Last modified on 14 May 2014, at 22:16

Commons:Quality images candidates


Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский
Gtk-go-down.svg Skip to nominations
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 must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms.
  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. Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is at least frowned upon or may even lead to immediate decline.

Evaluating imagesEdit

Any registered user 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 August 2014 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]] 10:50, 30 August 2014 (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.
  • Bulleted list item

August 30, 2014Edit

August 29, 2014Edit

August 28, 2014Edit

August 27, 2014Edit

August 26, 2014Edit

August 25, 2014Edit

August 24, 2014Edit

August 23, 2014Edit

August 22, 2014Edit

August 21, 2014Edit

August 20, 2014Edit

August 17, 2014Edit

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:Algérie-Roumanie_-_20140604_-_12.jpgEdit

Algérie-Roumanie - 20140604 - 12.jpg

  • Nomination Algérie-Roumanie - 20140604 - 12 --Pleclown 10:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too tight crop (why?) and very noisy; nice moment nevertheless. --Kadellar 12:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    The crop is tight, because i can't have a wider one :) I was very close to the players and the action was quick, I didn't had time to recenter. See the full image (no crop, no tilt) here Pleclown 20:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. Some noise is inevitable if you want to catch fast movements in sports. Very good shot regarding the circumstances. --Smial 09:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    The wider view is much better imo, more interesting. I can stand quite a lot of noise, I'm used to indoor sports, but I think this one has too much, sorry. --Kadellar 16:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Weil_am_Rhein_-_View_from_Vitra_Slide_Tower2.jpgEdit

Weil am Rhein - View from Vitra Slide Tower2.jpg

  • Nomination View from Vitra Slide Tower --Taxiarchos228 20:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --XRay 17:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    Many dust spots, perspective issues. --Mattbuck 20:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry. you're right, Mattbuck.--XRay 05:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Skärholmen_August_2014_06.jpgEdit

Skärholmen August 2014 06.jpg

  • Nomination Skärholmens torg (square). Skärholmen, Stockholm. --ArildV 06:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, composition (cropped tree at botom and too much sky). Noise of the building of the right or dark areas--Lmbuga 11:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry but I think I disagree here, the images is taken from the best possible position above the square (to avoid the trees on the street level, and to give a overview). There is some noise, but not a big problem for QI imo.--ArildV 15:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Ok. It's better "discuss", other users can think. Sorry--Lmbuga 20:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I denoised and sharpened it, revert if you don’t approve of my try. Oppose due to framing though, would be better to lower the camera (and apply perspective correction subsequently) to get more of the square. --Kreuzschnabel 03:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Fallen_Diplomats_Memorial_Ottawa.jpgEdit

Fallen Diplomats Memorial Ottawa.jpg

  • Nomination Memorial to the fallen diplomats in Ottawa near Island Park Drive --MB-one 21:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 14:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Disagree, too soft due to f29, it almost looks as out of focus. Don't use so narrow apertures, to avoid diffraction. You don't need to go beyond f11 to have a large depth of field, I myself seldom go beyond f8. It's a pity, because composition and motif are nice. --Kadellar 14:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kadellar, and blown whites. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Mozhaysky_Bridge_SPB_01.jpgEdit

Mozhaysky Bridge SPB 01.jpg

  • Nomination Mozhaysky Bridge in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 16:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Noise at the bridge and distortion on th sides. ----MB-one 01:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. Noise is correctable issue, distortions are consequence of using wide-angle lens. --Florstein 16:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer 10:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good images. --ArildV 14:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

File:ParroquiaNuestraSeñoraRosario-Vela.jpgEdit

ParroquiaNuestraSeñoraRosario-Vela.jpg

  • Nomination Front of Nuestra Señora del Rosario church, María Ignacia, Vela, Tandil, Argentina --Ezarate 14:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please, your image needs perspective correction. It's tilted CCW.--XRay ✓ Done Ezarate 21:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)15:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please have a look to the image and my notice.--XRay 16:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I tried to fix that issue Ezarate 00:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    IMO it's not OK. Please have a look to the door.--XRay 04:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tilted. Sky too granular, needs denoising. Luminance of blue needs to be raised. --Cccefalon 08:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I just do more corrections, see now please Ezarate 09:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_MediaPark-02.jpgEdit

