Last modified on 16 November 2014, at 22:48

Commons:Quality images candidates


Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska
float

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. Please note that this is not the same thing as featured pictures. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

PurposeEdit

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users' efforts in providing quality images to Commons.
Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.

GuidelinesEdit

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominatorsEdit

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images, more detailed criteria is available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirementsEdit
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the Image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.


CreatorEdit

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technical requirementsEdit

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

ResolutionEdit

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media.

This does not apply to vector graphics (SVG).

Image qualityEdit

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lightingEdit

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

ValueEdit

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominateEdit

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the Image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.


Number of nominationsEdit

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


Evaluating imagesEdit

Any registered user, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination.
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to reviewEdit

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator's talk page - as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.


Grace period and promotionEdit

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from review, the image becomes promoted or fails, according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decisionEdit

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)Edit

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 2015 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review processEdit

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual reviewEdit

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.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you can not make a decision, add your comments, but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rulesEdit

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache


NominationsEdit

Due to 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]] 00:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.
The new rule is effective now. Please nominate only a maximum of 5 images per day. [1]

January 27, 2015Edit

January 26, 2015Edit

January 25, 2015Edit

January 24, 2015Edit

January 23, 2015Edit

January 22, 2015Edit

January 21, 2015Edit

January 20, 2015Edit

January 19, 2015Edit

January 18, 2015Edit

January 17, 2015Edit

January 16, 2015Edit

January 15, 2015Edit

January 14, 2015Edit

January 13, 2015Edit

January 10, 2015Edit

January 9, 2015Edit

January 8, 2015Edit

Consensual reviewEdit

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 nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg 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 ReviewEdit

File:Calliptamus_barbarus_on_Opuntia_stricta,_Sète_04.jpgEdit

Calliptamus barbarus on Opuntia stricta, Sète 04.jpg

  • Nomination Calliptamus barbarus (Occitan Grasshopper) on a Opuntia stricta (Erect Prickly Pear). Close view. --Christian Ferrer 09:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too shallow DoF IMO, not a QI to me. --Poco a poco 12:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For a 15mpx image of a subject about 5mm high, I'm not sure the DOF is so bad. --Christian Ferrer 18:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Clapton-in-Gordano MMB 14 M5.jpgEdit

Clapton-in-Gordano MMB 14 M5.jpg

  • Nomination M5 at Clapton. Mattbuck 07:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The large dark area to the left and right of the road is only black and not marked. --Steindy 23:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    I wasn't trying for a documentary photo of the trees. --Mattbuck 23:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Abbatiale_Saint-Gilles_08.jpgEdit

Abbatiale Saint-Gilles 08.jpg

  • Nomination Abbey of Saint-Gilles, Saint-Gilles, Gard, France. --Christian Ferrer 15:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective distortion. --Steindy 00:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In my defense it's the wall that you can see here on the left and as you can see there is a fence so I could not back and the lens focal length is at its wider position (14mm). It was for me impossible to take an entire face view of this wall without a perspective distortion and unfortunately I do not know make photo assemblies. But of course it change nothing and maybe it is not a QI. --Christian Ferrer 12:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The distortion appears wavy and very difficult to correct. Otherwise it's of nice high quality. I may be in the minority regarding this type of distortion, but I think it's QI anyway. Ram-Man 13:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Wraxall 2013 MMB 77 Bonfire.jpgEdit

Wraxall 2013 MMB 77 Bonfire.jpg

  • Nomination Bonfire in Wraxall. Mattbuck 09:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 15:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The photo is only suitable for artistic purposes, since the exposure time was too long and therefore the flames are out of focus. --Steindy 23:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    Nothing wrong with arty photos at QI. Mattbuck 23:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good shot with nice colors und nice composition. Steindy: The unsharpness of the flames results from motion, not from wrong focus. I hope, you know what 'focus' means? Your behaviour and arguments become more and more absurd. -- Smial 00:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As the wood is sharp it is QI to me, IMO an usefule image --DKrieger 22:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Statue_of_Silvio_Spaventa_2.jpgEdit

Statue of Silvio Spaventa 2.jpg

  • Nomination Copy of a statue of Silvio Spaventa in front of the ministry of finance, Via Venti Settembre (Rome). The original is in Bomba, province of Chieti --Livioandronico2013 08:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the image, and especially the statuse is blurred. That is not fixable. --Halavar 10:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    * Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree slightly, in my opinion its enough quality for QI --Hubertl 20:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Halavar, the statuse is blurred because it is not in focus --Christian Ferrer 12:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Suchum,_Pomnik_przy_nabrzeżu.jpgEdit

2014 Suchum, Pomnik przy nabrzeżu.jpg

  • Nomination Monument on the waterfront. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 12:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Joydeep 13:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Many parts era overexposed. --Steindy 00:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Steindy. --Kreuzschnabel 12:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Suchum,_Pomnik_Efrema_Eszby_(01).jpgEdit

2014 Suchum, Pomnik Efrema Eszby (01).jpg

  • Nomination Monument of Efrem Eshba. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 12:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me, even when the monument is not centered perfectly but the person on the right side gives an additional accent, which allows that. --Hubertl 13:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The head of the monument is overexposed. --Steindy 00:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DoF too shallow (inscription is the only thing in focus) --Kreuzschnabel 12:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Cambodge.- la cité lacustre de Saray, (1).jpgEdit

Cambodge.- la cité lacustre de Saray, (1).jpg

  • Nomination la cité lacustre de Saray, Tonlé Sap Cambodge.PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, the boat is unsharp. --Dnalor 01 10:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)< br >✓ Done Thanks for your note, I corrected sharpness on the boat --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Okay maybe, but the people on the boat are not sharp anyway, sorry. --Dnalor 01 11:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    OK! but people were moving on this boat--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Alstom_Citadis_302_n°840_Boulingrin_ASTUCE_-_Florian_Fèvre.JPGEdit

Alstom Citadis 302 n°840 Boulingrin ASTUCE - Florian Fèvre.JPG

  • Nomination Tramway de Rouen --Billy69150 10:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    Left side leaining in Poco a poco 13:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Not done --Mattbuck 23:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done --Billy69150 12:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    Still leaning in, and I think the bottom crop is too tight. Mattbuck 17:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Chafariz_da_Rua_Escura,_Oporto,_Portugal,_2012-05-09,_DD_01.JPGEdit

Chafariz da Rua Escura, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 01.JPG

  • Nomination Chafariz da Rua Escura, Porto, Portugal --Poco a poco 17:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overexposed sky. --Mattbuck 22:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ New version maybe, but very correctible and IMHO not relevant Poco a poco 19:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    No feedback, please, let me move it to CR. I think it meets QI --Poco a poco 18:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it OK for QI.--Hubertl 05:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Banteay_Kdei,_Angkor,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_16.JPGEdit

Banteay Kdei, Angkor, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 16.JPG

  • Nomination Banteay Kdei, Angkor, Cambodia --Poco a poco 17:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good composition und very good handling of high contrast lighting, but disturbing unsharpness in left and top left area. Did you apply perspective correction? Then I'd suggest some downscaling to supress blurring by this process. -- Smial 18:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ New try without downsampling, though (rather new crop and aspect ratio) Poco a poco 15:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Smial's issue is still present. --Mattbuck 22:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Cropped Poco a poco 19:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Please keep a separate 2015-01-17 version with the interesting figures on the left. –Be..anyone 02:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    I think that this version deserves QI. Be..anyone: I've created a new version: File:Banteay_Kdei,_Angkor,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_16_uncropped.JPG --Poco a poco 19:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the last one is ok for me --Christian Ferrer 12:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Problem is still visible, but no more strong disturbing. As for Christian ok for me. -- Smial 11:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Le lac chambon (5).JPGEdit

Le lac chambon (5).JPG

  • Nomination Le Lac_Chambon dans les Monts_Dore Puy-de-Dôme--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Poor contrast; too much clipping. --Daniel Case 06:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

    @Daniel Case:✓ DoneThanks for your note, I've uploaded a new version by cropping the image and contrast enhancement - Please care to take another look?--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 12:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Engels-Hof_12.jpgEdit

