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 December 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]] 04:27, 20 December 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.
The new rule is effective now. Please nominate only a maximum of 5 images per day. [1]

December 20, 2014Edit

December 19, 2014Edit

December 18, 2014Edit

December 17, 2014Edit

December 16, 2014Edit

December 15, 2014Edit

December 14, 2014Edit

December 13, 2014Edit

December 12, 2014Edit

December 11, 2014Edit

December 10, 2014Edit

December 9, 2014Edit

December 8, 2014Edit

December 7, 2014Edit

December 6, 2014Edit

December 4, 2014Edit

November 28, 2014Edit

November 25, 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:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Historyczny_szlak_w_kanionie_rzeki_Psyrccha_(14).jpgEdit

2014 Nowy Aton, Historyczny szlak w kanionie rzeki Psyrccha (14).jpg

  • Nomination History trail in the Psyrtskha river gorge. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 13:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed and blurred --Christian Ferrer 16:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, but I do not agree. We need more opinions. --Halavar 17:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    GA candidate.svg Weak support There are a few overexposed spots, but I know from experience how difficult it is to take a picture of a creek on a sunny day without getting burned areas. Personally, I find the blur attractive. Jakec 01:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course when I talk about blur, I talk about the vegetation and about the river banks, not about the motion blur of the water that is nice. --Christian Ferrer 06:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Christian Ferrer. Ram-Man 13:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-13-helsinki-RalfR-N3S_1312-071.jpgEdit

14-08-13-helsinki-RalfR-N3S 1312-071.jpg

  • Nomination Helsinki, Tallink ferry --Ralf Roletschek 06:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --JLPC 15:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree as long as there is not a correct categorization. "Helsinki/unsortiert" is not complying with commons category system. --Cccefalon 05:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Fixed categories --Msaynevirta 17:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Paide kohtuhoone 2014.JPGEdit

Paide kohtuhoone 2014.JPG

  • Nomination Paide courthouse. Kruusamägi 01:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion I don't like the fringing in the trees, but it's away from the main subject and not distracting. So good enough for QI. --Ram-Man 03:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Notable magenta fringing on the branches in the foreground left side as well as the magenta on the right side. This issue is easy to fix and there is no reason to lower the standards for a quality image. --Cccefalon 08:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong time of the day, the facade should not be in shadow.--Jebulon 21:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Ранкова палітра.jpgEdit

Ранкова палітра.jpg

Very pretty, but very overprocessed. Mattbuck 08:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me, regardless of processing. Is it quality? It is sharp, properly exposed (no overly dark or light areas, no clipping), no noise of note, no CAs of note, no obvious stitching errors, looks good at 100%, has great composition. It's got high value; I can see this being used by a lot of people. Is it saturated? Yes. For me this is the only potential defect. And I'd only oppose if the level of saturation bothered my overall impression (it obviously does for others) or I thought it would make it have low value. -- Ram-Man 21:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I really don´t like these coloured, overprocessed things. --Hubertl 20:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it's time for juries to follow the guidelines. Overprocessed.--Jebulon 21:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Jacobaea maritima20140629 52.jpgEdit

Jacobaea maritima20140629 52.jpg

  • Nomination Inflorescences of Jacobaea maritima. --Bff 14:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please remove the magenta shine (downsized CA) from the background leaves. --Cccefalon 16:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for a QI as is. Ram-Man 13:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jkadavoor 06:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. Very nice photo but it should be possible to reduce the CA before support. -- Spurzem 22:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Laukkasarenkatu.jpgEdit

Laukkasarenkatu.jpg

  • Nomination Laukkasarenkatu, Helsinki. --Óðinn 16:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO too much shadow at the bottom. Another crop would be fine.--XRay 17:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Another crop would be fine, but it's fine uncropped. Cropping lowers value slightly. Ram-Man 13:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --Msaynevirta 17:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose with XRay.--Jebulon 21:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not so disturbing here --Christian Ferrer 03:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Bastioni_Wrede.jpgEdit

Bastioni Wrede.jpg

  • Nomination Bastion Wrede, Suomenlinna, Finland. --Óðinn 01:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 05:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Backlighting leads to overexposure (color shifts) in the sky. Ram-Man 14:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-13-helsinki-RalfR-10.jpgEdit

14-08-13-helsinki-RalfR-10.jpg

  • Nomination Helsinki, market hall --Ralf Roletschek 06:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. Would you PLEASE ;-) so kind and categorize it? --Hubertl 22:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Please add a correct categorization. "Helsinki/unsortiert" is not complying with commons category system. --Cccefalon 20:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --Msaynevirta 17:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective at left to be corrected.--Jebulon 21:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Cráter_Stóri_Grábrók,_Vesturland,_Islandia,_2014-08-15,_DD_089.JPGEdit

