Last modified on 30 March 2015, at 05:06

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]] 05:10, 30 March 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.
The new rule is effective now. Please nominate only a maximum of 5 images per day. [1]

March 30, 2015Edit

March 29, 2015Edit

March 28, 2015Edit

March 27, 2015Edit

March 26, 2015Edit

March 25, 2015Edit

March 24, 2015Edit

March 23, 2015Edit

March 22, 2015Edit

March 21, 2015Edit

March 20, 2015Edit

March 19, 2015Edit

March 18, 2015Edit

March 16, 2015Edit

March 15, 2015Edit

March 14, 2015Edit

March 9, 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:Macaron_with_decoration.jpgEdit

Macaron with decoration.jpg

  • Nomination A macaron with decoration. --Hangsna 20:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality for a single shot, maybe a bit too noisy at the bottom. Third opinion appreciated --Hubertl 22:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    Clearly visible dust spots. Sharpness below studio shot requirements. --Cccefalon 04:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Pendrive_Kingston_32_GB.jpgEdit

2015 Pendrive Kingston 32 GB.jpg

  • Nomination Pendrive Kingston DataTraveler Ultimate 3.0 G3 32GB --Jacek Halicki 09:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 10:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality could be beter in this kind of picture--Lmbuga 23:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Erywań,_Park_przy_Kaskadach_(10).jpgEdit

2014 Erywań, Park przy Kaskadach (10).jpg

  • Nomination Park on the way to Cascade. Yerevan, Armenia. --Halavar 23:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)* Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment its tilted ccw. --Hubertl 07:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    ✓ Done New fixed version uploaded. Please take a look again. --Halavar 12:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)OK for me now. --Hubertl 08:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    The left side is leaning out slightly. --Mattbuck 09:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Erywań,_Park_przy_Kaskadach_(11).jpgEdit

2014 Erywań, Park przy Kaskadach (11).jpg

  • Nomination Park on the way to Cascade. Yerevan, Armenia. --Halavar 23:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)* Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment its tilted ccw. --Hubertl 07:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    ✓ Done New fixed version uploaded. Please take a look again. --Halavar 12:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)OK for me now. --Hubertl 08:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not quite convinced - the background focus is problematic - too sharp to not be distracting, too blurred to be the subject. --Mattbuck 09:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Reading railway station MMB 82 70802 43037 43172.jpgEdit

Reading railway station MMB 82 70802 43037 43172.jpg

  • Nomination Reading railway station. Mattbuck 07:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good quality. --Cccefalon 08:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA along the platform edge. --Steindy 23:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Steindy: ✓ Done Mattbuck 09:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:London MMB »0O0 Silwood Junction 378204.jpgEdit

London MMB »0O0 Silwood Junction 378204.jpg

  • Nomination 378204 at Silwood Junction. Mattbuck 07:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA on two rails on the bottom right. --Steindy 23:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Steindy: I couldn't actually see any CA, but I have desaturated it anyway. Mattbuck 09:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Echternach, Place du Marche = beschermd erfgoed positie1 foto6 2014-06-09 10.03.jpgEdit

Echternach, Place du Marche = beschermd erfgoed positie1 foto6 2014-06-09 10.03.jpg

  • Nomination Echternach-Luxemburg, view to a street --Michielverbeek 20:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry unsharp,noise and need perspective --Livioandronico2013 22:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Repairable, IMO --Hubertl 08:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think,see note --Livioandronico2013 13:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose you are right Livioandronico2013, But why do we meet each other always at the gargoyle themes? ;-) --Hubertl 09:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Erywań,_Park_przy_Kaskadach_(14).jpgEdit

2014 Erywań, Park przy Kaskadach (14).jpg

  • Nomination Park on the way to Cascade. Yerevan, Armenia. --Halavar 23:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Not the best quality, but ok in my opinion. --Hubertl 07:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but it needs perspective correction and at least a bit sharpening. --Hockei 17:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Halavar, won´t you do this slight perspective correction? --Hubertl 17:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Lasiommata_megera_-_Wall_brown.jpgEdit

