Last modified on 18 May 2015, at 02:25

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 May 2015 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review processEdit

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

How to ask for consensual reviewEdit

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

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

Consensual review rulesEdit

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

NominationsEdit

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 00:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

May 27, 2015Edit

May 26, 2015Edit

May 25, 2015Edit

May 24, 2015Edit

May 23, 2015Edit

May 22, 2015Edit

May 21, 2015Edit

May 20, 2015Edit

May 19, 2015Edit

May 18, 2015Edit

May 17, 2015Edit

May 16, 2015Edit

Consensual reviewEdit

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".


Consensual ReviewEdit

File:Langwies Ammenegg Rheintal Bodensee.jpgEdit

Langwies Ammenegg Rheintal Bodensee.jpg

  • Nomination Panorama Lake Constance --Böhringer 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC
  • Discussion Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 15:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree, there are IMO two small and one severe stitching problem. See notes. Unconditionally, it needs reprocessing. --Hubertl 15:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Orchis Ustulata.jpgEdit

Orchis Ustulata.jpg

  • Nomination Neotinea ustulata --PetrVod 08:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    *Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. But, I think f/8 or f/11 and ISO200 or ISO400 would give a better DOF and retained quality. Also, it is often helpful to depict the basal leaves, but they are frequently obstructed and the result may not be as pleasing as in this image. --Wsiegmund 16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    *Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good composition but for QI must be a bit more quality IMO. Not sharp, noisy, overexposed and I think to shallow DOF. --Hockei 17:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    **Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good points, but I see no evidence of overexposure in the histogram and stretching the image reveals ample detail is retained on the white petals. Wsiegmund 19:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the inflorescences are out of focus --Llez 10:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Big_Sur_May_2011_panorama.jpgEdit

Big Sur May 2011 panorama.jpg

  • Nomination Panorama of Big Sur, California. --King of Hearts 06:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    There are steps in the horizon (see full resolution). I don´t know, if this is important for QI. So let´s ask the others. --Milseburg 12:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    @Milseburg: Could you clarify whether you meant for this to be a comment or an oppose? I checked and the 16-bit TIFF on my computer does not have posterization. When converted to 8-bit JPEG, even at highest quality, the posterization appears, so unless I upload a 100+ MB file (which is discouraged on Commons) there's no way around the issue. Anyways I don't think it is very visible. --King of Hearts 00:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Probably Milseburg found the "steps" marked by me. I think, they are ineglible regarding the rather high resolution and the naturally low contrast in that areas. -- Smial 11:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Smial marked what I mean. Thank you. I think, it´s a removable little stitching-problem. --Milseburg 11:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Friedhofsmauer (Eppishausen) 02.JPGEdit

Friedhofsmauer (Eppishausen) 02.JPG

  • Nomination Figure of Saint Michael in the cemetery wall and tower, Eppishausen, Landkreis Unterallgäu, Bavaria --Mogadir 06:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support OK, IMHO, given the angle of the camera. Maybe a bit more space needed to the right. --C messier 08:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, composition issue. Distortion could be acceptable, but it needs to be centered. By the way, what about the identification of the CoA ?--Jebulon 19:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Bolshoy_Zelenchuk_river.jpgEdit

Bolshoy Zelenchuk river.jpg

  • Nomination Bolshoy Zelenchuk at fall --Nino Verde 16:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The water at the bottom left looks like a pastel painting. Can you fix it? --C messier 17:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is motion blurred and sharpened. I can try, but it will become less artistic from my point of view --Nino Verde 17:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentIs it better now?--Nino Verde 17:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK. --C messier 18:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Because in the current version has been raised the tone mapping and looks a bit like the dramatic tone filter from Olympus. --C messier 08:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed IMO. Looks unnatural, please discuss.--Jebulon 19:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What exact is unnatural from your point of view? --Nino Verde 05:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sky looks darker than the water reflecting it. -- Smial 12:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good image --Christian Ferrer 11:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed. -- Smial 12:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 11:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Waterbeheersing onderaan de dijk. Locatie, Noarderleech.jpgEdit

Waterbeheersing onderaan de dijk. Locatie, Noarderleech.jpg

  • Nomination Water management at the bottom of the embankment. Location, Noarderleech.
    Famberhorst 15:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Exquisite composition.Perfect quality.--Johann Jaritz 15:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed IMO.--Jebulon 19:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Johann, however I deleted the category : "Water management by country" which must countains only subcategories --Christian Ferrer 11:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I would a bit sharpen, a bit denoise (see water), a bit increase the brightness and give a bit more contrast. --Hockei 17:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 09:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Solenoe_aerial.jpgEdit