Cráter Stóri Grábrók, Vesturland, Islandia, 2014-08-15, DD 089.JPG

  • Nomination Stóri Grábrók crater, Vesturland, Iceland --Poco a poco 12:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lens/perspective distortions. Especially the right side is leaning to the right. --Halavar 12:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Poco a poco 16:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    Better, but still distorsion exist. Right side of the horizon should be raised to the top. --Halavar 00:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version going further with the perspective correction Poco a poco 13:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, but I think others should decide. --Halavar 20:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    You lost me, why that? do you still see any issues? Poco a poco 10:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    There is still the same issue - right side looks unnatural according to use of fish eye lens. There is too much lens/perspective distortions. But that is only my personal opinion. Maybe the image is good. I think CR should be started. --Halavar 12:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is acceptable for me. The areas of primary importance are fine and the other defects are relatively minor. Ram-Man 17:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Detalle_en_Ventana_del_Teatro_Municipal_de_São_Paulo.jpgEdit

Detalle en Ventana del Teatro Municipal de São Paulo.jpg

  • Nomination Detalle en Ventana del Teatro Municipal de São Paulo --Wilfredor 11:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overall good quality but please get the window bars rectilinear. --Cccefalon 11:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)::I cant see any problem. Please See notes --Wilfredor 11:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info I helped you with an annotation to see the problem. --Cccefalon 17:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    I am sorry, i cant underestand how your notes could be a mistake --Wilfredor 18:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    Wilfredor, I cannot believe that you deny that the yellow bar is inclined to the right side?! --Cccefalon 19:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    IMHO The joints of windows is indicating whether or not inclined, not the design. --Wilfredor 10:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    Since we do not know the window bars, we can not assess the linearity as well (I seem not to be all straight). For me it is an excellent photo and therefore QI. --Steindy 18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sure, we do know the layout of the venetian windows. You can for example watch this image. Clearly inclinced. --Cccefalon 14:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Bilder_im_Hofgarten,_München,_Deutschland4.jpgEdit

Bilder im Hofgarten, München, Deutschland4.jpg

  • Nomination Paintings on bavarian history in Hofgarten, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 09:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. It looks like two images in one. Contrast is missing and IMO it is not sharp enough (for example top left). --XRay 17:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    Not really convinced about this one: ✓ new version Poco a poco 09:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 18:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I uploaded a new version with much higher contrast. This would satisfy me. Ram-Man 13:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Derek, I've just uploaded a new version following yours as guide. I think it is better working always out of the RAW, I hope you don't mind. Thank you for your help! Poco a poco 20:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, the painting was and still is better than other versions in this category, and folks can crop the ugly pillars if they want only the painting. –Be..anyone 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This could use an unsharp mask (10%, radius 35 pixels) for localized contrast enhancements beyond simple curves, but it's good enough for me now as is. Ram-Man 12:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:TempleTank.jpgEdit

TempleTank.jpg

  • Nomination A water tank in a temple in Hyderabad, India -- Nikhil 03:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Please remove the magenta CA (see note). --Cccefalon 06:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC) @Cccefalon Sorry for the late reply. I don't know how to correct the CAs. If you find time, can you please go ahead and do it. Thanks in advance. --Nikhil 03:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't see any CA, but it does look a bit posterised. Mattbuck 21:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support This is fine for me. Ram-Man 16:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is the "aberration" a building in the background mostly hidden by the tree? –Be..anyone 04:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Be..anyone, you are right. The light seemingly hidden in the trees (annotated part) is part of a temple in the background. Mattbuck, I only sharpened the image slightly and no manipulation was done. Thanks and cheers! Nikhil 07:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Shearer's_Covered_Bridge_Window_3008px.jpgEdit

Shearer's Covered Bridge Window 3008px.jpg

  • Nomination Covered Bridge Window --Ram-Man 13:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed background. --Steindy 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Covered bridges are naturally lit and it's like taking a picture in a room of a house with only the light from windows. Some overexposure is expected (See a, b, c [QI], d, e). Another opinion please. Ram-Man 15:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Subject clearly clean and sharp, background indifferent.--Livioandronico2013 15:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background essential. Per Steindy.--Jebulon 21:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Зимовий Кукуль.JPGEdit

Зимовий Кукуль.JPG

  • Nomination 11th place in Wiki Loves Earth 2014 (by Хіраш Володимир) –Be..anyone 02:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Very good. --Óðinn 03:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC) It does indeed need perspective correction --Óðinn 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Inappropriate QIC description. WB not done / too much magenta in the trees, perspective not done. --Cccefalon 06:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I think that it is true light making the color of the trees. -- Spurzem 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. Ram-Man 12:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Angel_on_Castel_Sant'Angelo.jpgEdit

