Last modified on 23 September 2014, at 23:18

Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list


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]] 23:20, 23 September 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.

September 23, 2014Edit

September 22, 2014Edit

September 21, 2014Edit

September 20, 2014Edit

September 19, 2014Edit

September 18, 2014Edit

September 17, 2014Edit

September 16, 2014Edit

September 15, 2014Edit

September 14, 2014Edit

September 13, 2014Edit

September 12, 2014Edit

September 11, 2014Edit

September 10, 2014Edit

September 9, 2014Edit

September 8, 2014Edit

September 7, 2014Edit

September 5, 2014Edit

September 4, 2014Edit

August 31, 2014Edit

August 29, 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:Forchtenstein - Pfarrkirche Maria Himmelfahrt (18).jpgEdit

Forchtenstein - Pfarrkirche Maria Himmelfahrt (18).jpg

  • Nomination Stained-glass-window from Rudolf Nagl in the parish-church Maria Himmelfahrt in Forchtenstein (Austria. --Steindy 19:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Perspective, see comments on file --Steinsplitter 06:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Aachen_Germany_Domschatz_Three-tower-reliquary-01.jpgEdit

Aachen Germany Domschatz Three-tower-reliquary-01.jpg

  • Nomination Three tower reliquary, Treasury of the Imeprial Cathedral, Aachen --Cccefalon 03:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. It's behind glass, I know. In this case it is IMO acceptable. --XRay 15:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree mirror effects are disturbing and there is motion blur at the bottom --MB-one 01:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Butterfly_at_Surat.jpgEdit

Butterfly at Surat.jpg

  • Nomination Butterfly --Yndesai 10:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support. Nice and very good -- Spurzem 11:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment propper taxa missing, frameing like this is not endorsesed. Is that motion blur on the wings?--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 11:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment File Updated and removed the frame. Blur is due to very small depth of field. Yndesai 12:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNot really enough DOF unfortunately. Also very noisy, from over sharpening maybe? -- KTC 14:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, poor quality IMO, chromatic aberrations, oversharpened, I don't know if there is noise or a lot of jpg artifacts. Poor quality IMO--Lmbuga 23:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Bell_206B_Jet_Ranger_III_September_2014_01.jpgEdit

Bell 206B Jet Ranger III September 2014 01.jpg

  • Nomination Bell 206B Jet Ranger III at Jungfrusund, Ekerö. --ArildV 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Really ought to capture the whole rotor I think. Sorry -- KTC 14:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC) I strongly disagree! A intentional close-up. Not every photo has to show everything. A photo of window are not a "low quality images" because it not capture the whole building. I dont understand this review at all--ArildV 15:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Quiet people, we are not here to fight. For me it's QI. Anyway I think that KTC meant the wings (the rotor is all about them), but there is the discuss for this, peace & love Clin --Livioandronico2013 16:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    It was merely an opinion. Personally, if it were an intentional close-up, I would had expected to be cropped tighter. But of course, others may and does disagree. More than happy to see what others think at CR. :) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No hard feelings at all Clin. Of course, I respect KTC opinions but I was surprised. The picture is taken with maximum zoom (200mm), of course it can be be cropped afterwards. But personally I see no reason. The vertical crop is already tight, and I like the non-centered composition (which makes the picture a little more exciting, even if the movement is deliberately frozen here). In my personal opinion is this discussion about a matter of taste, both the image with my crop and the image with a tighter crop (as suggested) is a Quality image. Regards--ArildV 18:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Ok,no harm done Smile --Livioandronico2013 18:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Big dust spot (see note)--Lmbuga 22:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done Thank for note--ArildV 07:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportQI to me --DKrieger 21:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMO. Sorry, I like the composition. A bit of noise--Lmbuga 22:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Maracujá em fundo preto (2).JPGEdit

