I have added note --Christian Ferrer 17:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Maybe I have been a little too fast, IMO you can improve it. I have maked a test and uploaded it, revert it and rework your version or keep mine, as you want --Christian Ferrer 18:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Forget, my version is a disaster, sorry --Christian Ferrer 18:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Now I've uploaded a new version (much better I hope --Christian Ferrer 18:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

File:RheinFantasie (ship, 2011) 128.JPG

  • Nomination Passenger ship RheinFantasie in Cologne --Rolf H. 07:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Very dark shadows. Mattbuck 07:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
     CommentI photographed the image at 6:00 p.m.. The ship has tinted windows - I do not see any dark shadows. --Rolf H. 06:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

File:RheinFantasie (ship, 2011) 129.JPG

  • Nomination Passenger ship RheinFantasie in Cologne --Rolf H. 07:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Very dark shadows. Mattbuck 07:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  CommentI photographed the image at 6:00 p.m.. The ship has tinted windows - I do not see any dark shadows. --Rolf H. 06:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- I agree with Mattbuck, the constrasts are too harsh. Please notice the underexposed front of the ship's bridge showing noise due to lack of light. -- Alvesgaspar 14:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Nottingham MMB D7 Wollaton Road.jpg

  • Nomination Wollaton Road, Nottingham. Mattbuck 07:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support OK --Christian Ferrer 04:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose missing sharpness --Rolf H. 09:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Indeed. I think I understand the purpose of the photo: to illustrate dof. But I don't think it works. -- Alvesgaspar 22:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Sines July 2013-1.jpg

  • Nomination Beach and sky -- Alvesgaspar 23:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Dust spots, fairly dark, feels unbalanced. --Mattbuck 19:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC) -- Two dust spots removed. I don't agree that the image is dark and the composition unbalanced. Alvesgaspar 22:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Compo ok for me but a little dark for me too --Christian Ferrer 11:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment 1/2 f-stop brighter would be better. The red channel clips at the dark side of the histogram, all channels have some room in the bright areas. -- Smial 09:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Info-- Ok, here is an improved version. I just wanted to preserve the end of the day mood... Alvesgaspar 11:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now in my opinion. More votes? -- Smial 08:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Oakleigh Park railway station MMB 08.jpg

  • Nomination Oakleigh Park railway station. Mattbuck 07:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline I know that QIC is not about encyclopedical usefulness, but this one seems at least a borderline case of COM:SCOPE, or can you explain the meaning of this shot? --A.Savin 16:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    I just liked the colours of the bench. Mattbuck 21:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    Is this really a valid explanation why the shot falls within COM:SCOPE? Heuschrecke 10:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose I agree with Heuschrecke, I can't see the content of the image. If it should have been the structure, then it's lacking DOF. --Dirtsc 16:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Images which are "not in scope" should be deleted. But I cannot find a valid reason for deletion, this image could illustrate a lemma like de:Lochplatte (punched plate). --Smial 11:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This image would not be usable very good for the article Lochplatte due to its angle to the plate itself. So, to be honest, I doubt this image's scope an I do no support it here. --null 03:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
This image would not be usable very good for the article Lochplatte due to its angle to the plate itself. So, to be honest, I doubt this image's scope an I do no support it here. --null 03:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 21:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Neos_Marmaras_Bay_01.jpg

  • Nomination The bay of Neos Marmaras, Greece --Heuschrecke 19:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry, See notes and oversaturated IMO (less than the other picture)--Lmbuga 00:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
     Comment I can say something good of the picture: It's sharp--Lmbuga 01:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks, I redeveloped the picture, maybe you'll like it more now. Heuschrecke 23:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Sorry, it is much better but still oversaturated IMO: see the halo of the notes. Discuss: Others users can think, please--Lmbuga 09:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for noting halos, I removed them. I find saturation reasonable, let's see what others think. Heuschrecke 10:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Christian Ferrer 11:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversaturated but can be corrected --Archaeodontosaurus 13:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Sorry, oversaturated (I can't promove a image if the water of the sea is unnatural, unnatural IMO). Areas with CAs and areas with overexposition (concrete blocks of foreground), sorry--Lmbuga 19:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yet another version updated. Heuschrecke 22:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good now. Bravo for the correction.--Archaeodontosaurus 15:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Thanks for working the photos. Better, but not clear QI IMO. I think my reasons are not enough to vote against: I'm sure I've promoted images that are worse than this. Sorry, it's a good picture, but I don't like it (now this is only a personal taste)--Lmbuga 01:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 21:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)