Angel on Castel Sant'Angelo.jpg

  • Nomination Angel on Castel Sant'Angelo --Livioandronico2013 22:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed angel, not sharp and lost details. --Steindy 14:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Other please --Livioandronico2013 15:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This looks sharp and good at very large magnifications. The angel looks slightly unsharp at 100%, but that's irrelevant. -- Ram-Man 13:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hm. But isn't the angel the main object (see filename) and therefore should be sharp? --Code 20:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (1) The angel is acceptably sharp at 2ft (0.6m) wide at a viewing distance of 18in (0.45 m) @ 100dpi. That's a very large magnification to look good at, way higher than the 2MP minimum. Any larger magnifications are irrelevant as they depend on very specific usage scenarios. Depth of field (which is just a perceptual measure) varies with magnification (that is, crop and view size), so it makes sense that it does not look that good at 100%. (2) The angel is the main subject, but not the only one. This is not a closeup detail view and should not be evaluated as such. Ram-Man 21:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-13-Helsinki-Kanu-RalfR-N3S_1133-094.jpgEdit

14-08-13-Helsinki-Kanu-RalfR-N3S 1133-094.jpg

  • Nomination Helsinki, Ausflug mit Kanu zur Insel Kalliosaari --Ralf Roletschek 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg SupportHyvä laatu! Vaikka minulla ei ole hajuakaan melonnan Suomessa, suomeksi, mutta minusta loistava. Ole hyvä seuraavan kerran Suomen kuvaus! --Hubertl 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)*Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI disagree: Inapproprate categorization. Backlighing not well handled / unbalanced exposure. --Cccefalon 06:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Cccefalon.--Jebulon 20:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-13-Helsinki-Kanu-RalfR-N3S_1146-102.jpgEdit

14-08-13-Helsinki-Kanu-RalfR-N3S 1146-102.jpg

  • Nomination Helsinki, Ausflug mit Kanu zur Insel Kalliosaari --Ralf Roletschek 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hyvä laatu! Vaikka minulla ei ole hajuakaan melonnan Suomessa, suomeksi, mutta minusta loistava. Ole hyvä seuraavan kerran Suomen kuvaus! --Hubertl 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree: Inapproprate categorization. Backlighing not well handled / unbalanced exposure. --Cccefalon 06:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The overly dark foreground dominates the scene. It might be acceptable in other compositions, but not here. Ram-Man 13:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting effect, looking out of a dark tunnel into the light. The category should be updated. –Be..anyone 03:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted. Bad categorization.--Jebulon 20:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 20:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Castle Combe Circuit MMB 95 Mini 7s and Mini Miglia Championship.jpgEdit

Castle Combe Circuit MMB 95 Mini 7s and Mini Miglia Championship.jpg

  • Nomination Mini racing at Castle Combe. Mattbuck 07:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok --Poco a poco 12:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good! -- Spurzem 12:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC) And Support. -- Spurzem 22:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, you can also make sharp photos in the rain. It would be better to photograph the front of the race, because then the spray of the preceding driven cars would not be seen. So nothing is in focus. --Steindy 14:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    If you only photograph the front of the race you only see the front of the race. That would be a foolish idea. Mattbuck 21:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Why foolish? I can follow Steindys argument pretty well.--Hubertl 22:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good approach to show a race under bad weather conditions, this is well depicted. If CA is removed I'd support it. -- Smial 10:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportI trust in Spurzem, him certainly understands more than me in these photos --Livioandronico2013 11:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course if there is CAs it needs to be corrected, but I do not see it so I support, given the conditions it's a good image. --Christian Ferrer 11:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good. --Ralf Roletschek 09:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB »1E3 Lightning.jpgEdit

London MMB »1E3 Lightning.jpg

  • Nomination Lightning over London. Mattbuck 14:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 21:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Disturbing lens flare, disturbing roof and disturbing spots (see notes). --Steindy 17:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Cleethorpes MMB 15.jpgEdit

Cleethorpes MMB 15.jpg

  • Nomination The sea front at Cleethorpes. Mattbuck 14:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol support vote.svg Support QI -- Spurzem 12:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC) -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)/
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much motion blur. Also the driver is not in focus. --Steindy 17:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp enough for an action shot. Nice composition. -- Smial 10:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Smial --Livioandronico2013 11:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco a poco 18:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Hanoi_Vietnam_Waiting-at-the-red-lights-01.jpgEdit