Maracujá em fundo preto (2).JPG

  • Nomination Passion fruit (Passiflora edulis var. flavicarpa) in black background - Rodrigo.Argenton 04:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion DoF too shallow - only the half fruit in the foreground is sharp. It would be great, to repeat that compo with other settings or with focus stacking. --Cccefalon 06:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC). This is a f/11, I can't be more sharp, if I up to f/22 the photo gonna be less sharp but with a better DoF, and the idea was be a background element, but ok. Rodrigo.Argenton 08:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    You are right about the f/11, more won't help. Only more focal distance or focus stacking would help. For a background element, it probably should be a little bit distant from the foreground element. What about sending to CR? There might be other opinions about a studio shot of fruits. --Cccefalon 08:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC) User:Cccefalon Thanks, this composition, with my equipment, only two photos and PS :D. Actually I'm using this space here as this: Commons:Photography critiques, cause no one answers there, and in the lab also... what is CR? Rodrigo.Argenton 09:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    CR means Consensual Review. Simply change the /Decline in this text to /Discuss and you will see a yellow outline. The day after, the QIC-bot transfers your nomination automatically to the CR section. --Cccefalon 09:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Well I changed not because I don't believe or give a credit to your opinion, but as you suggested and I'm here to listening opinions (and more can be better), CR could be useful, thank you. --Rodrigo.Argenton 16:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good one. Though it is possible to reach nearly infinite DOF by focus stacking, it is absolutely not necessary for every and any QI. Infinite DOF may be demanded for a featured picture to get enough WOW. This image shows a very nice, natural looking perspective, good colours, good lighting, good composition and good sharpness. -- Smial 13:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Prinzipalmarkt_--_2014_--_6859.jpgEdit

Münster, Prinzipalmarkt -- 2014 -- 6859.jpg

  • Nomination Prinzipalmarkt, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 05:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sky overexposed --MB-one 20:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed IMO it's fixed now. Please have a look to the new images. Thank you.--XRay 07:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Amiens_France_Rue-du-Don-01.jpgEdit

Amiens France Rue-du-Don-01.jpg

  • Nomination Amiens, France: Colours of "Rue du Don" --Cccefalon 04:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Too shallow DoF IMHO Poco a poco 09:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentErm, I thought, it is obvious, that I did this on purpose. This compo consist almost of vertical, coloured bands which are fading away to the background. It was my intention to focus on the first yellow band, using maximum aperture. for the same reason, I named the image "Colours of Rue du Don" --Cccefalon 12:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Well, fine with me, but is it then a QI? Not sure Poco a poco 22:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, poor DOF, f/5,6 is not sufficient here, to QI, IMO. If it's an artistic picture, perhaps FP is a better option--Lmbuga 00:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    It would be quite interesting to hear, if artistic depictions are generally excluded from QI assessment. --Cccefalon 05:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sometimes the artistic fact means low quality IMO. It's not QI for me, but it can be for yourself or others--Lmbuga 23:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a matter of taste. The small DOF is obviously intended and in technical aspects well done. Though I would have chosen to set the focus according to the rule of thirds, not to the facade on the far left margin. -- Smial 13:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I see what you meant to do, and it was definitely worth trying to see how it would turn out. In this case, though, I don't think the line of doorways regresses into the background deeply enough – they go more across the image rather than into it, and my eye expects to see detail across the board. Kbh3rd 17:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Moscow Grand Kremlin Palace4.jpgEdit

Moscow Grand Kremlin Palace4.jpg

  • Nomination Grand Kremlin Palace in Moscow, Russia (by Ludvig14) --A.Savin 12:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 12:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Ralf, do you like now "distorted" buildings ? I don't, sorry. It needs a discussion IMO.--Jebulon 17:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Its totaly distortet, ist a panorama. --Ralf Roletschek 15:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Nepomuk-Statue am Kahlenberg in Wien.jpgEdit

Nepomuk-Statue am Kahlenberg in Wien.jpg

  • Nomination statue of Johannes Nepomuk at Nussberg, Vienna --Mariofan13 09:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient categorization (meaning: no valid categorization). I haven't checked for photographic issues, might be, there is more to complain.. --Cccefalon 09:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, but we're at Quality Image candidates, not at quality category candidates. The category dropdown didn't show a category for Johann Nepomuk at Nussberg, Vienna, so the other option was to upload without any category. Please discuss the Quality of the image Mariofan13 10:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please read our QIC guidelines and find out, that correct categorization is an essential part to make a nomination eligible. If there is no suitable categorization present, create one. If you are not capable how to do that, ask someone or read the appropriate help page. --Cccefalon 10:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    I added a category for the image. Is it okay now? Mariofan13 10:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment While the categorization is fine now, there are photographic issues present: It is too dark in the shadows and too noisy IMO. I'm not sure, if it is fixable, as the ISO rating is already 800. --Cccefalon 09:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting statue, but it looks very dark, and the upper crop is too tight: the composition is unbalanced to me. I'm afraid the noise is too strong. Please notice that I agree 100% with Cccefalon about need of categorization.--Jebulon 14:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The problem is that the statue is overexposed if the background is lighter, look this file Mariofan13 16:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