Engels-Hof 12.jpg

  • Nomination Communal housing project buildings “Engelsplatzhof” (“Engels-Hof”) at Friedrich-Engels-Platz 1-10, Brigittenau, Vienna, Austria --Thomas Ledl 22:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 22:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dark, too tight a crop at the bottom. --Mattbuck 00:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I made the photo lighter. ok now? --Thomas Ledl 20:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Chata Ropička (by Pudelek).JPGEdit

Chata Ropička (by Pudelek).JPG

  • Nomination Mountain hut Ropička, Moravian-Silesian Beskids --Pudelek 16:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    To the right is overexposed. --C messier 18:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with C messier. Big part of the right side of the image is overexposed. --Halavar 22:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor WB. Snow is usually perceived as of white colour. --Kreuzschnabel 20:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    I uploaded a WB-corrected version. --Kreuzschnabel 20:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a photo against the sun can have blown-out areas. --Ralf Roletschek 18:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-088.jpgEdit

13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-088.jpg

  • Nomination Hongkong, view from Kowloon to Hongkong Island --Ralf Roletschek 13:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting view, good quality. --Dnalor 01 14:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Sorry for asking but I still trying to find out the standards here. Great view. But shouldn´t be the buildings vertical? --Milseburg 15:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Everybody here knows that from the point of view the picture was made the surrounding buildings cannot be vertical - especially with a 11mm-lens (D300S 16,5mm). Because of its interesting angle this one is QI for me. --Dnalor 01 16:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course! But it´s also possible to remove such distortion subsequently. Imho this would be eligible here.--Milseburg 18:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Probably it's better to discuss the issue in the forum of the community. I don't want to decide alone. --Dnalor 01 08:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support by me, the perspective is corrected. But 4th opinion furthermore appreciated! --Hubertl 00:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Code 09:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No doubt, QI now. --Milseburg 09:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a good shot.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-090.jpgEdit

13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-090.jpg

  • Nomination Hongkong, view from Kowloon to Hongkong Island --Ralf Roletschek 13:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Interesting view, QI for me. --Dnalor 01 14:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As the discussion about QI-promotion of the other Hongkong image Nr. 088 shows probably it's better to discuss the issue in the forum of the community. I don't want to decide alone. --Dnalor 01 08:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support by me, the perspective is corrected, as far it was possible with 11mm focal lenght. But 4th opinion furthermore appreciated! --Hubertl 00:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Now it's okay! --Dnalor 01 12:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good shot --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Die Riegersburg von Süden 1.JPGEdit

Die Riegersburg von Süden 1.JPG

  • Nomination Riegersburg fortress as seen from the south, Riegersburg, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 07:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Bgag 15:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The trees show a fair amount of JPEG artifaction IMO. --Mattbuck 01:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me its ok and sufficient for QI --Hubertl 19:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor image quality. Artifacts all over the building, the rocks and the trees, blueish shadows, oversharpened. Maybe unfortunate camera settings. Looks as if been taken with a phone cam to me. --Kreuzschnabel 20:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Symbol support vote.svg Weak supportReset version acceptable IMHO, at least compared to the overprocessed one. --Kreuzschnabel 12:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I made a reset to the first uploaded version, please review again. --Dnalor 01 08:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Die Riegersburg von Süden 2.JPGEdit

Die Riegersburg von Süden 2.JPG

  • Nomination Riegersburg fortress as seen from the south, Riegersburg, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 07:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose a bit too blurred IMO --Christian Ferrer 08:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice scene, but very poor image quality. JPEG and NR artifacts all over the frame, oversharpened (see white seam around the rock at the left), poor detail for an image of less than 10 mpix. Not a QI at all, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 20:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I made a reset to the first uploaded version, please review again. --Dnalor 01 08:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Overall better but still not sharp enough for its size, sorry --Kreuzschnabel 12:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Kreuzschnabel. --Bgag 20:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Holi_Bonfire_Udaipur.jpgEdit

Holi Bonfire Udaipur.jpg

  • Nomination Holi Bonfire in front of Jagdish Temple / Udaipur --Imehling 07:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pretty, but I'm not sure about the sharpness. Mattbuck 08:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I admit, I'm at a loss about that. The background and the cables in the foreground are slightly unsharp because focus is on the fire and a fire has fuzzy fringes in darkness. So what should I do? --Imehling 10:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me this image is very impressive, a discussion about possible sharpness would be endless. IMO worth to be promoted as QI. --Dnalor 01 11:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think I'd like to have that discussion. --Mattbuck 00:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is a little lack of acutance indeed, but it is not unsharp --Christian Ferrer 09:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The fire is well sharp and good. --Steindy 01:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A beautiful mastery of light into the fire. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Lüdinghauser_Tor_--_2014_--_2881.jpgEdit

Dülmen, Lüdinghauser Tor -- 2014 -- 2881.jpg

  • Nomination Lüdinghauser Tor, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fine picture but the right tower is leaning out. Fixable IMO. --Dnalor 01 08:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, spent days for this POV? –Be..anyone 15:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I had to send it too discuss, unless Dnalors suggestion is answered. Anyhow, spent days for this POV is not a valid appraisal --Hubertl 23:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Some images show that the old building building itself is leaning out.--XRay 04:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice light, acceptable quality though not perfect. I think the perspective is a bit over-corrected. --Kreuzschnabel 20:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (165).jpgEdit

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (165).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – A ÖBB-Railjet passes the station on the new track 1. The tracks 2 and 4 are removed. --Steindy 00:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support One of the most beautiful trains on our planet. Gorgeous! --Johann Jaritz 04:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA throughout image, pylons which I'd assume should be vertical appear to be leaning. --Mattbuck 00:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 01:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 23:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am quite aware of that, but unless the gantries and signals are made of some material which oxidises to purple on one side and green on the other, there's chromatic aberration. Mattbuck 08:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until CAs is fixed --Christian Ferrer 08:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (166).jpgEdit

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (166).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – A ÖBB-Railjet passes the station. --Steindy 00:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. CA everywhere. But, stop, may be all new copper pylons? Jetzt weiß ich auch nicht. --Smial 10:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes Smail, you're absolutely right. These are not new catenary mooring, therefore, are also CAs to see; The photos and description of the image are only randomly labeled „total reconstruction“ of the station. You know, the ÖBB are so stupid and backward to the old catenary system down cut at a total reconstruction of a railway station in a meter lengths to then stitch it back together and hang again. In a contact wire cross-section of 120 mm2 one is quite simple. And as the contact wire rope depends on the support, this course must also have the appropriate section. So it is important to have no idea, but still give its „qualified comment“. For this to be able to read as many users, I do not put the photo on Withdrawn so that others can delight in it. That's what happens when you want another user to bash. --Steindy 23:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Kleine Englisch-Nachhilfe: Du meintest „when you want to bash another user“. Das, was du geschrieben hast, heißt auf Deutsch „wenn du willst, daß ein anderer User [wen auch immer] basht“.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA everywhere, even the insulators are green on one side and purple on the other. And I think the ÖBB are wise enough not to use insulators made of copper. --Kreuzschnabel 19:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry Kreuzschnabel, dass ich nicht so perfekt Englich kann wie du. Bei mir ist es immerhin schon mehr als 45 Jahre her, dass ich Englischunterricht hatte. And yes, you did also correctly detect: "ÖBB are wise enough not to use insulators made of copper". They are made of brown porcelain, but the switches are also made of copper. --Steindy 02:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
      • So, the CA on the insulators can hardly be explained the usual way. --Kreuzschnabel 11:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Das mit dem Englisch war kein Angriff, das war ein freundlich gemeinter Hinweis, du brauchst dich nicht gleich zu verteidigen und dich schon gar nicht bei mir zu entschuldigen. Ich entschuldige mich meinerseits dafür, dich auf einen Punkt hingewiesen zu haben, an dem man dich mißverstehen könnte. Soll nicht wieder vorkommen. --Kreuzschnabel 12:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (154).jpgEdit

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (154).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – Removal of the old platform 3/4. --Steindy 00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me --Hubertl 01:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    Noticable CA. --Mattbuck 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Copper is reddish. It then oxidises to green. It does not however turn blue or purple. Mattbuck 08:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (160).jpgEdit