Hanoi Vietnam Waiting-at-the-red-lights-01.jpg

  • Nomination Hanoi, Vietnam: Motorbiker, waiting at an intersection for the green lights. --Cccefalon 11:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 12:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The helmet is cut above. Also left the trim is too low. The forehead and nose are blurred. --Steindy 20:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a "face shot"; not "head shot", so composition is OK. But what happened to his eyebrow? (I noticed he is less hairy.) Jkadavoor 07:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Jkadavoor, it is as it is. Nothing retouched at his eyebrow. --Cccefalon 09:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
So Symbol support vote.svg Support Jkadavoor 10:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI. --P e z i 12:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 22:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Gyuu-don 001.jpgEdit

Gyuu-don 001.jpg

  • Nomination Yoshinoya Beef Bowl, regular size. --Ocdp 12:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please adjust white balance, it is much too orange now. --Cccefalon 12:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed OK,How is that?--Ocdp 13:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not the best DoF, but IMO it can pass as QI now. --Cccefalon 21:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Still too much orange IMHO, you should go further with the WB correction --Poco a poco 08:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Current version acceptable to me Poco a poco 21:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Retouched again.--Ocdp 10:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    No, not enough. I uploaded a version, that would be QI IMO but I cannot promote it. You can revert if you like, though. I also wanted to show you what I was talking about. The problem may be your monitor, that is perhaps not calibrated Poco a poco 18:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    This is not good. store is not so bright.this is pohtograph, but not gyu-don.写真としてこれで最適化されているのかもしれませんが、実際に店内で目にする牛丼と大きくかけ離れた画像になってしまっています。 Reference Yoshinoya official site
    You can revert if you like. The image I see in the link has also a WB problem, pictures in Internet (professional or not) will not always (or rarely) meet our QI requirements Poco a poco 18:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ram-Man 14:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support current version. The problem may be of artificial light source in the room. Jkadavoor 07:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ FixedAlthough, I think current version is too blight relative to life. so I fixed once again.of cource I adjusted my monitor.--Ocdp (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Poco a poco 08:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Widok_ze_szczytu_Góry_Iwerskiej_(02).jpgEdit

2014 Nowy Aton, Widok ze szczytu Góry Iwerskiej (02).jpg

  • Nomination View from the Iverian Mountain to the city and New Athos Monastery. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 09:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. I like the motif and the composition, but there is really too much noise and IMO too less contrast. --XRay 17:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New development from RAW using a different software. I found a problem with noise. Problem happened when image was converted from RAW to JPEG file. I think that new version of the image is better, without mentioned flaws. --Halavar 12:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, there is less noise. But: Sorry, IMO it looks posterized now.--XRay 16:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 13:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment because Poco a poco asked, I like (04), (05) and (07) better for the monastery, and (06) for the overview. –Be..anyone 22:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Widok_ze_szczytu_Góry_Iwerskiej_(01).jpgEdit

2014 Nowy Aton, Widok ze szczytu Góry Iwerskiej (01).jpg

  • Nomination View from the peak of Iverian Mountain. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 09:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same here. Insufficient quality. Sorry. I like the motif and the composition, but there is really too much noise and IMO too less contrast. --XRay 17:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New development from RAW using a different software. I found a problem with noise. Problem happened when image was converted from RAW to JPEG file. I think that new version of the image is better, without mentioned flaws. --Halavar 11:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's better now but IMO details are missing now.--XRay 16:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes? XRay 11:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Interior_of_Municipal_Teatro_of_São_Paulo.jpgEdit

Interior of Municipal Teatro of São Paulo.jpg

  • Nomination Interior of Municipal Teatro of São Paulo --Wilfredor 11:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Green and purple CAs at the windows to the left. --C messier 16:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC), thanks, could you add notes please? --Wilfredor 11:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose  Not done --C messier 18:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    I can not detect any CAs also at 150% magnification. Let us discuss. --Steindy 18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, as critcised there are some small visible artifacts in the stained glass windows, but in 100% view they are not really disturbing. QI for me. Difficult lighting situation very well handled, colors look naturally. -- Smial 11:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image is very good but as C messier already mentioned, there is a disturbing magenta CA at the left door opening rod. Can be easily fixed and I will happily provide my support then. --Cccefalon 14:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 23:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Baños_Romanos,_Bath,_Inglaterra,_2014-08-12,_DD_18.JPGEdit

Baños Romanos, Bath, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 18.JPG

  • Nomination Roman Baths, Bath, England --Poco a poco 09:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO it's overprocessed/oversharpened. --XRay 17:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    I do not see any parts granular. I see only motion blur in people and that is normal in available light. --Steindy 18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support despite the critical situation, were there are no lights at the visitors by design, its QI for me.--Hubertl 13:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Left_side_chapel_of_Santa_Maria_sopra_Minerva.jpgEdit

