Commons:Quality images candidates


Other languages:
čeština 40% • ‎Deutsch 90% • ‎English 100% • ‎español 76% • ‎français 93% • ‎日本語 33% • ‎македонски 85% • ‎polski 29% • ‎português 76% • ‎русский 18%
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 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 April 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]] 04:12, 24 April 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.

April 24, 2014Edit

April 23, 2014Edit

April 22, 2014Edit

April 21, 2014Edit

April 20, 2014Edit

April 19, 2014Edit

April 18, 2014Edit

April 17, 2014Edit

April 16, 2014Edit

April 15, 2014Edit

April 14, 2014Edit

April 13, 2014Edit

April 12, 2014Edit

April 11, 2014Edit

April 10, 2014Edit

April 09, 2014Edit

April 08, 2014Edit

April 07, 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:Ljungdalen_April_2014_02.jpgEdit

Ljungdalen April 2014 02.jpg

  • Nomination Mountain landscape with Montane Birch trees close to lake Öjön, Ljungdalen (Berg municipality, Jämtland county). --ArildV 07:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --NorbertNagel 10:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Charming indeed, but seems to me too much underexposed. The snow is very grey-brown, and looks almost like sand. I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 22:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info New version uploaded.--ArildV 10:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Snow can have many different colours, though I would expect somewhat more blue in the shadow areas. But we don't know the lighting really exact. -- Smial 13:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

File:2014-04-16_14-18-04_Chateau-Engelbourg-thann.jpgEdit

2014-04-16 14-18-04 Chateau-Engelbourg-thann.jpg

  • Nomination Engelbourg castle, Thann, France. --ComputerHotline 18:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The bushes on the left side are blurred (motion by wind?)--SteveK 21:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Out of curiosity, what is the point of using a ND1000 filter here? --ArildV 08:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC) I can take the wind motion. --ComputerHotline 15:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC) QI imo.--ArildV 23:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI disagree, because the blurred bushes at the left side are not necessary for this motive --SteveK 17:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Backlit_Margarita_Island_Sunset_in_Las_Guevaras,_Venezuela_CaptureNX2.jpgEdit

Backlit Margarita Island Sunset in Las Guevaras, Venezuela CaptureNX2.jpg

  • Nomination Backlit Margarita Island --Wilfredor 15:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI have supported the image in FP but the quality of the lower part is poor, not a QI to me like this and I have my doubts now about my vote in FPC, sorry, Poco a poco 18:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    Si cambias tu voto, te asesinaré. Es broma :) , los votos en contra con buenos argumentos son bienvenidos, Un abrazo --Wilfredor 22:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Promoted as FP 8/0/2 == QI -- KTC 22:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but that's not a valid argument IMHO --Poco a poco 18:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    Of course it is. The criteria for (non-historical photograph) FP is stricter and decided by more people than QI, but each to their own. -- KTC 23:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    Maybe on the paper. Fact is that some pictures are not at QI level but become FP because the wow effect "compensates" the lack of quality. Poco a poco 18:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Foreground was underexposed when the photo was taken. Partial raising of exposure in the lower third of the image resulted in a raising noise level. It looks atmospheric but it lacks photographic quality for me. --Cccefalon 05:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 05:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Byland Abbey MMB 05.jpgEdit

Byland Abbey MMB 05.jpg

  • Nomination Byland Abbey. Mattbuck 16:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Good, maybe slightly tilted, though? --Poco a poco 21:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    It's quite possible it's tilted in reality, probable even. Mattbuck 16:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor lighting -- Sanyambahga 17:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Muffin,_Ciudad_Ho_Chi_Minh,_Vietnam,_2013-08-14,_DD_01.JPGEdit

Muffin, Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 01.JPG

  • Nomination Muffin, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam --Poco a poco 03:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Maathavan 12:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'd like a discussion about my annotations, please.--Jebulon 15:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • ✓ New version with selective denoising Poco a poco 21:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Slightly better for the noise, but in comparison, (no offense) I prefer "my" DoF of my crown than "yours" of your cake Clin--Jebulon 14:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Liebfrauenkirche_Lienzingen-Aussen1.JPGEdit

Liebfrauenkirche Lienzingen-Aussen1.JPG

  • Nomination View of the Church of Our Lady in Lienzingen. --SteveK 15:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose way too much noise, and bad light. --A.Savin 11:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment *✓ New versionI have try to fix the problems.--SteveK 09:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


✓ New version--SteveK (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

File:St Paul's Church Port Townsend.jpgEdit

St Paul's Church Port Townsend.jpg

  • Nomination Church in Port Townsend --Adbar 06:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Alberto-g-rovi 09:50,18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral perspective distortion on the left; chromatic aberration on the cross and some edges; probably a bit overexposed highlights. --A.Savin 13:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tried to correct part of it, is it better? --Adbar 21:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes. But the slight overexposure still doesn't let me support. --A.Savin 19:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --A.Savin 19:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Trompe l oeil Emperor's Courtyard Residenz Munich.jpgEdit