Lasiommata megera - Wall brown.jpg

  • Nomination A sunbathing Wall brown (Lasiommata megera). Canyon Kapıkaya, Karaisalı - Adana, Turkey. --Zcebeci 11:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Hubertl 02:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not for me. Insufficient quality in my eyes. --Hockei 13:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 17:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Christina_Novelli.jpgEdit

Christina Novelli.jpg

  • Nomination Christina Novelli at Nextdoor in Honolulu, Hawaii, May 15, 2014 --Peterchiapperino 00:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy, this camera obviously doesn´t allow this high ISO rate, even with flash. --Hubertl 00:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A little noise is okay when it comes to concert photos taken in the dark, otherwise there would rarely be a quality concert photo unless taken in the day time. ~~~~
Its not only the noise, the only part, which has an acceptable sharpness, ist the left arm. --Hubertl 09:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like this picture but sorry, too much noise. --Billy 14:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy, and tattoo left arm is completely blurred.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 17:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File: Ford A, Bj. 1929 (2011-09-24 3).JPGEdit

Ford A, Bj. 1929 (2011-09-24 3).JPG

  • Nomination Ford A built in 1929 at Moselschiefer-Classic 2011 -- Spurzem 10:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. The part of the red car bottom left is too disturbing. --XRay 11:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    Glaub mir, ich habe hier ausgezeichnete Bilder von Autos mit weit mehr störenden Dingen als diesem gesehen. Aber was soll's. -- Spurzem 12:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Das glaube ich dir ohne Weiteres. Man bemüht sich immer um objektive Kriterien, aber das ist oft genug gar nicht einfach. Das Auto ist schön getroffen, aber ich finde schon, dass der rote Kotflügel ablenkt. Aber insgesamt bin ich doch sehr angetan von deinen Bildern.--XRay 13:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    This is not a German forum !!!--Jebulon 15:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Hahahahah I love you Jebulon Face-grin.svg--Livioandronico2013 16:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • To me the red fender isn't that disturbing, hence: Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 21:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Don´t worry about messing around in german, they just discussed, if a three-minute-egg really needs three minutes or in fact four. I suggest four and a half.--Hubertl 09:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Steindy: I've just fixed your review. Your review said "Good quality", so I replaced the template "o" by "s".--XRay 07:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 17:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Oachkatzlschwoaf_(Eichhörnchen).jpgEdit

Oachkatzlschwoaf (Eichhörnchen).jpg

  • Nomination squirrel. By User:AnjaSuess --Neuroxic 07:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Billy69150 07:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, clearly visible dust spots. --Cccefalon 11:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lighting not QI --Charlesjsharp 18:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry! Poor little squirrel, he's very sad for IQ.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 17:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dustspot, squirrel blurred, looks like there is also posterisation. --C messier 19:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --C messier 19:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Villeneuve dAscq.- Le monuments aux Morts à Annappes.jpgEdit

Villeneuve dAscq.- Le monuments aux Morts à Annappes.jpg

  • Nomination le Monument aux Morts d'Annappes à Villeneuve-d'Ascq,France.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion A bit dark isn't it? --Charlesjsharp 21:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)✓ Done reduction darkness.Please care to take another look?--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    I'm still not convinced, so I'll leave it to others --Charlesjsharp 21:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Clenleu.-L'église Saint-Gilles (3).jpgEdit

Clenleu.-L'église Saint-Gilles (3).jpg

  • Nomination L'église Saint-Gilles , Clenleu , Pas-de-Calais.-France.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)* Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please brighten up the dark areas --Hubertl 05:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)✓ Done brighten up the dark areas. Please care to take another look?--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Its ok for me, even when its though gloomy. Third opinion appreciated --Hubertl 11:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose discuss, please, because of darkness.--Jebulon 19:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's too dark. -- Spurzem 10:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry. Too dark and crop at the bottom too tight. --XRay 18:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry! I agree, but This photo was taken in atmofpheric difficult conditions, overcast skies, drizzle and wind.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Clenleu.-L'église Saint-Gilles (1).jpgEdit