Left side chapel of Santa Maria sopra Minerva.jpg

  • Nomination Left side chapel of Santa Maria sopra Minerva --Livioandronico2013 14:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO the center is too bright.--XRay 06:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done thanks for review XRay--Livioandronico2013 15:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. It's much better. --XRay 17:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The photo is unevenly illuminated by the flash or welding launcher, which is clearly seen in the paintings. Likewise, the cloth on the altar, where all the details were lost. --Steindy 19:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Steindy.--Jebulon 20:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 20:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Frescoes_of_the_roof_of_the_church_of_Santa_Maria_sopra_Minerva.jpgEdit

Frescoes of the roof of the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva.jpg

  • Nomination Frescoes of the roof of the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva --Livioandronico2013 13:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. DoF could be better. Light at the right is a little bit disturbing. --XRay 06:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavy disturbing spotlight on the right side. --Steindy 19:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Steindy.--Jebulon 20:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 20:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Koi_Feeding_in_Mt_Qingxiu_Nanning_Close.JPGEdit

Koi Feeding in Mt Qingxiu Nanning Close.JPG

  • Nomination Koi Feeding --Ram-Man 01:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. But creepy in a way. Aren´t there too many of them in this basin? --Hubertl 10:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    See here. Ram-Man 18:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting shot, I like both the composition and the subject, but not sure whether it is a QI, I miss sharpness --Poco a poco 17:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do realize that it is difficult to set focus on water, but here is me too much blurring in the area. --Steindy 20:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    It's water. Water, especially disturbed water, is generally soft, not sharp, as it refracts light. Note that the FP of Koi has similar issues, albeit with better composition and lighting. Ram-Man 20:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 22:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Msaynevirta 17:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Msaynevirta 17:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Balaton Lake - small boat.JPGEdit

Balaton Lake - small boat.JPG

  • Nomination Balaton, Hungary - boat --Pudelek 10:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment WB-Problem. Everything is just blue... --Hubertl 00:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor color balance. To bluish. Have a look on the sail and the boat. There is no white to see. --Steindy 20:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 22:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    With all due respect, asking for clearing the white balance is not just a matter of taste, it´s something really basic and essential! --Hubertl 17:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Its really easy to fix it. I tried it with LR and its getting really better! --Hubertl 23:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Hubertl.--Jebulon 20:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 20:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Amanhecer no Hercules --.jpgEdit

Amanhecer no Hercules --.jpg

  • Nomination 2nd price on Wiki Loves Earth 2014 (by Carlos Perez Couto) –Be..anyone 04:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Though it is a stunning motif, it does not comply with QI criterions: Notable magenta fringes (fixable) and blown out sky (not fixable). --Cccefalon 06:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support blown out sky dont disturb. --Ralf Roletschek 16:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The overexposure is marginal and therefore acceptable IMHO but the CA shall be fixed and there is lack of sharpness, Poco a poco 09:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Yes, there is a strong CA, but the photo still impressed me with his great composition and beautiful colors. --Steindy 20:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Cccefalon --Livioandronico2013 22:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support With all due respect, but sometimes we should give an extraordinary impression the primacy adverse to some (almost not avoidable) technical lapses.--Hubertl 00:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per Hubertl. The sky is fine. This is an example of a blown sky that's correct exposure. Ram-Man 02:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I really do not understand, why a stunning motif is justifying chromatic aberrations which are easy to fix. And I noticed that for some of the reviewers it is anyway, if the descriptions is bullshit. " 2nd price on Wiki Loves Earth 2014" is an effrontery which wants to insinuate, that this motif must be QI because it got awarded in WLE. More cheeky is, that Be..anyone did this despite the fact, that I already gave this hint before in previous reviews. --Cccefalon 06:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    It's not that complicated: I don't normally consider CAs to be important at all. Perhaps you could fix the CAs? The exposure is fine and the only issue is the blurry foreground element which isn't that distracting. -- Ram-Man 12:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    It's actually trivial, I just nominated all WLE 2014 winners that did not already have some QI or better tag with a hint what it's about. That was in the first batch of five, and reviewers such as Cccefalon are supposed to check the description on the page, the minimal note of the nominator is irrelevant. As it happens I actually like this one as is. Modifying winners after the fact is ingenious. –Be..anyone 18:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is no way that we lower the bar of QI requirements because it is a stunning shot. That can be done in FP, but not here. CA and the sharpness problem issues make me regretly oppose Poco a poco 18:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support CA fixed --Wilfredor 23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -Wilfredor, when you upload a new version, you cannot vote any more. --Cccefalon 09:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I considered that this was an automated fix minor (one click lightroom). However, you're right, my vote is invalid, thank you very much for the warning. --Wilfredor 11:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Penalizing someone for helping out? The vote should still be valid, especially in CR where everyone's opinions matter. If the person who modified it loses a vote, then the original nominator should gain the vote. Ram-Man 12:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Repairing some technical problems has nothing to do with the original, creative work. In my opinion. --Hubertl 03:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposers. --P e z i 12:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The author is not participating here;may not good enough in editing too. So someone should fix if issues are minor (as already done now). Jkadavoor 16:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 21:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2011_Dubrownik,_Widok_na_morze_z_tarasu_widokowego_(03).jpgEdit