File:A_View_of_Uetersen_Rosarium_HP_16622_edit.jpgEdit

A View of Uetersen Rosarium HP 16622 edit.jpg

  • Nomination A view of the Uetersen Rosarium. --Alchemist-hp 22:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am very sorry that this cannot be a QI: The foreground, which is representing the main compositorial idea, is out of focus (not fixable). A fixable error would have been, that the photo is tilted (check background structures). --Cccefalon 08:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    The "main" is the background for me, not the slightly unsharp foreground! And the background isn't tilted, because it is a slightly perspektive view (a 100% centered perspektive wasn't possibly). --Alchemist-hp 08:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good composition, good colours, main object sharp and the others sharp enough. I see no lack. QI for me. -- Spurzem 15:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Spurzem --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 21:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Emile_robin_1.jpgEdit

Emile robin 1.jpg

  • Nomination The lifeboat Emile Robin in Hvide Sande --Villy Fink Isaksen 19:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • It is too dark IMO, could you brighten it up a bit? Consider increasing the contrast. -- Slaunger 14:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Villy Fink Isaksen 18:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC).
    Villy Fink Isaksen: Hmmm... That was a very subtle lightening up. I can hardly see the difference:) Not sure it helped enough, sorry. Another thing, which I just noticed now: Please crop a bit to the right to get rid of the partially visible stone and car. -- Slaunger 05:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New cropped and more light Villy Fink Isaksen 14:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    The new version had problems with noise in the shadow-lifted parts. Since then Villy and I have communicated forth and back, and I have demonstrated how I believe the image could be improved in a Lightroom workflow. Villy has now uploaded my edit. But now I am not impartial any longer, so I think we should let an uninvolved party review the new edit. -- Slaunger 10:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support ok IMO --Christian Ferrer 05:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me --DKrieger 20:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 15:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

File:13-05-24-wien-RalfR-136.jpgEdit

13-05-24-wien-RalfR-136.jpg

  • Nomination statue of Heracles at Hofburg Wien, Austria --Ralf Roletschek 14:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Name of the file and description in the file page are not good (as usual), but the picture itself is not a technical QI neither. The cropped roof of the car (?) is a no go, some parts are overexposed, the picture is tilted and needs a serious perspective correction.--Jebulon 15:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. An unrealistic modification of perspective would destroy the image. Pleas discuss. -- Spurzem 17:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    Again and again, you don't vote for a picture, but in order to make a point against the guidelines. That's unacceptable. Please stop this.--Jebulon 19:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry Spurzem but for me Jebulon have right. Especially in this case, no offense to Ralf Roletschek --Livioandronico2013 19:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Jebulon. And: DFTT. --Cccefalon 06:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The part of the car, description arent problems. but i dont distort my photos. and the name is absoluteley unimportant. --Ralf Roletschek 10:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
So, if nothing is a problem, or/and nothing important, tag your pics with the QI seal by yourself...--Jebulon 16:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I see no lack against QI -- Spurzem 12:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Essentially per Jebulon, although I do not have an issue with the file name. The file is not misleading and its main purpose is to serve as a unique identifier. -- Slaunger 15:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Of course.--Jebulon 16:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tilting it 3° to the left will make it look straigtER and the car's roof is out of the way. Will be QI for me then.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 18:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, colour channel clipping in essential areas, tilt, perspective. Too many faults. -- Smial 23:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info new version --Ralf Roletschek 09:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

File:FIS_Sommer_Grand_Prix_2014_-_20140809_-_Tom_Hilde_2.jpgEdit

FIS Sommer Grand Prix 2014 - 20140809 - Tom Hilde 2.jpg

  • Nomination FIS Sommer Grand Prix 2014 - 20140809 - Tom Hilde --Pleclown 11:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why 1/1,000 sec (0.001) and only f/3.2? Random picture?--Lmbuga 23:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd suggest to clone out the pimple, as it is not an immutable characteristic and very distracting. @Lmbuga: I have no problem with f/3.2 as it leads to nice blurring of the background. DOF is ok. -- Smial 23:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I respect your opinion, but I'm not agree (see two notes as example). Poor DOF to QI IMO. Chromatic noise (see note)--Lmbuga 23:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Lmbuga: Because the light was not so good, and that the jumpers where not posing and moving a lot. Pleclown 17:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Geneva_Rugby_Cup_-_20140808_-_SF_vs_LOU_-_Jonathan_Danty_1.jpgEdit