Clenleu.-L'église Saint-Gilles (1).jpg

  • Nomination L'église Saint-Gilles , Clenleu , Pas-de-Calais.-France.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please brighten up the dark areas --Hubertl 05:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done brighten up the dark areas. Please care to take another look?--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Its ok for me, even when its though gloomy. Third opinion appreciated --Hubertl 11:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is very dark, another opinion is needed, indeed.--Jebulon 19:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very poor image quality, please look at the (lack of) detail of the church. The camera is to blame, I suppose. Alvesgaspar 22:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree @Alvesgaspar, but this photo was taken in atmofpheric difficult conditions, overcast skies, drizzle and wind.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Dubiosis-17.jpgEdit

Dubiosis-17.jpg

  • Nomination Dubiosis beim dark Munich Festival 2014 --Pistenwolf 08:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy and unsharp around head --Daniel Case 05:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    I do not agree with that, because it is not possible to shoot concerts under live conditions without some noisy, and in this case it is not much.--Pistenwolf 08:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too tight crop on top --Cccefalon 13:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment .... and please resolve redlink cat --Cccefalon 13:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 15:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Rapture-2.jpgEdit

Rapture-2.jpg

  • Nomination Rapture Beim dark Munich Festival 2014 --Pistenwolf 08:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy --Daniel Case 05:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not agree with that, because it is not possible to shoot concerts under live conditions without some noisy. In this case i dont see much noisy.--Pistenwolf (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable noise for concert photo. One of the good ones of this kind here in QI from view of composition. Please resolve the redlink category. --Cccefalon 11:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very poor quality in my opinion. A concert photo does not necessarily has to be like this. Alvesgaspar 21:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor quality --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Steindy 23:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you very much for the Review. For me the term "Poor Quality" or "Very Poor Quality " alone is not really meaningful and sould be justified. --Pistenwolf (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 15:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Trostburg_Stiegenaufgang_innen.JPGEdit

Trostburg Stiegenaufgang innen.JPG

  • Nomination The castle Trostburg in South Tyrol - Interior --Moroder 19:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 23:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree. I don´t see Insufficiency, except some understandable noise in the dark areas. --Hubertl 05:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Perhaps it should not be so bright but it is QI for me. -- Spurzem 12:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry,but too blurry for me--Σπάρτακος 12:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too unsharp and noisy. Alvesgaspar 21:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me.- All black and white shades are good --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 17:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy 23:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Half the ISO and double the exposure Time would have made this image come out in a better quality. --Ilmfoto 14:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't understand the subject of the picture (Seeing dates of the picture). As Alvesgaspar is too unsharp and noisy IMO. --Lmbuga 23:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 15:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Spotted_eagle_owl_(Bubo_africanus)_chick.jpgEdit

Spotted eagle owl (Bubo africanus) chick.jpg

  • Nomination Spotted eagle owl (Bubo africanus) chick, Tswalu Kalahari Reserve, South Africa --Charlesjsharp 09:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion

* Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's pity that fingers disturb the picture.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps I should have explained that this wild chick was found on the ground having fallen out of its nest. The game ranger picked it up and replaced it in its nest and two days later we confirmed that the parent had accepted the chick back, which is quite unusual. --Charlesjsharp 18:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think it should be rejected without an opinion following my explanation above. --Charlesjsharp 18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it´s not rejected right now. But you need additional other opinions in fact! --Hubertl 20:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the fingers gives you a sizedimension, therefore for me its not disturbing that much.--Hubertl 09:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor dof, sorry, Poor composition IMO; Too tight at bottom --Lmbuga 22:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 17:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Common_pheasant_(Phasianus_colchicus)_cock.jpgEdit

Common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) cock.jpg

  • Nomination Common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) cock, Otmoor RSPB Reserve, Oxfordshire --Charlesjsharp 23:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no good crop, the feathers are cut.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's not actually cropped. I left out a small portion of the tail as it allows the main body and head of the bird to be more in close up
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 02:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Trostburg_Bergfreid_Ostseite.JPGEdit