Trompe l oeil Emperor's Courtyard Residenz Munich.jpg

  • Nomination Trompe l'oeil painting, Emperor's Courtyard, Residenz, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.--Jebulon 15:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --JLPC 16:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, but the sharpness is clearly below today's QI standards. --A.Savin 21:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. Jbribeiro1 02:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support quality image -- Sanyambahga 17:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support QI to me. --Cayambe 17:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI. --P e z i 21:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Dalian_Liaoning_China_Public-clock-at-the-customs-office-01.jpgEdit

Dalian Liaoning China Public-clock-at-the-customs-office-01.jpg

  • Nomination Public clock at the customs office in Dalian harbour, China. --Cccefalon 06:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Halavar 18:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think a more centered composition should be better. But the main issue here is the cornice below, which is distorded, and should be horizontaly straight, IMO.--Jebulon 19:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Jute_flower.JPGEdit

Jute flower.JPG

  • Nomination jute flower in alaveddi, jaffna , northern province, sri lanka --Aathavan jaffna 14:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Maathavan 15:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp. --P e z i 23:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Teotihuacán,_México,_2013-10-13,_DD_05.JPGEdit

Teotihuacán, México, 2013-10-13, DD 05.JPG

  • Nomination Teotihuacán, Mexico --Poco a poco 03:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose imo, this one is not sharp enough. Plus distorted and blurred edges. --A.Savin 08:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    I have done some improvements (crop, perspective, curves) and I am not sure whether this one is worse than all others, I hope you don't mind if you discuss it. --Poco a poco 17:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK, this version I'll accept. --A.Savin 11:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --A.Savin 11:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:East Midlands Parkway railway station MMB 18.jpgEdit

East Midlands Parkway railway station MMB 18.jpg

  • Nomination East Midlands Parkway railway station. Mattbuck 07:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion To dark, white balance not correct, the person is not sharp. --SteveK 07:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    White balance is correct, and I have brightened it. --Mattbuck 21:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark, unsharp. --Nino Verde 11:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The white balance is still not correct. There's a blue tint over the hole picture (see the snow in the background and the white bird on the right poster). There is a CA at the "Welcome". The image is slightly out of focus, and the person has motion blur. --SteveK 17:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Wayside_shrine_Col_dala_Pelda_fresco_with_Madonna.jpgEdit

Wayside shrine Col dala Pelda fresco with Madonna.jpg

  • Nomination Wayside shrine near the manor house Col dala Pelda in Sëlva Gherdëina. --Moroder 17:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overexposed bottom left. --Mattbuck 22:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. No way, Mattbuck. Give a look at the histogram of supposed OE area here! --Moroder 09:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me no overexposition. --Archaeodontosaurus 09:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --Jebulon 23:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Пмз-интерьер-02-никольская-2-этаж-0104.jpgEdit

Пмз-интерьер-02-никольская-2-этаж-0104.jpg

  • Nomination Interior of Nature department in Pereslavl museum. --PereslavlFoto 17:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Left side leaning. Too much magenta. Too much reflections in the glas boxes. Not a QI IMO --Cccefalon 09:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    The reflections are essential for the museum. Maybe someone else comments to find the way with this subject? --PereslavlFoto 21:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Referring to the questions you left on my talk page: I made some annotations where I found indications of too much magenta in the photo. Probably the WB was not properly done. Of course, the reflections in the glas boxes are hard to avoid. But definetly they are disturbing. Sometimes the circumstances are against an assessment as QI and for me, this is such a situation. I do not contest, that this photo is of encyclopedial value, but it is not a QI for me. --Cccefalon 06:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm afraid Cccefalon is right. But I think it is correctible.--Jebulon 14:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Rösrath_Germany_St-Nikolaus-von-Tolentino-11.jpgEdit

Rösrath Germany St-Nikolaus-von-Tolentino-11.jpg

  • Nomination St. Antonius at the High Altar of St. Nikolaus von Tolentino in Rösrath, germany --Cccefalon 15:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support The upper composition is a bit unsharp, but still a good photo --A.Savin 17:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the moment. The vertical stretching is a bit too much for me. All the statues look distorded with unnatural proportions. Correctible IMO.--Jebulon 19:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why "for the moment"? I can either choose to get verticals rectilinear or upper part unstretched; that's how untilting operation work. So, what death do you want me to die? :-) --Cccefalon 05:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I said "for the moment" because it was correctible... I've tried something as vertical scale correction, I think it is better. Please revert if you don't agree. And for sure, I don't want you to die. For the moment.Smile--Jebulon 13:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    Amazing ... thank you .. want to apply it to the .DNG/.TIF file? there are some losses in the fine details. --Cccefalon 16:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)~
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good now. "for the moment" may be a Gallicism Smile --Archaeodontosaurus 09:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Better said: "for the time being", or "right now". Thank you Archaeo. And I don't want nobody to die. Still. For the time being. Smile I'm at work with the file received--Jebulon 14:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Скульптурная_композиция_«Рыбак»_на_городской_набережной,_Ростов-на-Дону.jpgEdit