Geneva Rugby Cup - 20140808 - SF vs LOU - Jonathan Danty 1.jpg

  • Nomination Geneva Rugby Cup - 20140808 - SF vs LOU - Jonathan Danty --Pleclown 11:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    Ok if the chromatic noise is removed Poco a poco 21:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chromatic noise. DOF and noise (f/2.8, ISO 3,200, 1/500 sec). --Lmbuga 23:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this one. There is noise which is only visible if you zoom to 100% and look for it. DOF is fine; his eyes are very sharp which is the only thing that matters for a people subject. Lewis Collard 02:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Should we review the images with a zoom of 20%, 40%, 60%...? Please teach me how I should review images. Thumbail of the picture?--Lmbuga 23:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image is very good, but chroma noise is indeed really high. I'm using the same camera but usually have much lesser noise, see e.g. here. @Pleclown: which raw developing tool are you using? -- Smial 23:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Smial: I'm using Darktable. Pleclown 17:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Levisham railway station MMB 05 45407.jpgEdit

Levisham railway station MMB 05 45407.jpg

  • Nomination 45407 at Levisham. Mattbuck 06:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality, but the person in the foreground is disturbing. But still QI imo.--ArildV 10:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry. But the person is very disturbing and the image is too dark. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 13:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 17:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the person is very disturbing --Livioandronico2013 10:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. -- Spurzem 12:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

File:St_Pancras_railway_station_trainshed_2014-09-14.jpgEdit

St Pancras railway station trainshed 2014-09-14.jpg

  • Nomination St Pancras railway station trainshed. --Colin 22:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    Very impressive, and I am inclined to say, you go go straight down, turn right, where it says 'FPC', but perhaps before you go, it appears there are some minor foreground stitching problems, the floor looks 'weird' around the area of the annotation I have added to the file page. -- Slaunger 22:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    It's a gap that I filled without perfection. There are some minor stitching errors in the roof. So I don't think it could be FP but hope that overall (considering the 103MP) it is QI. -- Colin 22:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The foreground problem is definately a minor issue and a recurring difficult aspect of interior panoramics. The image has huge wow, and it might even pass FP too. -- Slaunger 19:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC) --Slaunger 19:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The perspective here just makes it look wrong. It's as if the shed gets steeper closer to the photographer, and that is not the case in real life. The roof beautiful and a marvel of construction, this photo makes it look ugly. --Mattbuck 08:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Derzhavinsky_Lane_SPB_01.jpgEdit

Derzhavinsky Lane SPB 01.jpg

  • Nomination Derzhavinsky Lane in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 18:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 18:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, IMO DoF too small.--XRay 18:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Christian Ferrer 17:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JLPC 17:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok. -- Smial 14:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

File:109_Bank_Ottawa_Hydro.jpgEdit

109 Bank Ottawa Hydro.jpg

  • Nomination Designated heritage building Ottawa Hydro Electric Company Building at 109 Bank Street --MB-one 00:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    Needs sharpening. Mattbuck 18:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion ✓ Done--MB-one 18:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    It's a bit better, but still missing the crispness in the people I'd expect from a well-lit street scene. This is an Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose from me I'm afraid. Mattbuck 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    The people are not meant to be the subject of this image. Do you think the building is sharp enough? --MB-one 00:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 10:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Benediktinerabtei Seckau, Äußerer Klosterhof 2.jpgEdit

Benediktinerabtei Seckau, Äußerer Klosterhof 2.jpg

  • Nomination Seckau Abbey courtyard, Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 14:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality, noise --A.Savin 10:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC) I disagree on that one. --Dnalor 01 11:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with A.Savin --Uoaei1 13:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A new, corrected version uploaded. --Dnalor 01 18:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 1600 ISO - it was my mistake, look at my comment and info on my user disc page ... --Dnalor 01 10:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support New version seems okay. --Steindy 21:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The new version is overprocessed, resulting in a loss of details and sharpness (e.g. the hands of the watch and the tiles). The shadows under the arches are bearing artefacts. Still, there is too much magenta under the roof hood of the tower. --Cccefalon 06:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Benediktinerabtei Seckau, Äußerer Klosterhof 1.jpgEdit