Trostburg Bergfreid Ostseite.JPG

  • Nomination The castle Trostburg - Tower with clock east face --Moroder 13:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please check for halos at the top.--XRay 17:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't know how to fix them provided they need to be fixed. --Moroder 17:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment May be it's oversharpened?--XRay 06:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No I never sharpen my images, I like them smooth. I had already long discussions on QIC about the halo between hi contrast interfaces, typically the roofs against the sky, there is always a halo in digital Photography of the size of 3-5 pixels which is 1/1000 compared to the whole image which has a huge size. Therefor imo the halo is irrelevant. Thanks for the review, cheers --Moroder 09:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective correction overdone IMO at the top (see the globe), and not enough on sides. Tight crop. Blown sky at left. Halo. Light not optimal. Not a QI (my taste), sorry.--Jebulon 10:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    I accept everything which is opinable but the "overblown sky " is not true, please look at the histogram. --Moroder 16:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me it´s QI, the castle is seen from this position as it is seen on the picture. --Hubertl 19:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me --Isiwal 00:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a good framing, which is a fundamental component of Photography. Alvesgaspar 21:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question Whats wrong with the framing? --Moroder 18:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 09:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Red-billed_tropicbird_(Phaethon_aethereus_mesonauta)_with_chick.jpgEdit

Red-billed tropicbird (Phaethon aethereus mesonauta) with chick.jpg

  • Nomination Red-billed tropicbird (Phaethon aethereus mesonauta) with chick, Little Tobago --Charlesjsharp 10:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Large area of overexposure in the centre. --Mattbuck 22:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    New version uploaded reducing over-exposure --Charlesjsharp 09:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good for me now.--Hubertl 19:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor framing (too tight crop), most of subject is unsharp. Alvesgaspar 21:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Alvesgaspar and too tight crop--Lmbuga 22:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Münster,_St.-Paulus-Dom,_Skulptur_-Kardinal_von_Galen-_--_2014_--_3985.jpgEdit

Münster, St.-Paulus-Dom, Skulptur -Kardinal von Galen- -- 2014 -- 3985.jpg

  • Nomination Sculpture “Clemens August Graf von Galen” (Toni Schneider-Manzell, 1978) at St. Paul's Cathedral, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 06:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overexposure in the sky. --Mattbuck 22:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed I just fixed the small overexposed parts (and CAs). Thanks for your advise.--XRay 06:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok now.--Hubertl 19:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 22:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor lighting, subject unsharp. Alvesgaspar 22:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy 23:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor lighting, subject unsharp. As Alvesgaspar--Lmbuga 22:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 01:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Iguana iguana, Gembira Loka Zoo, Yogyakarta, 2015-03-15 03.jpgEdit

Iguana iguana, Gembira Loka Zoo, Yogyakarta, 2015-03-15 03.jpg

  • Nomination Captive Iguana iguana, Gembira Loka Zoo, Yogyakarta --Crisco 1492 02:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Head does not seem to be in focus. --Charlesjsharp 13:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree, focus is more on the creature's belly, but I think it's enough. Crisco 1492 09:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yes for me too --Christian Ferrer 19:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overall unsharpness. Alvesgaspar 21:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Out of date clock icon 2.svg Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 15:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Julia_butterfly_(Dryas_iulia_delila)_female_J.JPGEdit

Julia butterfly (Dryas iulia delila) female J.JPG

  • Nomination Julia butterfly (Dryas iulia delila) female in Jamaica --Charlesjsharp 14:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. Left side isn't sharp. --XRay 17:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version uploaded --Charlesjsharp 11:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO still not sharp enough at the left.--XRay 05:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. It is a bit noisy but sharp enough for me. -- Spurzem 23:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not good detail IMO (see the eyes). As XRay --Lmbuga 00:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overall unsharpness. Alvesgaspar 22:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 09:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:White-necked_jacobin_(Florisuga_mellivora_flabellifera)_female_in_flight_To.jpgEdit