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (160).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – Removal of the old platform 3/4. --Steindy 00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    Noticable CA, lacking sharpness. --Mattbuck 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that new catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is a lots of magenta & green CA on the left side of the image (see the notes). Also the image is tilted to the right and needs a perspective correction. All these flaws can be fixed. --Halavar 01:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until CAs is fixed --Christian Ferrer 08:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (156).jpgEdit

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (156).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – Auger and sheet piling are ready to build. --Steindy 00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 01:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor composition IMO. --Mattbuck 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not withdrawn. Not poor composition IMHO, only poor comment by Mattbuck. It's his problem, when he don't know what's to do with the equipment. --Steindy 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would you please keep your comments related to the photo rather than the editor? Mattbuck 08:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (157).jpgEdit

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (157).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – The new tracks 1 and 3 are in operation, the old tracks 2 and 4 are already removed. --Steindy 00:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me. --Dnalor 01 15:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Noticable CA throughout, bad inclusion top right. --Mattbuck 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Some magenta CA on the right. I left a note. --Halavar 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until CAs is fixed --Christian Ferrer 08:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (152).jpgEdit

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (152).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – A ÖBB Railjet is passing on the new track 1. The tracks 2 and 4 are removed. --Steindy 00:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 16:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Quite noisy, some CA. --Mattbuck 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Problem with the magenta CA. I left a notes. Also, sky is little bit overexposed. All these problems can be fixed. --Halavar 01:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until CAs is fixed --Christian Ferrer 08:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (155).jpgEdit

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (155).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – The new switching scaffold for the catenary system. --Steindy 00:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 16:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Noticable CA top right. --Mattbuck 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose On the top left there is a magenta CA. I left a note. That can be fixed. --Halavar 00:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until CAs is fixed --Christian Ferrer 08:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Irisbus_Crealis_Neo_18_n°6206_Théâtre_des_Arts_ASTUCE_-_Florian_Fèvre.JPGEdit

Irisbus Crealis Neo 18 n°6206 Théâtre des Arts ASTUCE - Florian Fèvre.JPG

  • Nomination Bus articulé de Rouen --Billy69150 10:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Again Rouen, impressive bus. –Be..anyone 15:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    Needs tilt/perspective correction, CA removal on the badge. --Mattbuck 00:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done --Billy 13:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:ExCeL Centre MMB 26 Thameslink Desiro City Mockup.jpgEdit

ExCeL Centre MMB 26 Thameslink Desiro City Mockup.jpg

  • Nomination Thameslink "Desiro City" mockup. Mattbuck 07:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion The left is side leaning. --Steindy 02:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    It's a reflection in a non-vertical window - of course it's going to be leaning. --Mattbuck 19:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC) After a look at the category see note --Christian Ferrer 20:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    No, they lean in a bit. I took the perspective correction from the right hand side - interior furnishings are more likely to be vertical. Mattbuck 23:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok --Christian Ferrer 08:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Tenmile Run in its lower reaches 2.JPGEdit

Tenmile Run in its lower reaches 2.JPG

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (109).jpgEdit

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (109).jpg

  • Nomination A ÖBB-Railjet passes Neunkirchen railwaystation. --Steindy 00:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    Noticable CA. Mattbuck 22:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please take care of CA first. Mattbuck 19:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that new catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am quite aware that catenaries are made of copper (albeit I work for London Underground and we don't have much use for overhead electrification). However given that copper oxidises green, it doesn't explain the numerous purple areas. Mattbuck 23:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Mattbuck for the CAs, but also the DOF is too small for this composition and more than the half of the image is blurred and unsharp --Christian Ferrer 09:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Suchum,_Ogród_botaniczny_(27).jpgEdit

2014 Suchum, Ogród botaniczny (27).jpg

  • Nomination Bamboo (Bambuseae) walkway. Botanical garden. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 17:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO very bright and tilted CCW.--XRay 18:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New, fixed version uploaded. Please take a look again. --Halavar 20:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposure remapped to grey. Mattbuck 22:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not agree. We need other opinions. --Halavar 00:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed and not really sharp --Christian Ferrer 08:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Simiane_La_Rotande.jpgEdit

Simiane La Rotande.jpg

  • Nomination Simiane-La-Rotonde - The castle tower (La Rotande) --Imehling 20:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Coyau 09:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bit unsharp, some overexposure. --Mattbuck 00:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Suchum,_Ogród_botaniczny_(12).jpgEdit

2014 Suchum, Ogród botaniczny (12).jpg

  • Nomination Chinese Tea (Camellia sinensis var. sinensis). Botanical garden. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 12:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed --Pleclown 11:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not agree. I checked it in 2 software edit programs. Maybe others should decide. --Halavar 20:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. The wires are somewhat disturbing, but I think this is acceptable. The exposure is good. --Code 06:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed. Ram-Man 12:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I agree, the picture is overexposed. Mattbuck 23:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose OE --Christian Ferrer 08:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Suchum,_Siedziba_rządu_i_prezydenta_Republiki_Abchazji_(01).jpgEdit

2014 Suchum, Siedziba rządu i prezydenta Republiki Abchazji (01).jpg

  • Nomination The seat of government and the President of the Republic of Abkhazia. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 16:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think this building is as horizontally crooked in reality as it seems on this picture. --Dnalor 01 16:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not agree. Both walls are straight. Also - please do not use decline when there is something that I can fix with the photo. --Halavar 17:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Needs perspective correction - fixable? --Dnalor 01 18:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    *
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the verticals are ok, not need for a perspective correction IMO --Christian Ferrer 21:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per C. Ferrer --DKrieger 21:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's okay for me too after Halavar has corrected the problem I meant (look at the version history!) --Dnalor 01 00:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 16:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per C. Ferrer --Johann Jaritz 03:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Left side is leaning out. Mattbuck 23:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Außenansicht der Abtei Seckau 2.JPGEdit

Außenansicht der Abtei Seckau 2.JPG

  • Nomination Exterior view of Seckau Abbey, Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 15:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the left side of the image (with grass and trees) are blurred and that can't be fixed. --Halavar 16:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I cannot detect unsharpness, at 24mm the aperture of the lens was 3,5 at this pic while maximum relative aperture of that lens is 1,4 - so why the rest of the pic is sharp? --Dnalor 01 16:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The grass and the trees is not the mainsubject of the photo. This part could be cut off, if you want. It is the Abbey and this is shown excellent. --Steindy 17:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I tried a crop, but its not getting better. Ok for me as it is.--Hubertl 22:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Steindy --Johann Jaritz 03:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - significant JPEG artifaction per Halavar. Mattbuck 23:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would not have opposed if the left part of the building was not also affected by the issues mentioned by Halavar, certainly the result of a too small DOF --Christian Ferrer 09:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I made a reset to the second uploaded, only shift corrected version, please review again. --Dnalor 01 09:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a real improvment IMO, I support this --Christian Ferrer 12:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Fiat_Ducato_Michelet_TUDIP_-_Florian_Fèvre.jpgEdit

Fiat Ducato Michelet TUDIP - Florian Fèvre.jpg

  • Nomination Navette au Puy-en-Velay --Billy69150 14:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too low resolution. --Bgag 15:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ✓ Done --Billy69150 21:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Dnalor 01 08:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed and a lot of artefacts --Christian Ferrer 20:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Christian. Mattbuck 23:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Pseudocoladenia dan by Nayikayam Thattu.jpgEdit

Pseudocoladenia dan by Nayikayam Thattu.jpg

  • Nomination Pseudocoladenia dan (Fulvous Pied Flat) Jkadavoor 10:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The upper edges of both wings are unsharp, sorry. --Dnalor 01 18:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality and enough depth of field for a macro photo.--ArildV 07:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ram-Man 18:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not fully sharp. Mattbuck 23:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I confess I've to rise the ISO (400 ?) and use a big f number (like f/16). This was my first day with a DSLR which was gifted by a fellow Wikimedian. Still has only a kit lens; so trying to make some results with my friendly Raynox DCR 250. Not nominating the remaining shots I have taken in the same day; they all have similar problems. Thanks all; hope I will improve soon. :) Jkadavoor 12:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2013-08-17_Lago_di_Fusine_superiore_-hu-_B_4599.jpgEdit