Benediktinerabtei Seckau, Äußerer Klosterhof 1.jpg

  • Nomination Seckau Abbey courtyard, Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 14:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sharpness + noise + perspective --A.Savin 11:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC) I disagree on that one. --Dnalor 01 11:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with A.Savin --Uoaei1 13:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A new, corrected version uploaded. --Dnalor 01 17:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support The new version seems okay. --Steindy 21:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Basilika Seckau, Gnadenkapelle, Gotisches Glasfenster 3.jpgEdit

Basilika Seckau, Gnadenkapelle, Gotisches Glasfenster 3.jpg

  • Nomination Gothic stained-glass window, Chapel of Grace, Basilica Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 16:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion We have assessed a lot of stained glass windows in the past which can be uses as reference what amount of sharpness is expected for a QI of that genre. Unfortunatly, this image does not meet the required sharpness. Sorry. --Cccefalon 17:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC) This is not my view of the things. --Dnalor 01 04:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. In my opinion sharpness can not be much better. I only had cropped the image at the dark lines. -- Spurzem 14:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for your important comment, new version uploaded: cropped at the dark lines. I've cropped the other 3 pictures of gothic stained-glass windows in Basilica Seckau at the dark lines too (above in the QIC-nomination of 15th september 2014). ✓ Done --Dnalor 01 14:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks to Spurzem. Now QI. --Steindy 21:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-097.jpgEdit

14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-097.jpg

  • Nomination ski jump "Holmernkollenbakken" in Oslo, Norge --Ralf Roletschek 14:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me. --Dnalor 01 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    dust spots; poor perspective --A.Savin 17:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done )Dust) but perspective ist normal at 10mm --Ralf Roletschek 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite good, QI. --Steindy 21:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File: Goggomobil Coupé (2014-09-03 7049) Heck.JPGEdit

Goggomobil Coupé (2014-09-03 7049) Heck.JPG

  • Nomination Goggomobil Coupé, a very small car with 250-cm³-engine -- Spurzem 15:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the white car of the corner is disturbing. Not Qi for me.--Lmbuga 23:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. I saw promoted images of oldtimer meetings with much more disturbing things than a part of another car in the foreground or otherwise. --
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I understand you. It may be that I am wrong. Let others think: "discuss" --Lmbuga 22:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The car is fully visible. I think it is ok here for a QI. However, before promoting, the defringing amount for magenta has to be raised to get rid of the CA's. --Cccefalon 07:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Labuan_Malaysia_Airport-03.jpgEdit

Labuan Malaysia Airport-03.jpg

  • Nomination Labuan, Malaysia: Front view of Labuan Airport --Cccefalon 07:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The roof is cut off on the right side. --Steindy 15:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    So what? Will you decline all buildings which are not 100% visible? --Cccefalon 16:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI. --P e z i 21:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Florstein 19:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Plate_on_fontaine_near_Porta_del_Popolo.jpgEdit

Plate on fontaine near Porta del Popolo.jpg

  • Nomination Plate on fontaine near Porta del Popolo --Livioandronico2013 15:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cccefalon 17:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    {{o}} Sorry, right side is out of focus and noisy (see note). Too sharpened IMO and too much contrast. I don't like the detail--Lmbuga 23:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you check another time Lmbuga? Thanks --Livioandronico2013 07:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Better with the crop, but too sharpened and too much contrast IMO--Lmbuga 22:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support crisp and no sharpening artifacts, good quality --MB-one 19:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As for Lmbuga. -- Smial 13:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Bognor Regis MMB 01 Aldwick Beach.jpgEdit

Bognor Regis MMB 01 Aldwick Beach.jpg

  • Nomination Aldwick beach. Mattbuck 13:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Lewis Hulbert 13:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. I think the beach is too dark, and there is a big blob in the sky. Dont know if it is dirt or glare from the sun. Lets discuss. --Slaunger 14:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
You're right, I didn't notice the glare. --Lewis Hulbert 12:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lens glare on the right. --MB-one 22:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Tejo September 2014-3a.jpgEdit

Tejo September 2014-3a.jpg

  • Nomination River Tagus, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 22:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Sorry. A nice image, but in the middle too dark. --XRay 08:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC) -- The dark silhouette is deliberate -- Alvesgaspar 22:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Needs perhaps a bit sharpening. -- Smial 22:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Japonaise au bain James Tissot 1864.jpgEdit