2011 Dubrownik, Widok na morze z tarasu widokowego (03).jpg

  • Nomination Sea view from the observation deck in the district of Boninovo. Dubrovnik, Dubrovnik-Neretva County, Croatia. --Halavar 09:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sure I can see anything in focus. Mattbuck 21:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nothing in focus? You can see detail in the tiny boats at 100%. This is f/9 @ 28mm. There is tons of depth of field here. --Ram-Man 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    And yet there is nothing which is sharp. Mattbuck 18:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Matt on this one. The camera settings look okay but probably the denoising was too strong and the detail is gone Poco a poco 09:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Matt, yet I think it’s not a focus problem but post-processing (for me it’s the typical denoising smear). Lack of detail anyway. Horizon is curved btw. --Kreuzschnabel 10:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Park_nadmorski_(02).jpgEdit

2014 Nowy Aton, Park nadmorski (02).jpg

  • Nomination Seaside park. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 09:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. I'm really sorry. Nice image but nothing is sharp and too much noise. Please check your camera and your image processing. With ISO 200 it's nearly impossible to produce noisy pictures like this. And if the lens work's fine it should be sharp. --XRay 17:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New development from RAW using a different software. I found a problem with noise. Problem happened when image was converted from RAW to JPEG file. I think that new version of the image is better, without mentioned flaws. --Halavar 02:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, there is no noise. But IMO there is too much noise reduction so the details has gone. There is nothing sharp. Sorry.--XRay 16:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014 Nowy Aton, Widok ze szczytu Góry Iwerskiej (03).jpgEdit

2014 Nowy Aton, Widok ze szczytu Góry Iwerskiej (03).jpg

  • Nomination View from the Iverian Mountain to the New Athos Monastery. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 10:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. ISO 200 should be good enough, but it's soft and moisy and contrast is missing. --XRay 17:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New development from RAW using a different software. I think that new version of the image is better, without mentioned flaws. --Halavar 02:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's better, but it looks posterized. Looking for another opinion ...--XRay 16:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice view but oversharpened and posterized. The main subject looks unnatural, rather like a waterpainting. --Kreuzschnabel 10:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Kress Building in Lubbock.JPGEdit

Kress Building in Lubbock.JPG

  • Nomination Kress Building, Lubbock, TX --Fredlyfish4 23:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted CCW, needs perspective correction. --C messier 16:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it dont need any correction. --Ralf Roletschek 13:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, please discuss. --C messier 14:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per C messier --Cccefalon 08:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective correction needed.--Jebulon 20:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Plaża_i_Góra_Anakopia_(02).jpgEdit

2014 Nowy Aton, Plaża i Góra Anakopia (02).jpg

  • Nomination The beach and Iverian Mountain. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 11:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO too unsharp. --XRay 06:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New development from RAW using a different software. I think that new version of the image is better. --Halavar 02:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's much better. I would choose another crop with less water and less sky.--XRay 17:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Park_nadmorski_(06).jpgEdit

2014 Nowy Aton, Park nadmorski (06).jpg

  • Nomination Café "Swan". Seaside park. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia, Georgia. --Halavar 10:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Soft. Pleclown 11:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done New version upoloaded with more contrast and sharpness mask. --Halavar 13:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Still soft IMO, albeity now a bit noisier. Mattbuck 21:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
        • ✓ Done New development from RAW using a different software. I found a problem with noise. Problem happened when image was converted from RAW to JPEG file. I think that new version of the image is better. --Halavar 01:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-12-helsinki-RalfR-N3S_0825-405.jpgEdit

14-08-12-helsinki-RalfR-N3S 0825-405.jpg

  • Nomination Helsinki, Katajanokkanluoto --Ralf Roletschek 17:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 17:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong magenta CA on the building. Also, there is a problem with sharpness level. --Halavar 17:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some CA, and motion blur in vertical direction. Very nice composition, though. -- Smial 10:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Smial. Ram-Man 13:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Category "Helsinki/unsortiert" is not complying with commons category system. --Cccefalon 21:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Tunnel_View_Yosemite_August_2013_panorama.jpgEdit