2013-08-17 Lago di Fusine superiore -hu- B 4599.jpg

  • Nomination The dryed alp in Summer at the upper Fusine lake, Fusine di Valromana, View to the north. --Hubertl 20:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeUnsharp --Livioandronico2013 21:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I cannot detect unsharpness. --Dnalor 01 16:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, it could be a little sharper. But that is no reason for a counterpoint, as all the details are clearly visible. Anyway, enough for QI! --Steindy 18:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Steindy! QI for me. --Dnalor 01 06:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - That is not in any way sharp enough for QI. That wouldn't have passed the first round of photo culling for me. Mattbuck 23:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose a bit too unsharp --Christian Ferrer 08:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice lighting and compostion, center sharpness not overwhelming, but acceptable. But rather unsharp at the corners and left and right margins. The small part of the building's roof at the left side should be cropped. -- Smial 14:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis) in flight in Venice at sunrise.jpgEdit

Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis) in flight in Venice at sunrise.jpg

  • Nomination Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis) in flight in Venice at sunrise, 2003-08-17. --Dnalor 01 10:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Arty, but not QI --Pleclown 11:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree, the composition and the light situation makes it QI for me. --Hubertl 12:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Hubertl:, your {{s}}, svp –Be..anyone 19:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's not a QI for you, Pleclown, but without a statement of reason(s)? That's curious. --Dnalor 01 15:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced it's QI either, though hard to work out quite why. Mattbuck 23:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Sculptures_of_Roman_theater_masks_in_Baths_of_Diocletian3.jpgEdit

Sculptures of Roman theater masks in Baths of Diocletian3.jpg

  • Nomination Sculptures_of_Roman_theater_masks_in_Baths_of_Diocletian --Livioandronico2013 20:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • A bit noisy at the top and in the shadow under the mask, perhaps. Jakec 23:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The picture don´t meet the guidline principles: a) The filenam does not describe the subject, b) the description itself is wrong, it is not a theater mask. c) wrong categorization. --Hubertl 01:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • But if there is also a special category! In Rome we would say "sei di coccio!". Other please. --Livioandronico2013 21:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Hubertl. This is not a theater mask. --Code 05:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm sorry, but if these are not masks, then cite your references. A quick google search yields a number of hits; both books (like "National Museum of Rome in the baths of Diocletian" by Lucio Mariani, Dante Vaglieri) and websites describing these as tragic marble masks, that is marble versions of masks used in tragedy theater. I don't see how this is inaccurate, but if someone cares to cite a reference, I'd be happy to change my vote. As for the quality, it meets the normal QI standards. Ram-Man 13:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral @Ram-Man: I made a quick Google Search but I couldn't find your sources. If you say that you found a reference which says that these are masks I will not oppose any more. However, as long as this is not definitely verified I will not support either. It would have been very easy for the photographer to eliminate the doubt from the beginning. Commons is not just about uploading photos. Proper description and categorization is equally important in my opinion. The technical quality of the photo meets the standards anyways. --Code 20:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Source quality varies, but there is an overwhelming amount of sources (even if they are weak). See the guide from 1900 (https://books.google.com/books?id=t_hYAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA12&ots=MDZopvpK5U&dq=Baths of Diocletian marble mask&pg=PA12), this reference to tragic mask, this discussion of roman theater masks, this theater mask of similar design, this description of roman theater, and dozens of other links on the topic of theater masks and the history of Roman theater. Not to mention the Commons category on Sculptures of Greek and Roman theater masks. There is little of controversy here. Roman theater consisted of comic and tragic masks that had wildly exaggerated features. These masks used in the Baths as decoration, but they were part of Greek and Roman culture. See en:Theatre of ancient Greece. I'm completely perplexed and not sure why there is any controversy here as there is no indication that these are anything other than sculptures of (tragic) theater masks. -- Ram-Man 23:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • As for the photographer, he did properly categorize it and describe it as a theater mask. The issue wasn't the photographer here, who did exactly what is normally required, but an unreasonable objection by a reviewer who was claiming that this was a gargoyle, completely without any justification. Ram-Man 23:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Cerca di seguire le cose prima di dare giudizi allora. Ho già spiegato ampiamente le mie ragioni e se non trovi le fonti vuol dire che non sai cercare [[2]] una semplice ricerca su google! --Livioandronico2013 21:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Not perfect technicaly (a little chromatic noise, and sharpness not tip-top), but good for QI. The description and categorization are accurate IMO.--Jebulon 09:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jebulon I really appreciate your honesty --Livioandronico2013 11:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --C messier 11:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Horse_head_in_Baths_of_Diocletian_(Rome).JPGEdit

Horse head in Baths of Diocletian (Rome).JPG

  • Nomination Horse head in Baths of Diocletian (Rome) --Livioandronico2013 20:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion The picture don´t meet the guidline principles: a) The filenam does not describe the subject exactly, b) the description is wrong, it is not just a horse head, this is undoubtedly the head of a unicorn c) insufficient categorization therefore. --Hubertl 01:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    IMHO, this at the top of the head looks more like hair than a horn. --C messier 11:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC) These figures, in the patio, are part of a collection from different sources and periods, but mostly mythical figures. See other pictures you can find in the web. --Hubertl 12:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks C messier, but never mind, it's just a decoration on a horse but I do not want to waste time with those who do not understand --Livioandronico2013 13:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    All this in wikipedia would be considered original research, we should try to find a reliable source of what it's. Here it mentions that it is a "Horse Head, originally from inside the Temple of Divine Trajan" (but been a tourist guide isn't and the most reliable). --C messier 14:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    C messier you can see better Thanks[Here] --Livioandronico2013 20:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • C messier Have a look at any cattle heads, you see, that at the top of the head you almost always will find a group of curly hairs. Pretty typical, especially from bull heads. This is in fact the inspiration for this artistic expression you find at this horse-head. When you take a look at the other figures, you will see, that mostly they all are mythical figures, except a elefant and a ram. But these figures are not from the cloister like today, they have different origins. Can we read anything of this in the descriptions? No! The figure beneath does have a horse head, but extraordinary small with a goat beard. Ever seen a horse with an goat beard and ridge of hairs on the front from the lower jam down to the breast? It could be a camel head, but I don´t believe it, but this is not the question here. Camels don´t have beards. But check a goat! And we all know (I hope so), goats are always mythical figures, until today! Another figure shows a horse head (from the side) with an rhino horn and a rhino muzzle, but the silhouette of a horse. None of them have man made decorations like panaches as you can find on quadrille figures, in this case you even can´t see a head-collar to keep a panache fixed (which you see in fact at all horse statues with panaches). On the other hand, what kind of decoration should that be, unfixed? Just a word to the term "decoration": The first thing you learn as an historian is, that there is no decoration without further meaning. A decoration never stands for itself. Livioandronice was running through this museum without any system, he just wanted to make pictures, but did´nt realize until now, that Commons isn´t panoramio or flickr, were nobody will ask you for details. Commons stands in close relation to Wikipedia and is part of an encyclopedian projekt and not a children's birthday party. After his visit to the museum, he is just as clueless, related to the exhibits of this museum, as before. He didn´t even made pictures of signs, which is essential, he did´t try to get a catalog, if this catalog is too expensive, he is able to picture some pages. He hasn´t shoot the sign of the brutus figure (after then he then wrote, that this is a bust of a brute (sic!), I had to tell him, that he has pictured Lucius Junius Brutus. I made then the categorization, renamed the file, drafted the correct description then, after he refused to do this, probably because of aggrieved vanity. This is not the way we have to work in Wikimedia projects. And I spent my private time within this spirit since more than 10 years! If Livioandronico wants to get pictures properly assessed, he has to do more than just to do some simple photo shoots alike typical japanese tourists.
    This QI-project here is not a contest, who will have more Quality Images at the very end (though some of the guys here act like this). Nobody ever will give you a shit for this! Primarely, Commons is just a supporter for Wikipedia. But pictures without proper description and correct categorization or wrong file names are simply useless. Nothing else! --Hubertl (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I know that descriptions must be accurate and with correct spelling, but in case of disputed accuracy, both sides must present resiable sources to support their opinion. The sources I have found support in this one Livioandronico's opinion. PS. I thought goats were real animals. --C messier 13:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The source, you presented, is a blogger, not an historian at all, blogging about his and his friends travel to Rome. This is not a content source at all. And I if you wanna kidden me (goats), send me a mail! :-( We can change the complete system of QI, of course, so everyone will nominate by himself, no matter whether it satisfies any guidelines or not. Is this what you want? C messier??
    I asked an historian yesterday evening (not a roman history specialist), I hope she will help me to get in contact to a specialist of roman art history soon. Whoever habe visited italian museums (exept the new parts of the Vatican museums and some others, also some new part of the Museum of the Diocletian therme) knows, that very often there is a lack of descriptions, and if there are some, they are sometimes difficult to understand and pretty often wrong or not accurate. Or there are descriptions, but you can´t find it. Those are often enough souverirs for Tourists. As overall in the world, cultural institutions ran out of money. --Hubertl 14:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • user:Hubertl, I don't want to kid you, nor to offend. I said it isn't and the most reliable (if you click the file there is a caution), but I found nothing saying its a unicorn, so I will wait for more reliable sources. --C messier 14:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this is more reliable [3] (it's in italian), The text begins with the description of the statues in the cloister of Michelangelo, saying they depict "un dromedario, un cavallo, una coppia di tori, un rinoceronte un elefante e un ariete". --C messier 14:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • More over the book Giuseppe Lugli (1975) Itinerario di Roma antica in page 364 mentions (as I can see in google books quotes) "Dal Foro di Traiano provengono rilievi ornamentali che si trovano in varie collezioni, le protomi colossali di cavalli, rinoceronti, elefanti ed altri animali che adornano il chiostro di Michelangelo nelle Terme di Diocleziano e il noto rilievo con". --C messier 15:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you, a great moment to get in contact with Luigi Sperti! You mentioned a book of Giuseppe Lugli from 1975 (he died 1967!), which I didn´t find. Can you give me a link? Today I have spoken with an very reputable, wellknown historian (Since 2012 I am Wikipedian in residence at the National heritage office in Vienna), he asked me to send him all the informations I (we) have until now. Not just for this case, even for clearing the other questions too. All in all its going to become a quite interesting dispute. I will try to get in contact with Rosanna Friggeri, director of the National Roman Museum - Baths of Diocletian, too. --Hubertl 00:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes Hubertl today I talk with the minister of cultural heritage, but please this story is getting ridiculous! The sources must be shown and not requested. To err is human but to persevere is diabolical.--Livioandronico2013 09:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