Japonaise au bain James Tissot 1864.jpg

  • Nomination La Japonaise au bain, James Tissot. Painting in Musée des beaux-arts de Dijon --Yelkrokoyade 17:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry,no very sharp. --Livioandronico2013 20:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    Is it not? We should discuss. -- Spurzem 22:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp.--Jebulon 16:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Stiftskirche_Göttweig_Hochaltar_01.JPGEdit

Stiftskirche Göttweig Hochaltar 01.JPG

  • Nomination High altar of Göttweig Abbey Church, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 13:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeBad CA at the stained glass, not sharp enough. --Mattbuck 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info I sharpened this image. Regarding CAs: for me there are just colorful reflections, but not CAs. I aks for more opinions and move it to discussion --Uoaei1 16:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Mattbuck. --P e z i 21:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I don't agree with Mattbuck and Pezi for I see no CAs. What you criticize are reflections of colored glass. -- Spurzem 13:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. Not sharp enough, sorry.--Jebulon 16:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kapliczka_w_Wolanach_02.JPGEdit

2014 Kapliczka w Wolanach 02.JPG

  • Nomination Chapel in Wolany --Jacek Halicki 12:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion JPEG artifaction in the trees. --Mattbuck 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    QI for me. We should discuss. -- Spurzem 22:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Sharpness could be better, but I realy cannot find JPG artifacts. Good lighting and composition. -- Smial 14:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, while I agree with Smial on the facts, the missing sharpness, for me, is a dealbreaker here. The roof shows very little detail and the trees are completly blurred. It might be art but it's not "good quality". F4.8 was probably the wrong choice for this shot. --MB-one 16:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_St-Kunibert-11.jpgEdit

Cologne Germany St-Kunibert-11.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: Basilika St. Kunibert (east side) --Cccefalon 13:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The perspective correction in my opinion is not good. -- Spurzem 15:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sky is overexposed. --Ivar 17:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    I concur with Spurzem and ivar. Mattbuck 18:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @Spurzem: I uploaded another version. To overcome the problem, that some people have with the pure vertical depiction and the view of the tiltshift lense, I added a ratio correction. Don't complain about the verticals; I intentionally added a small incline to get a more natural view for you. @Iifar: Already before post processing, this photo was not overexposed and showed a regular histogram. What you complain is an original grey - and not a remapped to grey - sky. --Cccefalon 18:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    @Mattbuck: We had an edit conflict. I just uploaded a new version. --Cccefalon 18:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, then CR. --Cccefalon 18:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello Mattbuck, Ivar and Spurzem: A new version of the file is available and waiting for your reconsideration. --Cccefalon 09:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but the tower left is distorted respectively on the left side it is higher than on the right. -- Spurzem 09:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
That is just perspective when not standing exactly in the symmetrie point. For the same reason you can see more of the right towers left side than of the left tower. --Cccefalon 10:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Face_of_ogre.jpgEdit

Face of ogre.jpg

  • Nomination Face of ogre --Livioandronico2013 20:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not in focus. --Mattbuck 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Other opinions please --Livioandronico2013 07:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Focus point is not perfect, but there is stil enough detail. --MB-one 01:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 18:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Somewhat low DOF, but acceptable. -- Smial 22:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Heads_of_lions_in_quartiere_coppedè.jpgEdit

Heads of lions in quartiere coppedè.jpg

  • Nomination Heads of lions in quartiere coppedè --Livioandronico2013 20:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overexposed. --Mattbuck 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Is simple fixable,how do you decline for a simple thing like this??? Then,Mattbuck, do not complain that someone has problems with you,have a nice day Clin --Livioandronico2013 07:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Overexposure generally is not fixable. The problem is a loss of information, you can remap it to grey but that won't bring back the detail. As for my FP nomination, I think there's a difference - if you take a photo of a light source, it will be overexposed. Mattbuck 13:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ DoneYes, it is different, the problem, in my opinion, is your way to make hasty, I take the only sensible thing you've said "generally", in fact if it is possible to fix a photo, by at least a chance. --Livioandronico2013 14:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good light and good image. @ Mattbuck: We can not only take night photos on sunny days. -- Spurzem 19:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lions heads overexposed --Christian Ferrer 18:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Gummer's How MMB 19 Lake Windermere.jpgEdit