Cologne Germany MediaPark-02.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: Buildings Mediapark 6 and Mediapark 7 --Cccefalon 07:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    what has happend with the area of the posters on the left? very curious pixalisation. --Taxiarchos228 07:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nothing curious - it's the design of the poster. Guggst du hier. --Cccefalon 10:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose strong pixalisation visible (see notes) --Taxiarchos228 05:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree --Cccefalon 05:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. With more of 20 megapixels of resolution, the pixelation (if there is pixelation) is minimal and should not be considered in QI IMO.--Lmbuga 11:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There isn't pixelation IMO, it's the kind of the poster or the design of the poster--Lmbuga 11:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_MediaPark-01.jpgEdit

Cologne Germany MediaPark-01.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: KölnTurm and Medis Park Forum --Cccefalon 07:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    the building in the foregreound is very sharp and good, but the main object (tower) isn't really. very strange. --Taxiarchos228 07:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The hyperfocal distance is about 13 m (focussing distance 100 m / f8,0 / 60 mm) ... camera mounted on tripod ... when the foreground is sharp, the background is sharp too. It is what you get from ISO 200. In my opinion sharp enough for an object in a distance of 430 m --Cccefalon 10:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose wrong focus, main object is not that sharp as is could be and should be --Taxiarchos228 05:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree --Cccefalon 05:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sharpness of the tall tower is ok, given its distance. There is moiré, however, see note --Generic1139 14:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Reduced Moiré to a certain amount. However, this moiré pattern is also visible in reality. Removing it completly is like asking to remove the recflection of a building in a lake. Or like removing a rainbow. --Cccefalon 20:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness is ok, as well as Moiré in full resolution (in lower resolutions it is worse). --Uoaei1 09:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Pterois_volitans_400.jpgEdit

Pterois volitans 400.jpg

  • Nomination Red lionfish (Pterois volitans) --Lewis Hulbert 23:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - The picture is noisy. In fact it was probably in low-light condition but 3200 iso is generally too high for QI. Waiting for other users review--Gormé 18:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Noise is acceptable for me, but there are a number of zombie pixels. Mattbuck 14:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me --Livioandronico2013 07:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - This cannot be QI for me until the zombie pixels are fixed. Mattbuck 23:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Have I not already dealt with them? Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by zombie pixel. --Lewis Hulbert 12:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Mallorca_-_Puig_Major3.jpgEdit

Mallorca - Puig Major3.jpg

  • Nomination Majorca: Puig Major --Taxiarchos228 06:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too noisy and left side even blurry, definitely wrong camera settings --Poco a poco 21:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    I can denoise it, and this are definitly not the wrong cam settings, are you kiding? --Taxiarchos228 05:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    Well, blue sky, best lighting and ISO 250 due to the fact that you have choosen a shutter speed of 1/1250. What for? The subject will sure not move. Furthermore, although ISO 250 is not that high the result is a relatively noisy picture. Poco a poco 18:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Diego --Christian Ferrer 11:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Main object is sharp enough, some blur in the corners is visible, but is not really disturbing. If the noise in the sky is somewhat reduced (please don't overdo that), I'll strike through the word "weak". -- Smial 12:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Diego --Livioandronico2013 13:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