[Itinerario di Roma antica in google books], [the national library of Australia] and [worldcat]. Apparently, it was published post-morten. --C messier 12:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This whole discussion is confusing and I don't understand what the argument is even about. As for the image itself, it meets quality standards. If someone cares to explain in a sentence or two why I shouldn't support, I'll consider changing my vote. Ram-Man 18:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No sources for unicorn, only for a horse. Good technical quality. --C messier 11:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Eastern terminus of Pennsylvania Route 254.JPGEdit

Eastern terminus of Pennsylvania Route 254.JPG

  • Nomination Pennsylvania Route 254. Jakec 13:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Under the premise that the road is really leaning to the left. --Code 14:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While the road may be banked, it is unlikely the poles are consistently leaning to the left (as pictured).--Wsiegmund 17:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Wsiegmund: Fixed now. Jakec 02:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • While it is better now, I still see four utility poles and two road sign supports that all lean to the left. What am I missing? --Wsiegmund 20:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposePer Wsiegmund --Livioandronico2013 22:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - seems ok to me. Mattbuck 23:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Dome_of_Saint_Peter's_Basilica_(exterior)_at_night1.jpgEdit

Dome of Saint Peter's Basilica (exterior) at night1.jpg

  • Nomination Dome of Saint Peter's Basilica (exterior) at night --Livioandronico2013 21:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this view the best of the three. --Ram-Man 17:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Major part of this picture is just black, I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 21:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose simply too black. --Alchemist-hp 06:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Needs sharpening. Mattbuck 22:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Dome_of_Saint_Peter's_Basilica_(exterior)_at_night3.jpgEdit

Dome of Saint Peter's Basilica (exterior) at night3.jpg

  • Nomination Dome of Saint Peter's Basilica (exterior) at night --Livioandronico2013 21:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me the composition is weak with the foreground, but it does show the subject correctly. Ram-Man 17:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry for my Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The half of the photo is only black night. This is not QI for me. --Steindy 18:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Steindy.--Jebulon 21:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose simply too black. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - too dark and unsharp. Mattbuck 22:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --C messier 11:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Dome_of_Saint_Peter's_Basilica_(exterior)_at_night2.jpgEdit

Dome of Saint Peter's Basilica (exterior) at night2.jpg

  • Nomination: Dome of Saint Peter's Basilica (exterior) at night --Livioandronico2013 21:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mostly dark, but overall the subject was shown correctly and it's good for me. --Ram-Man 17:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's a nighttime photo. The darkness serves to show the subject in proper context. In the day time it would just be flat sky, so what's the difference between flat black and flat blue? Not much. Ram-Man 14:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry for my Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The half of the photo is only black night. This is not QI for me. --Steindy 18:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Steindy.--Jebulon 21:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    Help me out here. What would make a nighttime photo of this subject a QI?
    • Tighter crop? That limits the use by end users to non-standard ratios. The black is harmless and can just be cropped out later.
    • Stars? Do we really need stars, clouds, or the moon in the sky for this to be illustrative?
    • Brighter exposure? This would wash out/bleed the light as is typical in many night scenes.
    • Dynamic range? Are we now requiring HDR for a QI?
    It's plenty sharp, it's not noisy, it looks good at 100%. -- Ram-Man 13:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Ram-Man, I can tell you already. In a big city like Rome it is, there is no deep black night. For this purpose, all street lights and the light of the houses would have to be shut down. Finally, Rome is built on seven hills. Except for some light points is nothing to see – only black. And I'm not address the dome, which is also at the top of totally black and without tracing. --Steindy 18:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
It's probably a language thing, but I don't understand what you're saying. Sorry. Ram-Man 18:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
He's saying that the sky is too black to be true. --Code 18:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that makes sense. Many times in nighttime photos, sources of light when "properly" exposed get halos or "bleed" and lose sharpness. In order to prevent that, you need to underexpose the photo, which was done here. The downside of which is that tiny/dimmer light sources (stars, farther away lights, etc) get darker. In this case, that doesn't bother me, but if it bothers others, so be it. Ram-Man 02:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although the sharpness could be better. @Ram-Man: I think in the end it's a question of composition. In the other picture it's simply too much black and the dome is too small. This one is acceptable I think. --Code 16:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose simply too black and blurry. --Alchemist-hp 06:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Needs sharpening. Mattbuck 22:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Not bad for a night photo. Jakec 02:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Out of date clock icon 2.svg Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --C messier 11:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Hořejší_Kařezský_rybník,_neznámé_rostliny.jpgEdit

Hořejší Kařezský rybník, neznámé rostliny.jpg

  • Nomination Unidentified plants at Hořejší Kařezský rybník, Kařezské rybníky natural monument, Rokycany District, Czech Republic. --Juandev 16:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. May be good for a better crop. --XRay 08:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, on composition ground, IMHO unclear-non-existent subject and I think a more accurate description from unidentified plants is needed. Sorry. --C messier 10:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This picture easily meets technical quality standards, but does it meet the value standards? The only thing notable is that it was taken at an identified natural monument and it does adequately show that subject, even if the plants themselves are unidentified. It's primarily a nature scene, not a plant photo. A wide angle version of the subject might be more useful, but such photos exist in the category on the location. This is just another view of the subject and that's OK. -- Ram-Man 18:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • IMO, it's too tight for a general view and too wide for a plant view. And the sky reflection to the right is IMHO quite disturbing. --C messier 22:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:P%C3%A9rou_les_uros_du_lac_Titicaca_(4).jpgEdit