Solenoe aerial.jpg

  • Nomination Вид с горы Куцай на Соленое озеро, Петровский район --Nino Verde 15:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 16:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Horizon distorded. Dustspot in the top left part of the sky. To be corrected before promotion, please.--Jebulon 19:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ok, about dust point. Missed it. Do not understand what is wronmg with horizon, it should not be plain in case there are hills. --Nino Verde 05:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment distorion, if there is, is acceptable as there is no buildings here, however it seems tilted on left --Christian Ferrer 11:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You can check trees, they are mostly vertical. I think, that tilt efect come from ground which is not flat. --Nino Verde 14:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perhaps somewhat oversaturated, but all in all acceptable. -- Smial 12:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 09:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Недалеко_до_пика_г._Нинчурт,_вид_на_Сейдозеро,_Рукотворный_сейд.JPGEdit

Недалеко до пика г. Нинчурт, вид на Сейдозеро, Рукотворный сейд.JPG

  • Nomination Seid near the lake Seydozero. By User:Elleelize --Insider 09:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSorry but unsharp,the focus is only on the rocks in the left. --Livioandronico2013 14:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg SupportOf course, it's part of the composition. --Kadellar 15:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeForeground unsharpness (see bottom right) is a deal-breaker for me. --King of Hearts 17:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support. Please don't search for detail sharpness in such compositions, where playing with DoF is part of it. -- Smial 11:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please be serious --Livioandronico2013 18:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 11:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Francois_Hollande_Carcassonne-1089.jpgEdit

Francois Hollande Carcassonne-1089.jpg

  • Nomination The President of the French Republic François Hollande, May 19, 2015 in Carcassonne. Aude - Languedoc Roussillon --Pablo029 14:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentVignetting very sharp in the right corner.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI imo. Vignetting not only caused by lens, also caused by uneven stage light. --Kadellar 14:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough IMO. A discussion is needed, please.--Jebulon 19:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy background. If you clean noise - i'll support it. --Nino Verde 09:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm curious about colours. The face, but also the glasses, the eyes and the hair have a reddish tint, but the clothes and all other areas in that image do have not. Overprocessed, appears like hand-coloured. -- Smial 11:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 09:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Fields Messara plain from Phaistos Crete Greece.jpgEdit

Fields Messara plain from Phaistos Crete Greece.jpg

  • Nomination Fields in the Messara plain, as seen from Phaistos, Crete, Greece.--Jebulon 16:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a QI to me, it lacks detail --Poco a poco 18:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I strongly disagree, it don't lack details. I normaly don't discuss negative votes, but in this case I need other opinions.--Jebulon 20:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support no lack of details and sharp enough --Christian Ferrer 05:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Plants are inherently unsharp. This is far beyond the minimum requirement I have for plants. --King of Hearts 09:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as poco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubertl (talk • contribs) 10:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC) (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK IMHO, sharpness is acceptable. --C messier 16:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For poco --Σπάρτακος 10:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Details lost. May be too agressive noise removal. --Nino Verde 16:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness good enough in 100% view. Lacks a bit contrast. -- Smial 11:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for QI --Milseburg 12:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry,sharpness no good enough in 100% view --Livioandronico2013 18:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 12:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Ferrière-la-Petite, la « voie verte de l'Avesnois » et la Solre.jpgEdit