File:University Park MMB «K1.jpgEdit

University Park MMB «K1.jpg

  • Nomination University Park. Mattbuck 06:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 05:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With this fog is QI? --Livioandronico2013 08:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    yes fog can make very good quality images. --Christian Ferrer 17:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm sorry Christian but I don't think in this way, I don't see anything that could be called QI. --Livioandronico2013 17:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    Fog is not a disqualifier for QI, and I did shoot this because of the fog rather than in spite of. Mattbuck 19:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For me yes,expect others say, but I stand by my position, with the fog nothing is clear. --Livioandronico2013 19:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support because the fog --Ralf Roletschek 08:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the for gives a mystic scene. QI for me. --Steindy 18:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Kirjastosilta, Aurajoki ja Turun tuomiokirkko, kuvattuna Itäiseltä Rantakadulta, Turku, 8.12.2013.jpgEdit

Kirjastosilta, Aurajoki ja Turun tuomiokirkko, kuvattuna Itäiseltä Rantakadulta, Turku, 8.12.2013.jpg

  • Nomination The new pedestrian bridge Kirjastosilta (Library Bridge) over the Aura River and Turun tuomiokirkko (Turku Cathedral), Turku Finland. Makele-90 20:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion You have a very difficult image to get the white balance set properly with several different color temps on the artificial light. Was the sky really that color of brown? Can you adjust the white balance? --Generic1139 21:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    The sky was dull and brownish color is from the city lights. It really looked like that, I think. This is a jpg directly from the camera. I have also RAW, but dont have program to edit it. Makele-90 07:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Such brownish sky is typical if street lighting is based mainly on sodium-vapor lamps and you have not absolutely clear sky. If you try to compensate this to get a neutral dark grey or even dark blue sky, all other colors in the image will look very strange. Reducing colour contrast can help a little bit. -- Smial 12:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    Desaturating just yellow (or yellow and orange) helps a lot. At least the sky isn't glowing apocalyptic brown, while keeping the blue of the bridge and the natural green on the top of the cathedral --Generic1139 14:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    Photographing snow at night is always hell, but this seems ok to me. Mattbuck 14:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. I have a version here that by simply reducing the saturation in yellow/orange results in a more useful image. Letting this one go by as is like accepting the wrong color temp in a tungsten image - if there is a simple fix, it should be made. What's the best way to show you this version?. Upload a new version over the original file, which can then be reverted?--Generic1139 07:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 08:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Lörrach-Haagen_-_Schlossberghalle5.jpgEdit

Lörrach-Haagen - Schlossberghalle5.jpg

  • Nomination Lörrach-Haagen: Hall Schlossberg (detail) --Taxiarchos228 11:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not sharp, more so on the letters on the far left. Overexposed, much of the white on the sign and some of the sky is blown out. Magenta in the tree line on the left. --Generic1139 14:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 14:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    sorry, but the sign as main object is indeed sharp, the sky isn't blown out but white partially --Taxiarchos228 09:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Generic1139 05:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC) you already had voted --Taxiarchos228 06:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
That was discussion, without the oppose tag. What counts votes, a bot, or a human? --Generic1139 21:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment to delete or to criticize the only vote that made Generic1139 It's disrespectful. Although I'm accustomed, I have to say it. It is clear that Generic1139 considers his first words a comment. Please, use {{Comment}} tag--Lmbuga 11:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Chevrolet_Coupe_Typ_AB_BW_2011-09-03_13-54-37.JPGEdit