Pérou les uros du lac Titicaca (4).jpg

  • Nomination Sur le Lac Titicaca les Uros (Aymara) du Pérou.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • QI -- Spurzem 09:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing sharp, general low JPEG quality. --Mattbuck 22:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Donesharpening in the image. Please care to take another look?--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality isn't ok: unsharp, noisy, unbalanced bad crop. --Alchemist-hp 06:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Though sharpening sharpness is not okay, not a QI for me. --Dnalor 01 09:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    @Dnalor 01, Mattbuck, Alchemist-hp:✓ Done cropping and sharpening in the image. Please care to take another look?--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too many jpeg artifacts after sharpening. I'm afraid it cannot be fixed. --C messier 11:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I made a reset to the first uploaded version (cropping and sharpening), please review again. -- Pierre André (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Polička (Politschka) - hradby 03.JPGEdit

Polička (Politschka) - hradby 03.JPG

  • Nomination Polička (Politschka), Czech Republic - city walls --Pudelek 12:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)* Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please make a white balance, its generally underexposed! --Hubertl 12:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    In my opinion its not underexposed --Pudelek 22:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC) It´s not a question of opinion, its a matter of fact. I downloaded and changed it here. Its really underexposed, related to the restlight. Even the WB is wrong. --Hubertl 14:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. I recalibrated my monitors and while this has dark/shadow areas, on a calibrated monitor it looks good enough. --Ram-Man 18:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. I also have a calibrated monitor. I watched those picturs with different light situations, a simple WB-check would solve the problem. I cannot understand the persistance. --Hubertl 14:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    I don't see any white balance issue. There is a slight underexposure. I don't understand the strong objection to this.

Symbol support vote.svg Support Sure --Livioandronico2013 21:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. Sky too cyan. Underexposed.--Jebulon 21:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's too dark for me. Sorry. --Halavar 00:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's a bit dark. Mattbuck 22:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --C messier 11:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Polička (Politschka) - hradby 01.JPGEdit

Polička (Politschka) - hradby 01.JPG

  • Nomination Polička (Politschka), Czech Republic - city walls --Pudelek 12:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please make a white balance, its generally underexposed! --Hubertl 12:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    In my opinion its not underexposed --Pudelek 22:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC) It´s not a question of opinion, its a matter of fact. I downloaded and changed it here. Its really underexposed, related to the restlight. Even the WB is wrong. --Hubertl 14:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. I recalibrated my monitors and while this has dark/shadow areas, on a calibrated monitor it looks good enough. --Ram-Man 18:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. I also have a calibrated monitor. I watched those picturs with different light situations, a simple WB-check would solve the problem. I cannot understand the persistance. --Hubertl 14:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Sure --Livioandronico2013 21:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark, probably underexposed.--Jebulon 21:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sky is little bit overexposed, but most of the image is underexposed. And of course image is too dark. Definitely it's not a QI. --Halavar 00:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It could do with being brightened. Mattbuck 22:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --C messier 11:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Polička (Politschka) - hradby 02.JPGEdit

Polička (Politschka) - hradby 02.JPG

  • Nomination Polička (Politschka), Czech Republic - city walls --Pudelek 12:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please make a white balance, its generally underexposed! --Hubertl 12:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    In my opinion its not underexposed --Pudelek 22:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC) It´s not a question of opinion, its a matter of fact. I downloaded and changed it here. Its really underexposed, related to the restlight. Even the WB is wrong. --Hubertl 14:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. I recalibrated my monitors and while this has dark/shadow areas, on a calibrated monitor it looks good enough. --Ram-Man 18:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. I also have a calibrated monitor. I watched those picturs with different light situations, a simple WB-check would solve the problem. I cannot understand the persistance. --Hubertl 14:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Sure --Livioandronico2013 21:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark, underexposed, sky blown up. Not QI IMO.--Jebulon 21:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fully agree with Jebulon. Sorry, but this is not a QI. --Halavar 00:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Bit dark, perspective issues, unsharp. Mattbuck 22:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --C messier 11:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Vestalis gracilis 06840.jpgEdit

Vestalis gracilis 06840.jpg

  • Nomination Vestalis gracilis --Vengolis 17:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very good quality. --Dnalor 01 17:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed area, not very sharp, small DoF --Christian Ferrer 18:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The main interest of this picture is the insect, and this one is sharp enough IMO. --Dnalor 01 18:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's good enough. Ram-Man 12:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support GQ IMHO --Palauenc05 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, I love the wings. But left eye and legs are parts of the insect. –Be..anyone 16:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I agree with Be-..anyone. Mattbuck 22:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Brisbane_ANZAC_Day_Parade_2012_(IMG06363).jpgEdit

Brisbane ANZAC Day Parade 2012 (IMG06363).jpg

  • Nomination Women from Australian Vietnamese community. ANZAC Day Parade, Brisbane, Australia --Bald white guy 10:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--ArildV 22:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image was clearly downsampled. Ram-Man 18:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What about the license? It’s CC-BY-SA 4.0 but then the uploader restricted to non-commercial use. This does not comply with Commons licensing guidelines IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 07:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good quality, but bad license. --Steindy 01:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, nothing in these images was changed for months; the templates are also stable, I see no NC. Was that some glitch, do you still see NC? –Be..anyone 17:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Bald white guy, Be..anyone: CC BY-SA 4.0 is fine, but above is written Licensing for this image is NON-COMMERCIAL. I didn't see it when I reviewed the image.--ArildV (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Face-palm, the permissions, sorry. That's a mass DR, unless the author changes it. –Be..anyone 17:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Such „licenses“ are remarkable (sometimes) used to admonish the user with the lawyer, if they do not do so accurately. We do not need such licenses here. I would prefer to delete such images. --Steindy 18:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Luton Airport Parkway railway station MMB 12 222006.jpgEdit

Luton Airport Parkway railway station MMB 12 222006.jpg

  • Nomination 222006 at Luton Airport Parkway. Mattbuck 07:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion One third of the picture is extremely unsharp. --Palauenc05 22:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    Unless you're referring to the right hand side, in which case it's called composition, I have no idea what you're referring to. --Mattbuck 08:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition or not, the train on the right is unsharp, as well as the front bumper of the left train. Sorry, but IMO there is not enough quality in this image. --Palauenc05 23:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support because of the unsharpness partially, not all of a photo must be sharp. --Ralf Roletschek 12:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This blurry photos from the train window may be artistically; valuable QI they are certainly not IMHO. --Steindy 02:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp 06:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

File:AndrewMercerIMG_3053_Eastern_Bearded_Dragon.jpgEdit

AndrewMercerIMG 3053 Eastern Bearded Dragon.jpg

  • Nomination Head-on detail of an Eastern Bearded Dragon (Pogona barbata) basking in Brisbane's Victoria Park. Brisbane, Australia --Bald white guy 03:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me--Holleday 19:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image was clearly downsampled. See the rules. Ram-Man 18:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Downsampling can't be the sole reason for opposing. Good quality. Yann 14:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Why not? It's one of the rules, along side any of the various other quality reasons. Downsampling to this extreme is destructive to quality. Ram-Man 03:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support GQ --Palauenc05 00:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The rules require 2 MP and the picture therefore complies with the rules. Good quality. --Steindy 01:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, like it. It's a surprisingly small JPEG for such a good photo. No idea how that could be caused, the only JPG rule I know is "don't, it gets worse". –Be..anyone 17:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