Tunnel View Yosemite August 2013 panorama.jpg

  • Nomination Tunnel View at sunrise. --King of Hearts 06:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment HAlf of the image looks only black on my monitor!?--Moroder 00:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    Brightened with curves. --King of Hearts 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd like someone else to review this image --Moroder 18:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Shadows are always strong before the first sun rays, it's widely ok here and the mood is well captured. However I will be tempted to decline for the burned out sky --Christian Ferrer 06:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    The sun was already in the sky, visible; I don't think it is possible or even natural for it to not be burned out. --King of Hearts 20:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Is there the sun on the image? if so I can not make the sun in the sky and if not the sky is overexposed. --Christian Ferrer 21:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support for me. Mattbuck 22:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm not experienced enough to judge correctly, in any cases, a nice image. :) --Christian Ferrer 05:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Its posterized, the foreground is unnecessarely dark. No QI for me, even when the mood is pleasent. I tried to fix it, with the original raw file it would be possible. --Hubertl 13:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Hubertl. This is just such an extreme dynamic range that nothing works. It might be better as a black and white as the color does nothing for the image. Ram-Man 13:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others, Poco a poco 08:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:141115 Hyogo prefectural Ako Seaside Park Japan19n.jpgEdit

141115 Hyogo prefectural Ako Seaside Park Japan19n.jpg

  • Nomination Ako Seaside Park --663highland 09:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Perspective needs to be corrected on the right side. --Cayambe 13:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)  Not done --Christian Ferrer 16:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    it dont need any distortion. --Ralf Roletschek 13:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - the house and the pavillions on the right are leaning. --Óðinn 20:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support works for me. Ram-Man 13:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose perspective not done --Cccefalon 08:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Kapelle Mariaberg.jpgEdit

Kapelle Mariaberg.jpg

  • Nomination Chapel on the hill Mariaberg in Kempten (Allgäu), Germany --CHK46 17:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noticable CA, perspective issues. Mattbuck 21:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Mattbuck ,  Not done within grace period. --Cccefalon 09:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it dont need distortion. --Ralf Roletschek 13:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With Mattbuck.--Jebulon 23:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Horse December 2014-3.jpgEdit

Horse December 2014-3.jpg

  • Nomination A Lusitano horse. Porto Covo, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Eye fully lost in shadow. --Jkadavoor 17:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes that is true, but is that enough reason for declining? A second opinion, please. Alvesgaspar 10:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe not FP, but definitely QI IMO. --Code 12:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Il n'a pas l'air en bonne santé ton cheval...--Jebulon 21:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Je crois qu'il a trôp mangé!... Alvesgaspar 22:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Its fixable with LR. I tried it. Would be a pity, if this picture will not QI, only because of this repairable shadow.--Hubertl 15:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have no complaints with the horse but the red door is leaning out. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good as is. Ram-Man 13:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Cerkiew_św._Szymona_Apostoła_(07).jpgEdit

2014 Nowy Aton, Cerkiew św. Szymona Apostoła (07).jpg

  • Nomination St. Simon the Canaanite church. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 11:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO there is too much noise and noise fragments. --XRay 11:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New fixed version uploaded. I made noise reduction. --Halavar 15:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed. Masking errors all around the denoised (blurred) sky, still noise in many other parts of the image. How can this happen with a DSLR set to only ISO200? -- Smial 01:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That is a good question. In thousands images from this trip I have a noise like this (with ISO 200 or even 100). Maybe there is some kind of problem when I convert images from RAW to JPEG. Or maybe I have a broken camera. I don't know. --Halavar 13:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have the same camera and I also notice that the pictures are quite noisy when using a higher ISO than 100. That seems to be a problem of the EOS 500D. However, it can in most cases be easily fixed with lightroom. Regarding the picture itself I stay Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral because I think the main subject is a little bit out of focus (the focus seems to be on the wall and the green railing in the foreground). The noise level seems to be acceptable to me right now. --Code 06:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New development from RAW using a different software. I found a problem with noise. Problem happened when image was converted from RAW to JPEG file. I think that new version of the image is better. --Halavar 01:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, it's fine. w:en:dcraw still says 9.20, but I found a 9.22 some weeks ago. –Be..anyone 03:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok now. -- Smial 12:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Smial. --Hubertl 15:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK now. --XRay 17:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Poco a poco 08:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Haltern_am_See,_Hullern,_St.-Andreas-Kirche_--_2014_--_3237.jpgEdit