Chevrolet Coupe Typ AB BW 2011-09-03 13-54-37.JPG

  • Nomination Chevrolet National Serie AB Coupé --Berthold Werner 06:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The retouched plate is a no-go for QI. Also the shadows have to be raised. The perspective needs to be fixed. Some slight magenta CA right side. All resolvable. --Cccefalon 10:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    ok. I have removed the ca and corrected the perspective. The blurred license plate is not a "no-go" for QI, there are lots of QIs with blurred license plates and in this case it was addionally wish of the organiser. --Berthold Werner 08:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, it cannot be a QI then. According to QI Guideline "Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive." --Cccefalon 19:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    Not accepted, two reason are already given. --Berthold Werner 10:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don’t think the blurred plate impairs the quality or value of this image too severely though it would have been nicer without that manipulation. Why should a blurred plate be a no-go? There’s clearly no intended deception – or who would think when viewing the image the place was really looking like this? --Kreuzschnabel 07:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I took the liberty to apply the required Retouched template. Still, this retouching is an immediate and dominant eye catcher when you open the file. Even in the thumbnal here, it attracts your attention. For me, it even fails the well-done criteria. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support : lots of pictures have already been promoted with a blurred plate (one example among them : File:Citroën DS 21 27 Quai Anatole France license plate blanked 2012-06-02 cropped.jpg). If rules needs to be changed, I think a discussion is needed too before we change.--JLPC (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @JLPC:, @Cccefalon: Just for information, I blurred the license plate on the above photo, because the car was illegally parked, and I did not want to become part of a possible issue between the police and the car owner by publishing the photo with a visible license plate. For the case above, I also think blurring the plate is reasonable mitigation from the guideline, as it was specifically requested by the organizer. --Slaunger 18:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@Slaunger:: The difference is , that your retouchement is perfectly done. --Cccefalon 19:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI see your point, and I also agree the removal of the license plate information could have been done more elegantly. Here it is distracting because the blurred area is completely smooth, while the surrounding parts has texture and structure. --Slaunger 20:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I just checked Images_with_blanked_out_license_plates. The above mentioned photo of mine is actually currently the only QI (well a version with a different crop is QI too) in that category. Of course that may be because many images, with blurred license plates are not even categorized to this category, like, for instance, the nominated picture, which I have now added to that category. --Slaunger 20:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I generally reject those photos. But I do not crosscheck every review of the buddies here. --Cccefalon 20:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. Yann 17:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Yann 17:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Tayassu tajacu.jpgEdit

Tayassu tajacu.jpg

  • Nomination Collared Peccary --Chrumps 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion It is a small resolution of a comparatively big animal. Nethertheless, the full resolution does not show sufficient sharpness. --Cccefalon 04:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Picture is sharp and resolution is over 2Mpx --Jacek Halicki 12:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose somes areas have been overexposed --Christian Ferrer 18:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not QI for me. It is not easy to say why: Oversharpened IMO, overexposed (as Christian Ferrer), not good detail (as Cccefalon)--Lmbuga 01:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Eckhaus_Drei_König.jpgEdit

Lörrach - Eckhaus Drei König.jpg

  • Nomination Lörrach: corner building "three kings" --Taxiarchos228 20:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overall good quality. Please remove the magenta CA at the lamp post. --Cccefalon 20:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
     Not done and loss of detail in the trees. Mattbuck 22:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    the trees are NOT main object but far in the background, your argument is really absurd --Taxiarchos228 20:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 19:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 16:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Magenta CA on the top of the lamp post.--Jebulon 16:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_KölnKubus-at-Deutzer-Feld-02.jpgEdit

Cologne Germany KölnKubus-at-Deutzer-Feld-02.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: KölnKubus at Deutzer Feld --Cccefalon 04:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    There is Moiré in the top fence unidentified user
    ✓ Done moiré removed --Cccefalon 20:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    A bit of posterisation and B/Y CA at the sides. Mattbuck 20:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ uploaded new version --Cccefalon 18:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, but I'm not convinced due to blur. --Mattbuck 18:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    Other opinions please. --Cccefalon 21:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry,I see blur, especially on the left --Livioandronico2013 22:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rather ugly building, but picture good for QI IMO--Jebulon 16:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 10:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Fri 22 Aug → Sat 30 Aug
Sat 23 Aug → Sun 31 Aug
Sun 24 Aug → Mon 01 Sep
Mon 25 Aug → Tue 02 Sep
Tue 26 Aug → Wed 03 Sep
Wed 27 Aug → Thu 04 Sep
Thu 28 Aug → Fri 05 Sep
Fri 29 Aug → Sat 06 Sep
Sat 30 Aug → Sun 07 Sep