File:AndrewMercerIMG 5585 Australian Water Dragon.jpgEdit

AndrewMercerIMG 5585 Australian Water Dragon.jpg

  • Nomination Eastern Water Dragon enjoying a warm pond in the late afternoon --Bald_white_guy 10:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion GQ. --Palauenc05 11:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. This image was clearly downsampled and is thus disqualified from QI as per the rules. Ram-Man 18:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Downsampling can't be the sole reason for opposing. Good quality. Yann 14:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp details anyway. GQ --Palauenc05 15:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The rules require 2 MP and the picture therefore complies with the rules. Good quality. --Steindy 01:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The resolution and downsampling rules are two different rules. Compliance with one does not mean you comply with the other. Ram-Man 03:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Prove the downsampling, please.--Jebulon 21:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Really? I should waste time proving the obvious? Ram-Man 13:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Tell me how I could waste my time, I'm here to learn (well, actually for some fun first.) –Be..anyone 17:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Alright, I'll bite, but I'm only spending a few minutes on this:
            1. Photographer shoots with Canon EOS 7D 18MP (See this). Photographer admitted he uses this camera and downsamples to hide quality defects (like noise).
            2. The smallest downsampled image it outputs is 2592x1728, but these are 1800x1200.
            3. The ratios are identical (3:2). A number of other cameras output at 4:3.
            4. It's nearly impossible to output 1800x1200 natively with this level of sharpness, so this must be either a crop or a downsample. One of my sharpest out of camera images was shot with a tripod, but there is no way all his images use a tripod.
            5. Mathematically, downsampling increases the Signal-to-Noise Ratio and decreases the Signal in the absolute. This is why it looks super sharp and beautiful on a monitor, but when printed at 300dpi on a A3 size print the details start to look undersampled.
            6. This kind of shallow depth of field cannot be achieved small sensor camera and there are no SLR that can take pictures like this without downsampling.
          • Ram-Man 13:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks, so "surprisingly small" (< 1MB) wasn't too far off. Admittedly I only look at 200% zoom when I try something. I wouldn't know who uses which camera with what features, and there's no "photos by" category in this case. –Be..anyone 19:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
          • After reviewing hundreds or thousands of photos, you can often tell which camera or brand was used to take a picture just by looking at it. When I nominated this picture taken with an Olympus E-M5 for a FP, I was looking through Category:Corallus caninus when I saw this picture. I thought to myself "It looks like it was taken with an Olympus camera too. And lo and behold I looked at the EXIF and it was taken with an Olympus E-500. Both cameras were released 7 years apart. Was it a lucky guess? I don't know. Back in the mid 2000's, I could visually tell Panasonic, Fuji, Canon, and Nikon point-and-shoot cameras from each other by their characteristic grain/noise patterns. -- Ram-Man 03:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Just to prove it was no fluke, I went through another dozen images in that category to see if I could find any others taken with an Olympus. I only spotted one that I thought was from an Olympus camera: this one. This time an Olympus PEN E-PL1. Ram-Man 03:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a well composed picture.-- Pierre André (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:AndrewMercerIMG 9825 Scaly Breasted Lorikeet.jpgEdit

AndrewMercerIMG 9825 Scaly Breasted Lorikeet.jpg

  • Nomination Scaly-breasted lorikeet --Bald_white_guy 10:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me--Holleday 19:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image was clearly downsampled. See the rules. Ram-Man 18:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The rules require 2 MP and the picture therefore complies with the rules. Good quality. --Steindy 01:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Our rules also say, For “easy to take” images, reviewers may choose to demand more if the image would benefit from it. So, the 2 mpix lower limit does not say that, for any image barely exceeding that limit, size is no more a factor at all. This one is definitely easy to take; if this image needed downsampling to achieve appropriate sharpness, this is a point against QI. --Kreuzschnabel 20:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Overexposure on red channel. Mattbuck 22:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Kölner_Dom_-_Abschaltung_Beleuchtung_als_Protest_gegen_die_Kögida-Demo-3767.jpgEdit