Haltern am See, Hullern, St.-Andreas-Kirche -- 2014 -- 3237.jpg

  • Nomination Church of Saint Andreas in Hullern, Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry ,the church is good but the sky is burn out --Livioandronico2013 09:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Thanks. Lights in sky are fixed.--XRay 11:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support Mmm...i'm not very sure,is better wait for other opinions --Livioandronico2013 14:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support The sky has color distortions that look worse in small thumbnails than at larger magnifications. I normally oppose this type of technical issue. Borderline case for me, but I think just good enough. -- Ram-Man 13:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The sky in the original is simply gray without details. There is very slight overexposure, but no disturbing colour change by clipping. Simply light gray, sky sometimes looks like this. Upper right corner has some artifacts by some unsufficiant overpainted disturbing leaves. These errors were massively reinforced by the processing. Also the contrast increase in the sky created completely wrong colours. It is total mystery to me why such a rape is required, performed and then be approved. Weia. -- Smial 01:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC) (i'd support the first version, it's not a great image, but completely acceptable.)
  • ✓ Fixed Sorry, I assumed it was a cloud top right ... I haven't seen my own correction. Now it's fixed.--XRay 06:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ich würde lieber auf das QI-Bapperl verzichten, statt wegen einiger kurioser Beurteilungen meine Bilder zu verhunzen. -- Smial 10:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Ps.: Das Rausstempeln ist jetzt durchaus gelungen.
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Das nehme ich mal mit einem wohlwollenden Lächeln auf. Die Kritik ist sehrwohl meistens - also auch meiner Meinung nach nicht immer - durchaus berechtigt. (Aber du hast recht, in der Vergangenheit gab es schon einmal Bilder, die mir hinterher nicht mehr gefallen haben, auch wenn es nur eine Handvoll war. Das ist aber schon ein paar Wochen her.)--XRay 17:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Limburg_an_der_Lahn-Dietkirchen-St_Lubentius_von_Osten-20120715.jpgEdit

Limburg an der Lahn-Dietkirchen-St Lubentius von Osten-20120715.jpg

  • Nomination At least a quality image: the church St Lubentius in Limburg an der Lahn, Germany --Nattr 00:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 06:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Notable magenta CA at the left side / in the tree. Fixable. But please remove the inappropriate description "At least a QI". --Cccefalon 11:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The CA is somewhat disturbing. But it is of course also visble at the right side, and it is green/red (in opposite of blue/yellow CA)  ;-) -- Smial 01:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA, not a QI.--Jebulon 21:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Shvetsova_Street_SPB_01.jpgEdit

Shvetsova Street SPB 01.jpg

  • Nomination Shvetsova Street in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 09:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Left crop should be improved IMHO (get rid of the piece of car and scaffolding) Poco a poco 14:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC) I don't think it's a big problem (symmetry would be broken). --Florstein 17:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • What about cropping both sides? (see note with proposal) Poco a poco 18:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    А можно и просто с левой стороны фото обрезать - по мне симметрия не столь важна для QI (снимают же улицы несимметрично). en: I think we can crop the photo only on the left side; for me, symmetry is not the main factor for QI. --Brateevsky 11:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    Brateevsky, мне бы хотелось сохранить и симметрию, и детали. У меня иногда при съёмке улиц (и станций метро) присутствует симметрия как фишка, так что в данном случае это важно. I'd wanted to keep the symmetry (as a shtick), saving maximum of details. May be let's ask the society (is scaffolding so dreadful)? --Florstein 20:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not very disturbing --Christian Ferrer 20:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support crop would be better, but it's not critical for a QI. Ram-Man 13:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Ibis_escarlata_(Eudocimus_ruber),_Tierpark_Hellabrunn,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2012-06-17,_DD_01.JPGEdit

Ibis escarlata (Eudocimus ruber), Tierpark Hellabrunn, Múnich, Alemania, 2012-06-17, DD 01.JPG

  • Nomination Scarlet Ibis (Eudocimus ruber), Tierpark Hellabrunn, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 09:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 10:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose blurred back of the bird --Christian Ferrer 19:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the lights and expression on face; but per Christian. It seems some motion at tail end. Jkadavoor 07:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Poco a poco 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Fri 12 Dec → Sat 20 Dec
Sat 13 Dec → Sun 21 Dec
Sun 14 Dec → Mon 22 Dec
Mon 15 Dec → Tue 23 Dec
Tue 16 Dec → Wed 24 Dec
Wed 17 Dec → Thu 25 Dec
Thu 18 Dec → Fri 26 Dec
Fri 19 Dec → Sat 27 Dec
Sat 20 Dec → Sun 28 Dec