200px

Symbol support vote.svg Support. QI from technical standpoint. The copyvio question is not settled as of yet and there are A LOT of pics that could be deleted by this same reason (and are still here). Jbribeiro1 03:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not QI, from a technical standpoint IMO. This is not sharp enough for a static object.--Jebulon 14:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jebulon. --Lewis Hulbert 07:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Ta_Keo,_Angkor,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_01.JPGEdit

Ta Keo, Angkor, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 01.JPG

  • Nomination Ta Keo, Angkor, Cambodia --Poco a poco 18:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    Slightly tilted clockwise maybe? The trees are a bit iffy I think. Mattbuck 21:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Tilted Poco a poco 20:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not that sharp, I'm afraid. And the red tee-shirt is really distracting.--Jebulon 16:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Please, let's discuss, the T-shirt problem is gone, and sharpness is IMHO good enough for QI --Poco a poco 20:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Harsh contrast and dust spot (see note). Could be nice too geolocation and links to wiki Symbol support vote.svg Support Betters now, well done --Wilfredor 16:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I added the geodata and removed a dust spot (after a note of Christian Ferrer) Poco a poco 18:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Nasturtiopsis_coronopifolia_1.jpgEdit

Nasturtiopsis coronopifolia 1.jpg

  • Nomination Nasturtiopsis coronopifolia --Gidip 09:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeVery unsharp. --Mattbuck 21:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
For this image size, sharpness is excellent. You can downsample to get a sharp image at full resolution. --Gidip 07:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Downsampled version by wikimedia software https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Nasturtiopsis_coronopifolia_1.jpg/731px-Nasturtiopsis_coronopifolia_1.jpg it is still not very sharp. -- Smial 06:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support The first plan stems are sharp. At f/18 with an APS-C camera I'm not sure what more can be done. I would have cropped a little tighter, especially on the right, but this is a QI to me. --Jastrow 07:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can not understand why there is so extreme shallow DOF. Due to http://eol.org/pages/5159295/details the plant is typially 10 to 25cm high, so this is not really a macro shot. f/18? Even with 250mm f/5.6 or f/8 250mm I get more DOF. -- Smial 06:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support With Jastrow here.--Jebulon 14:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Cccefalon 05:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Anoplotrupes_stercorosus_01_(MK).jpgEdit

Anoplotrupes stercorosus 01 (MK).jpg

  • Nomination: Anoplotrupes stercorosus by Leviathan1983 --Gidip 05:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Review Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This photo was already declined April 4 by me. Nothing changed since then. Original reason was "Unfortunately the DoF is so shallow that only a tiny part of the beetle is sufficiently sharp." --Cccefalon 05:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support The photo is sharp enough. --Gidip 05:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support no reason to rejection, good photo and QI --Ralf Roletschek 07:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info There is an ongoing Discussion about the Renomination of declined photos. --Cccefalon 07:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You forgot to sign your name there Gidip 08:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the hint. Must have been a mistake of the script. --Cccefalon 11:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice pic but not QI. --P e z i 16:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It would be nice to give some reasoning, esp. if you oppose. Gidip 08:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • OK, in addition to the reasons already mentioned by Cccefalon: 4.4MP coming out of a 12MP camera (digital zoom or downsampled?); overexposed areas on back of the beetle; burnt out red channel in the upper right corner. --P e z i 22:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Out of date clock icon 2.svg Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Cccefalon 13:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Grosskirmes Ibbenbueren Achterbahn 01.jpgEdit

Grosskirmes Ibbenbueren Achterbahn 01.jpg

  • Nomination Roller coaster „Berg und Tal“ at the funfair Großkirmes Ibbenbüren in Ibbenbüren, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --J.-H. Janßen 19:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Wikijunkie 09:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    I like it, but left side is leaning in and it could all do with sharpening.Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Mattbuck 22:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Matt. Fixable, but 3 three weeks after nomination, a reaction of the nominator could be expected. --Cccefalon 05:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 05:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Luebben Paul Gerhardt Gymnasium 10.jpgEdit

Luebben Paul Gerhardt Gymnasium 10.jpg

  • Nomination Paul-Gerhardt-Gymnasium in Lübben, Brandenburg, Germany --J.-H. Janßen 16:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Wikijunkie 09:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment perspective correction needed. --P e z i 22:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not acceptable for me as QI without perspective correction. --Uoaei1 06:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other --Archaeodontosaurus 15:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A sharpening white line is visible along the roofs, but I think it is acceptable after the perspective correction, which has been done.--Jebulon 14:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The perspective is still not properly done. The building is leaning inwards. --Cccefalon 05:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)~
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 05:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC))

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Wed 16 Apr → Thu 24 Apr
Thu 17 Apr → Fri 25 Apr
Fri 18 Apr → Sat 26 Apr
Sat 19 Apr → Sun 27 Apr
Sun 20 Apr → Mon 28 Apr
Mon 21 Apr → Tue 29 Apr
Tue 22 Apr → Wed 30 Apr
Wed 23 Apr → Thu 01 May
Thu 24 Apr → Fri 02 May
Last modified on 18 April 2014, at 15:55