Ferrière-la-Petite, la « voie verte de l'Avesnois » et la Solre.jpg

  • Nomination La « voie verte de l'Avesnois » et la Solre à Ferrière-la-Petite.- Parc naturel régional de l'Avesnois, dans le Nord.- France.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It´s too dark in some parts. Like most of your pictures. You should think about calibrating your monitor! The picture itself is fine! Are you working with your notebook? --Hubertl 12:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMHO, the clouds are clipped. --C messier 13:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC) </>✓ Done darkness corrected in some areas. Thank you for your encouraging comment. I am working on a tower PC with a CPU I reviewed the parameters of RawTherapee. Maybe is this the better.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment unfortunately not,PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ, you brightened everything, not just the dark areas. C messier: In the first version, the clouds are not clipped at all (about 80%), in the second version, the cloud brightness raised up to 87%. Even that is not clipping --Hubertl 14:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment C messier The photo was taken at midday sun under a 3/4 face (local time 14:21). It is difficult to adjust the brightness and perfect contrast.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 07:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO, the brightest part of the clouds show no structure (brightness was lowered, but information was already lost). According to GIMP, there is a distinct peak at 221, much higher than the rest. Also the part of the sky next to the house has the same brightness with the clouds. --C messier 14:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are two opposite positions, I give a Symbol support vote.svg Support and set it to discuss.--Hubertl 15:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      I agree (to set it to discuss :), clounds and a part of the sky are burned out. A try to recover information just turned them grey. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --C messier 15:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
already voted --Σπάρτακος 10:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Σπάρτακος 10:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but have a look at the top of the trees and the ground vegetation on the left --DKrieger 17:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition, but overprocessed. Wait for a lighting situation, your camera is able to handle. -- Smial 11:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 04:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Central_Park_New_York_May_2015_006.jpgEdit

Central Park New York May 2015 006.jpg

  • Nomination Midtown skyline from Central Park. --King of Hearts 02:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Upper half shows blurry leaves, lower half is sharp. --Lucasbosch 07:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Lucasbosch:: Is it sharp enough at 6 MP? I don't see any significant unsharpness at this resolution. --King of Hearts 01:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak from my side --Hubertl 07:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 08:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 06:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:RhB E-Lok IMG 2512ac.jpgEdit

RhB E-Lok IMG 2512ac.jpg

  • Nomination Electric locomotive typ Ge 6/6 II of the meter gauge Rhaetian Railways entering the station of Bergün Switzerland --CHK46 08:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Billy69150 08:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Really QI? Is it not a bit overexposed at the right? -- Spurzem 20:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yes, it is. --Berthold Werner 07:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Spurzem 18:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 19:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Kvarteret_Toppsockret_May_2015_01.jpgEdit

Kvarteret Toppsockret May 2015 01.jpg

  • Nomination Facade of residential building in Hökarängen. --ArildV 20:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)* Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment has Sweden been visited by Mr. Hundertwasser in his early days? Please look at the lines on the upper side. Looks like an result of an earthquake. --Hubertl 05:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Perharps before Mr. Hundertwasser stopped using a ruler. The horizontal lines are not straight because the building is curved, please compare with this images and the category--ArildV 06:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In this case, this image has been taken just about on meter more from the left, to demonstrate this construction detail. In this case, the picture doesn´t show this special construction. I´m happy to get some more opinions. Basicly, the technic is ok, but the composition is bad and incorrect. --Hubertl 07:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I strongly disagree, the point was to show the design of balconies and windows (not to demostrate the sharp of the building). One out of ten images focusing on different aspects of the building. I therefore dont think this symmetrical composition is bad or wrong. --ArildV 07:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Somewhat dull lighting, but in all other aspects absolutely QI. I really do not understand the decline vote above. -- Smial 09:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The quality is good and photo demonstrate exact what is described. --Nino Verde 15:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 04:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-008.jpgEdit

14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-008.jpg

  • Nomination Flytoget train in Oslo, Norway --Ralf Roletschek 10:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Es schaut im ersten Moment aus, dass der Bahnsteig schief ist, wahrscheinlich ist es auch so wg. einer erhöhten Bahnsteigkante für diesen Zugtyp. enkrechten im Bild. --[[User:Ralf Roletschek|Ralf Roletschek]] 20:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC) I don´t know why this happens, but I promoted this picture on 16th of May. 20:25 UTC. --Hubertl 07:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Do I misunderstand something? But you are qualifying your own nommination!--CHK46 20:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hence moved to discussion -- KlausFoehl 11:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment das war irgendein Editunfall. Ich habe auf die Frage von Hubertl geantwortet, da ist etwas schiefgegangen. --Ralf Roletschek 12:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some barrel distortion, high contrast not well handled, background widely overexposed. In addition the wide angle lens leads to a very unnatural view of the train (composition aspect). -- Smial 09:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Ngayogyakarta-style blangkon, 2015-05-17 01.jpgEdit