Kölner Dom - Abschaltung Beleuchtung als Protest gegen die Kögida-Demo-3767.jpg

  • Nomination Kölner Dom - Abschaltung Beleuchtung als Protest gegen die Kögida-Demo. By User:Raymond --Smial 22:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please reduce the noise in the sky area.--Hubertl 22:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Schau Dir mal die inzwischen veröffentlichten Bilder zum Thema von DPA, imago/Xinhua oder anderen professionellen Diensten an und überdenke bitte noch einmal deine Anforderungen. Kann man u.a. bei der Zeit, der FAZ, dem KStA usw. bewundern. -- Smial 10:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sprichst du mit mir Smial? Oder wo siehst du eine Ablehnung von mir? Es war nur die Bitte, das Farbrauschen aus dem Bereich des Himmels zu entfernen um das Bild zu perfektionieren. Was nichts anderes bedeutet, als einen Regler nach rechts zu stellen! Du musst die Pixel nicht mit der Pinzette einzeln entfernen! Oder regst du dich über etwas anderes auf?--Hubertl 23:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Nicht erledigt nach 8 Tagen Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Hubertl 10:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Noise level is regarding the situation acceptable. More votes? --Smial 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a severe noise-level, which is completely unnecessary, the creator has Lightroom installed, it needs just a little correction (Color and Luminance). This will reduce additionaly some overexposing of the lanterns too. I just asked for this correction, nothing more. If the photographer uses ISO 100 at this situation, he will get more noise than with ISO 400. I have no idea, what the nominater means, when he will compare this picture with some really unsufficient ones, which were used last week in newspapers. What, and above all, whom are you trying to prove, Smial? --Hubertl 13:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Dear Hubertl, why are you so upset? I have requested a third opinion and have not asked for several times the same opinion. -- Smial 15:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I am not upset at all, I just stated, that I decline the picture because of no positive response after 8 days. --Hubertl 12:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a valuable historical document, but no more. --Steindy 01:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Steindy, mit deinem Hinterherstiefeln triffst du Raymond, nicht mich ;-) -- Smial 11:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Smial: Ich dachte wir sprechen hier über Bilder und deren Beurteilung als Qualitätsbilder? Raimund war nie Thema, obwohl ich ihn gut kenne. Du hast den persönlichen Touch mit dem Vergleich zu den Leistungen "professioneller" Fotografen eingebracht. Wieso fragst du nicht Raimund, das er das Originalbild (welches er sicher in RAW hat, wie ich ihn kenne) einfach mit einem winzigen Flutsch ändert? Diese Art von fundamentaler Oppositionshaltung (den Kritikern gegenüber) ist schon fast als kindisch zu bezeichnen! Wenn du die Bilder zur Beurteilung stellst, dann akzeptiere gefälligst auch deren Urteil. Es hat niemand hier gedrängt, dieses Bild zu nominieren. Ganz offensichtlich nicht einmal Raimund selbst, sonst hätte er es gemacht. --Hubertl 12:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ Smial betreffs „Hinterherstiefeln“: Trotz aller Freundschaft zwischen dir und Raymond würde ich mir solche haltlosen Anwürfe überlegen, ehe ich sie niederschreibe. Vor allem wenn ich an deine letzten Bewertungen denke. Da hast du es auch nicht für notwendig erachtet, zu reagieren. Außerdem hätten ja noch genügend andere Benutzer Gelegenheit gehabt, ihr Urteil abzugeben. Warum haben sie das bisher nicht getan, wenn das Bild soooo gut ist? Es steht immerhin seit mehr als zwei Wochen hier. Ich habe nicht die Absicht, irgendjemanden zu treffen. Dennoch ist es für mich lediglich ein Dokument eines seltenen oder gar einzigartigen Ereignisses. --Steindy 21:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Steindy Ich selbst halte das Bild ja überhaupt nicht für schlecht und nach Entfernung des Farbrauschens auch QI-würdig, Ich frag mich halt nur, was Smial reitet, hier derartig einen Justamentsstandpunkt einzunehmen. Er kann uns alle natürlich für Vollidioten halten, dann muss er sich aber eine andere Plattform suchen, wo es diese Vollidioten nicht gibt. Wir sind halt hier eben so. Unfähig, das Werk eines großen Meisters anzuerkennen. Ich glaube nur nicht, dass Raymond, so wie ich ihn kenne, selbst diesen Standpunkt einnimmt, wenn doch, warum verteidigt er diesen hier nicht selbst? Wenn Smial seinen Vorschlag nicht bewertet haben will, was nun doch passiert ist, dann darf er das Bild halt nicht einstellen. So einfach, so deutlich. Deine Haltung, Smial, wirft nicht unbedingt ein gutes Licht auf deine Fähigkeiten, Bilder zu bewerten. Wie soll ich deinem Urteil trauen, wenn in eigener Sache (im Grund Fremdsache) du nicht auf den Rat anderer zu hören imstande bist? Es gibt hier übrigens niemanden, der Dir persönlich nicht wohlgesonnen wäre. Aber auf sachlicher Ebene sollten wir schon etwas objektiver zu handeln in der Lage sein. --Hubertl 23:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mir ist das nicht zu viel Rauschen, ich kann das Bild auf Wunsch aber gerne4 mal durch Dfine jagen. --Ralf Roletschek 12:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ralf: Ich hätte es auch durch LR jagen können, oder PS, aber es geht - schon aufgrund der sicher außerordentlichen Situation - wohl darum, das anhand des Originalbildes zu machen. Ich gehe bei Raymonds hohem Anspruch davon aus, dass er das RAW-Original hat. Wieso sollte ich JPG-Artefakte, die aktuell praktisch durch die Erstkompression nicht sichtbar sind (aber garantiert da sind, es geht ja gar nicht anders bei diesem Himmel, das hab ich bei so einem Himmel immer, da nützt mir die Minimalkompression nichts) dann in Folge durch eine Neukompression zugunsten einer Rauschreduzierung überhaupt noch verstärken?. Es geht in diesem Fall auch nicht darum, dass es gerade reicht, sondern darum, dass man - und dafür ist halt QI auch da - etwas schon Gutes weiter optimiert, und das halt vom Ursprung her. Wozu stelle ich dann ein Bild ein um andere zu ihrer Meinung zu fragen und dann in Folge diese Diskussion als absurd und vielleicht persönlich gefärbt abtue? Ich hab Smial bis jetzt eigentlich für jemanden mit Ernsthaftigkeit und hohem Anspruch gehalten, nach der Diskussion hier hat er ausgschissen bei mir, wie wir so in Ö sagen würden. Ich hab auch nur eine begrenzte Zeit.--Hubertl 11:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment als Fotograf: Ich möchte Smial danken für die Nominierung des Fotos, ebenso wie den Kritikern. Ich habe mich bisher nicht zu Wort gemeldet, da ich das bei Nominierungen idR nicht mache. Das Foto ist ein Dokument der Kölner Zeitgeschichte und ich hatte nicht viel Zeit, mehrere Aufnahmen zu machen, da ich wieder zu der eigentlichen Gegendemo wollte. Möglicherweise hätte ich mit anderen Kameraeinstellungen ein besseres Ergebnis erzielt. Werde ich ggfs. mal ausprobieren, denn das Kölnpanorama als solches rennt nicht weg. Natürlich habe ich das Original im RAW-Format und in der Zwischenzeit auch ein wenig mit den Reglern herumprobiert. Das Foto wird jedoch beim weiteren Entrauschen aus meiner Sicht nicht besser, sondern verliert an Authentizität. Daher habe ich mich dagegen entschieden, eine neue Version drüberzuspeichern. Möglicherweise kann jemand, der besser mit LightRoom umgehen kann als ich, eine bessere Entwicklung erzielen, aber das werden wir nie herausfinden, da ich keine RAW-Dateien herausgebe. Ich persönlich bin mit meinem Foto sehr zufrieden und wenn es die QI-Maßstäbe nicht erreicht, dann ist es so. Keine Schande. Weder für mich noch die Smial o.a. Raymond 13:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Was mir wirklich auf Commons fehlt, ist eine schnelle, unkomplizierte Bewertung von Fotos auf einer Skala von 1-10, um im langfristigen Mittel die Spreu vom Weizen trennen zu können
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dankde für deinen Beitrag, ich hoffe, du hast richtig erkannt, dass ich für das Bild ursprünglich nur ein leichtes Entrauschen erbeten habe. Smials Einwand, das wäre irrelevant, vergleicht man das mit anderen Bildern, gilt hier keineswegs als Argument, er sollte es wissen. Ich habe das Bild runtergeladen und bin mit einer leichten Luminanzkorrektur, zw. 30 und 35 sowie eine Korrektur der Lichter um -12 (es gibt in einigen kleinen Bereichen eine leichte Überstrahlung) sehr gut gefahren, ohne an Schärfe in den strukturierten Bereichen wie Kirche/Brücke etc etwas zu verlieren. Wenn man das am RAW macht und dann mit der geringsmöglichen Kompression hochladet, dann ist eine Verbesserung des Bildes mit Sicherheit gegeben. Ich will hier nicht den Lehrmeister spielen der sagt, wie man in der Nacht mit so einem Motiv rein fotografisch umgeht (hier gibt es ja wenig zu bemängeln), ich sehe dieses Bild eher aus der Warte der Nachbearbeitung. Und genau hier nehme ich für mich in Anspruch, nach einem Vierteljahrhundert professionellem Umgang mit Photoshop über ausreichende Erfahrung zu verfügen und das Ergebnis auch an kalibrierten Monitoren überprüfen zu können. Leider noch nicht 4- oder 5K.--Hubertl 13:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Offen gesagt verstehe ich dein Argument, du gäbest RAW-DAten nicht her, nicht. Aber bitte.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Das Bild ist meiner Meinung nach qualitativ gut genug und als Dokument eines historischen Ereignisses auch interessant und bemerkenswert. Ich fände es schade, wenn es wegen des Streits hier unter die Räder kommt. --Imehling 14:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sag mal, Imehling, liest du irgendwo, dass das in Frage gestellt wird? Mein Contra oben musste ich aus taktischen Gründen einsetzen, um dieses Bild in einer weiteren Diskussions zu behalten, sonst wäre es nämlich schon längst als unassessed ausgegliedert worden. Per QI-Bot. Oder ist deine Vorstellung von Qualität die, dass im QI-Prozess der künstlerischen/dokumentarischen Beurteilung Vorrang eingeräumt wird? Dann wären wir hier im falschen Theater, das wäre dann eindeutig ein Fall von VI, aber nicht QI. Bist du nicht der Meinung, dass eine Qualitätsverbesserung dann, wenn es ein Bild aufwertet, nicht Teil dieser hier seit langer Zeit täglich stattfindenden Abläufe sein soll? Oder wie stellst du dir vor, dass Kollegen auch deine Bilder bewerten sollen? Nach der zum Zeitpunkt des Abdrückens vermuteten Stimmungslage des Fotografen? --Hubertl 15:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Entschuldigung, ich wollte jetzt hier wirklich niemandem auf den Schlips treten. War wohl ein Fehler, dass ich mich eingemischt habe, aber so wie die Diskussion hier geführt wird, habe ich nicht den Eindruck, dass rein sachliche Dinge im Vordergrund stehen. Und das finde ich schade, denn ich bin natürlich froh, dass hier u.a. auch meine Bilder von wirklich kompetenten Leuten beurteilt werden. --Imehling 17:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment falls ich dich erschreckt haben sollte, das war nicht meine Absicht. Ich denke aber, dass es in unser aller Interesse sein sollte, die Möglichkeiten des kollaborativen Verbesserns unserer Beiträge im besten Sinne zu nutzen. Dazu gehört eben auch - wie ich es versuchte -dass man einen direkt anwendbaren Vorschlag macht, in manchen Fällen (nicht in diesem, dazu ist da Motiv zu heikel (Dunkelheit)) sogar selbst Hand anzulegen. Nicht jeder ist in der Lage, technisch gesehen, alles nur Mögliche auszuschöpfen, da gibt man halt selbst einmal seine ergänzende Hand dazu. Es fördert das Gesamte. --Hubertl 17:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Noticable grain and chromatic noise. Also some zombie pixels. Lack of fine detail. Mattbuck 22:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --C messier 11:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Mon 19 Jan → Tue 27 Jan
Tue 20 Jan → Wed 28 Jan
Wed 21 Jan → Thu 29 Jan
Thu 22 Jan → Fri 30 Jan
Fri 23 Jan → Sat 31 Jan
Sat 24 Jan → Sun 01 Feb
Sun 25 Jan → Mon 02 Feb
Mon 26 Jan → Tue 03 Feb
Tue 27 Jan → Wed 04 Feb