Gummer's How MMB 19 Lake Windermere.jpg

  • Nomination Lake Windermere. Mattbuck 06:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Sorry. It's too dusty. --XRay 08:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    I've done some recolouring, let me know if it's any better. --Mattbuck 13:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 11:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per XRay --LivioAndronico talk 10:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Reworked version is still somewhat soft, but all in all ok. -- Smial 22:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB «W5 Canary Wharf.jpgEdit

London MMB «W5 Canary Wharf.jpg

  • Nomination Canary Wharf. Mattbuck 06:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeInsufficient quality. Sorry. Nice image, but IMO the foreground is too dark. --XRay 08:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    I did that purposefully - the buildings look good as near-silhouettes IMO. --Mattbuck 13:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dark --LivioAndronico talk 10:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition, sharpness not overwhelming. Not too dark imho, as it is intended. -- Smial 22:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Convinced !--Jebulon 13:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Kimanis_Sabah_Kimanis-Maritim-Traffic-Monitoring-Station-03.jpgEdit

Kimanis Sabah Kimanis-Maritim-Traffic-Monitoring-Station-03.jpg

  • Nomination Kimanis, Sabah: Lighthouse and control tower of Kimanis Maritim Traffic Monitoring Station --Cccefalon 16:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Wire spoils it. --Mattbuck 23:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, a wire itself is not a reason for decline. especialle here it is not only a wire but also a pole and a bird on the wire. Do we have a new policy to decline every image with a visible wire? --Cccefalon 05:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 07:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 10:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Historisches_Rathaus_--_2014_--_6852.jpgEdit

Münster, Historisches Rathaus -- 2014 -- 6852.jpg

  • Nomination Historical town hall, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp in the upper part (hardly fixable), CAs, tilted --Uoaei1 06:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Thanks for your reviews. Some of your advices are fixed.--XRay 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    Still quite unsharp in the upper parts - I would like to ask for other opinions --Uoaei1 17:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Probably effect of perspective correction by software. This has limits. -- Smial 23:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp enough IMO --Christian Ferrer 07:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Uoaei1, sorry. Not sharp, remains of CA. And it needs a crop below, until the bicycle, IMO.--Jebulon 17:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ (Nearly) fixed Some issues are improved. Other aren't possible. May be it's not QI, but it's better now.--XRay 11:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Valtice (Feldsberg) - Kostel Nanebevzetí Panny Marie.JPGEdit

Valtice (Feldsberg) - Kostel Nanebevzetí Panny Marie.JPG

  • Nomination Valtice (Feldsberg) - Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary --Pudelek 09:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough for this rather low resolution --Uoaei1 06:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    In my opinion is enough sharp --Pudelek 16:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good photo, sharp enough. -- Spurzem 10:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sharp enough for QI, indeed. More disturbing are the redlink categories. Why introducing a category when not linking to an appropriate superior category? --Cccefalon 17:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC) I will support, when the redlinks are removed or linked to a higher category. --Cccefalon 19:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 07:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Excellent photographical QI, but exactly per Cccefalon. I notice that categorization work is more and more careless in QIC. It is a bad thing we should fight against. Please notice that we have a guideline (criterion 3) which is our common rule.--Jebulon 16:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Jebulon, Cccefalon, one of the category links of the file is perfectly correct, and should be enough to respect the guideline. Do you ask to delete the red links? --Christian Ferrer 05:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I asked for a correct categorization. I also cannot understand, why a regular commoner who is with WikiCommons since years and who also is familiar with the topic of his images, should not be capable to connect a new category to a superior category. as Pudelek introduced the two new categories, he made a statement, that he thinks it is desirable to have those two categories to describe the image. Deleting the redlinks now is IMHO just a stupid bypass. What the hell is so difficult to find a superior category for "Maria column in Valtice"? And - given that "Náměstí Svobody (Valtice)" is not already in another writing an OVERCAT for "Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (Valtice)" - what is so difficult to find a superior category for a village or a town? Come on Christian, pointing out that one category is enough, is just a metadiscussion. --Cccefalon 06:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I added Category:Maria columns in Czech Republic as top category. removed my non-topical interjection. --Cccefalon 15:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC) --Cccefalon 09:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now, opposition striked. Categorization is now very good.--Jebulon 11:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support after resolving the redlink situation, the photographic quality is good for QI. --Cccefalon 15:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 15:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)double vote not eligible. And the date of this unnecessary vote means that the promotion is delayed another two days. --Cccefalon 18:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)