Ngayogyakarta-style blangkon, 2015-05-17 01.jpg

  • Nomination Ngayogyakarta-style blangkon, a traditional Javanese hat Crisco 1492 01:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --King of Hearts 02:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see notes, loss of texture in the front (not enough light, maybe), unclear lighting on the left backside. Please see notes. Third opinion appreciated.--Hubertl 04:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    Texture is visible for me (screen calibration?). Will touch up that one edge.Crisco 1492 05:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    I've retouched the gold edge, though in all of the base shots there wasn't all that much texture there. Crisco 1492 05:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Out of date clock icon 2.svg Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 09:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Ngayogyakarta-style blangkon, 2015-05-17 03.jpgEdit

Ngayogyakarta-style blangkon, 2015-05-17 03.jpg

  • Nomination Ngayogyakarta-style blangkon, a traditional Javanese hat Crisco 1492 01:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment stacking problems, see notes. --Hubertl 04:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There's not much detail in the originals, either (and, a side note, I'm using Helicon Focus, not PS).Crisco 1492 05:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC) I don´t know, how the original looks like, but I don´t want to prevent a nomination. I believe, that there are some basic mistakes made during the whole process. --Hubertl 07:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Out of date clock icon 2.svg Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 09:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Kehlsteinhaus Umgebung.JPGEdit

Kehlsteinhaus Umgebung.JPG

  • Nomination "Eagle´s nest" and Alps --Nordenfan 12:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. See notes ;-) --Hubertl 16:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Verry informative and well labeled. But a unfortunate composition. To much sky and no golden cut. You´ve already given the QI award yourself. This is not o.k. --Milseburg 17:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC) * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment und inwieweit habe ich mir den Award selbst gegeben? Bin ich Nordenfan, Milseburg? Ich glaube, du liegst damit jetzt aber gewaltig schief. Ich reagiere immer etwas unwirsch auf solche Anschuldigungen. Nachhaltig.--Hubertl 17:55, 18 May 2015 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, Milseburg, ich hab jetzt erst gesehen, was du gemeint hast. Das ist wirklich sehr eigenwillig, was sich da der Nordenfan gedacht hat.--Hubertl 18:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC) (UTC) Auch sorry, ich hätte deutlicher machen sollen, wen ich anspreche. Selbstredend war Nordenfan gemeint. Das Lob für die Beschriftung geht aber eindeutig an dich, Hubertl. Ich bemerkte eben erst, dass die von dir ist. --Milseburg 19:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, too much empty sky.--Jebulon 21:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 21:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Dome_of_Musei_capitolini.jpgEdit

Dome of Musei capitolini.jpg

  • Nomination Dome of Musei capitolini --Livioandronico2013 13:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can you get the crop symmetrical? It's a bit tighter to the left. --C messier 16:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed in center --Daniel Case 02:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO, the center, although brighter from the rest of the image, due to light I suppose, is not overexposed, (no FFFF, shows structure). Please discuss. --C messier 07:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support no futher comment.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 14:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος 10:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 05:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:CoA_Pius_IX_in_Porta_Portese.jpgEdit

CoA Pius IX in Porta Portese.jpg

  • Nomination CoA Pius IX in Porta Portese --Livioandronico2013 08:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 08:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now. Categorization (done). IMO the perspective does not need such a tilt (to be discussed)) and I would like a geocode, please (not a mandatory, I know).--Jebulon 10:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No, no ... I thought, I not retreat. The perspective is perfect (I hate distortion) is not frontal. Come on guys, what you think? --Livioandronico2013 21:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • you can keep the lateral perspective, which is nice and more interesting than a frontal view (relief), but correcting the horizontal line, which is excessively tilted IMO.--Jebulon 11:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
If is lateral don't need horizontal but lateral adjustment.--Livioandronico2013 14:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand.--Jebulon 20:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMHO for this picture, the perspective is ok, because it is not a frontal shoot. QI is not about interesting composition, we are working with tecnical rules --The Photographer 16:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I don't agree with Photographer. Composition is a very important component of quality. This disturbs me a lot. Since it is almost frontal a correction of horizontal lines is due and even very easy as I guess.--Moroder 21:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me --Σπάρτακος 10:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 05:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Wed 20 May → Thu 28 May
Thu 21 May → Fri 29 May
Fri 22 May → Sat 30 May
Sat 23 May → Sun 31 May
Sun 24 May → Mon 01 Jun
Mon 25 May → Tue 02 Jun
Tue 26 May → Wed 03 Jun
Wed 27 May → Thu 04 Jun
Thu 28 May → Fri 05 Jun