White-necked jacobin (Florisuga mellivora flabellifera) female in flight To.jpg

  • Nomination White-necked jacobin (Florisuga mellivora flabellifera), female in flight, Tobago --Charlesjsharp 14:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. Nice image, but it isn't sharp enough. --XRay 17:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hoping for more opinions on sharpness of bird's body... --Charlesjsharp 20:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Xray. Alvesgaspar 22:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 02:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Carcharodus_alceae_-_Mallow_Skipper.jpgEdit

Carcharodus alceae - Mallow Skipper.jpg

  • Nomination A Mallow Skipper (Carcharodus alceae) feeding nectar of Ground pine (Ajuga chamaepitys) flowers. Canyon Kapıkaya, Karaisalı - Adana, Turkey. --Zcebeci 11:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not a great composition, but the subject is focussed. Therefore QI for me. Even when weak. Third opinion appreciated --Hubertl 11:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not really QI for me. --Charlesjsharp 13:51, 19 March 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 02:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Head of dead fish.JPGEdit

Head of dead fish.JPG

  • Nomination head of dead fish, senegal --Jjgodox 19:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Please identify fish --Charlesjsharp 11:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC) identification done Jjgodox 17:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK now, though sharpness could be better. --Martin Falbisoner 12:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not quite convinced as to the general JPEG quality. I'd like a few more opinions. --Mattbuck 22:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Mattbuck. Alvesgaspar 22:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I really like this pic. It seems plenty sharp to me and it has a lot of cool insect activity. Bsmalley 03:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Out of date clock icon 2.svg Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 17:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Jürgen_Treyz_Cara_FaN_2013_618.jpgEdit

Jürgen Treyz Cara FaN 2013 618.jpg

  • Nomination Jürgen Treyz of the german/irish band Cara, appearance at the festival "Folk am Neckar" 2013 in Mosbach-Neckarelz, Germany --Rs-foto 22:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please remove CAs and zombie pixels. --C messier 17:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not sure about the composition - glasses are problematic IMO. Mattbuck 18:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What's wrong with the glasses? --Palauenc05 22:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Zombie pixels/CA not fixed. As for what's wrong with the glasses they're just the wrong angle for me that they half obscure the eye. Mattbuck 22:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Steindy 23:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 17:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Erywań,_Armeńska_Akademia_Nauk_(02).jpgEdit

2014 Erywań, Armeńska Akademia Nauk (02).jpg

  • Nomination Armenian National Academy of Sciences. 24 Marshal Baghramyan Avenue. Yerevan, Armenia. --Halavar 09:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The wires, while unavoidable, prevent this being QI. --Mattbuck 19:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support The picture is GQ despite the wires. --Palauenc05 18:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The wires are the reality, I don't understand any issues here. --Christian Ferrer 05:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Christian got a point about the fact, that a photographer has all the right to depict the real world. By that, wires cannot prevent QI status a priori. However, sometimes wires are destroying the composition, especially when they are overlaying the main motif in an intrusive way. IMHO, in the above image, the wires are a compositional issue, as tjhey affect one third of the photo . --Cccefalon 12:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see a way to compose this picture without the wires and therefore Christian is correct. GQ Bsmalley 15:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    Christian Ferrer, Bsmalley - I don't believe extenuating circumstances are relevant to QI. Some things will never be QI - like trying to photograph a moving cat in a pitch black coal cellar. It doesn't matter to me that the photographer has done nothing wrong here, that reality is at fault, the wires ruin the photo. Part of technical quality is choosing a good composition, and if that's just not at all possible it's unfortunate but not really relevant to the quality of the photo they take. Mattbuck 12:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can not find severe technical issues. The image composition is not completely messed, there are just some inevitable wires. They belong to the scene like traffic signs. Small composition issues like these should not be the only reason for declining. -- Smial 13:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wires. It's a good picture, but it's not QI to me. sorry, in spanish: Se puede tomar la foto desde más cerca, sin ser captados los cables. La calidad de los detalles podría ser mejor. No veo motivo para considerar alta calidad.--Lmbuga 23:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Terrible quality: overall noise and lack of detail, too tight crop. I just don't understand the support votes. Alvesgaspar 22:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Steindy 23:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 09:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)