Commons:Kandidaten für Qualitätsbilder

This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 100% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Shortcut
COM:QIC
Zu den Nominierungen springen
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Canadian English • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Nederlands • ‎Türkçe • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎latviešu • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎मैथिली • ‎ไทย • ‎中文 • ‎日本語
Quality images logo.svg

Dies sind die Kandidaten für Qualitätsbilder. Beachte bitte, dass es sich hierbei nicht um die exzellenten Bilder handelt. Falls du nur Kommentare zu eigenen Bildern erhalten möchtest, ist die Seite Fotokritik (z. Zt. nur englisch) der richtige Ort.

Hintergrund

Der Zweck der Qualitätsbilder ist, die einzelnen Benutzer anzuregen, einzigartige Bilder zur Verfügung zu stellen, um diese Ansammlung zu erweitern. Während exzellente Bilder die absolut besten Bilder darstellen, sollen Qualitätsbilder dazu anregen, selbst solche qualitativ hochwertigen Bilder zu erstellen.
Außerdem sollen Qualitätsbilder dazu dienen, anderen Benutzern die Methoden der Verbesserung eines Bildes zu erklären.

Richtlinien

Alle vorgeschlagenen Bilder sollten von Commons-Benutzern erstellt worden sein.

Für Vorschlagende von Qualitätsbildern

Unten werden die wichtigsten Richtlinien für Qualitätsbilder genannt, ausführliche Informationen findet man unter Qualitätsbildrichtlinien.

Anforderungen an die Bilder

  1. Urheberrechtsstatus. Qualitätsbilder müssen unter einer verwendbaren Lizenz hochgeladen werden. Alle Lizenzanforderungen sind unter Commons:Copyright tags zu finden.
  2. Bilder sollten den Commons-Richtlinien entsprechen, einschließlich COM:Photographien erkennbarer Personen.
  3. Qualitätsbilder müssen sinnvoll benannt, brauchbar kategorisiert und genau beschrieben sein. Mehrsprachige Beschreibungen sind besser, eine englische Beschreibung wird dabei gerne gesehen, ist aber nicht vorgeschrieben.
  4. In den Bildern soll keine Werbung oder Signatur enthalten sein. Die Copyright- und Autor-Hinweise sollen auf der Seite mit angegeben sein. Sie können auch in den Metadaten enthalten sein, sollen aber den Bildinhalt nicht behindern.
Urheber

Bilder müssen von einem Wikimedianer erstellt worden sein, um als Qualitätsbilder ausgezeichnet werden zu können. Das bedeutet, dass Bilder von z. B. Flickr nicht geeignet sind. (Die Auszeichnung als exzellentes Bild hat diese Einschränkung nicht.) Von Wikimedianern erstellte photographische Reproduktionen zweidimensionaler Kunstwerke sind zulässig (und sollten der Richtlinie entsprechend als PD-old markiert sein). Wenn ein Bild ausgezeichnet wird, obwohl es nicht von einem Wikimedianer erstellt wurde, sollte die Auszeichnung wieder entfernt werden, sowie der Fehler bemerkt wird.

Technische Anforderungen

Ausführliche technische Anforderungen stehen unter Qualitätsbildrichtlinien.

Auflösung

Die Grafiken bei Commons werden nicht nur auf dem Bildschirm betrachtet, sie sollen auch für den Ausdruck oder für die Betrachtung auf hochauflösenden Bildschirmen geeignet sein. Da auch niemand vorhersehen kann, welche Geräte in der Zukunft verwendet werden, sollten Bilder eine brauchbare Auflösung bieten und nicht unnötig verkleinert werden. Als Untergrenze gelten zwei Megapixel, wobei an Aufnahmen, die relativ einfach zu erstellen sind, von den Bewertern auch höhere Ansprüche gestellt werden können. Diese Regel schließt Vektorgrafiken (SVG) oder computergenerierte Bilder aus, die mit frei lizenzierter oder offener Software erstellt wurden, wie in der Bildbeschreibung angegeben.

Bildqualität

Digitale Bilder sind verschiedenen Problemen beim Aufnehmen und beim Speichern ausgesetzt, wie z. B. Bildrauschen, Artefakte bei der JPEG-Kompression, abgesoffene Schatten- oder Spitzlichter-Bereiche oder falscher Weißabgleich. All diese Kriterien sollten berücksichtigt werden.

Bildaufbau und Beleuchtung

Die Anordnung des Hauptgegenstandes sollte zum Inhalt des Bildes beitragen. Der Vordergrund und Hintergrund des Bildes sollte nicht ablenken. Beleuchtung und Fokus tragen auch zum gesamten Resultat bei; der Hauptgegenstand sollte scharf sein.

Wert

Unser Hauptziel ist es, Qualitätsbilder zu sammeln, die wertvoll für alle Wikimedia-Projekte sind.

Wie man ein Qualitätsbild vorschlägt

Einfach eine Zeile unter Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list im Abschnitt Nominations einfügen:

File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Nomination|1=Sehr kurze Beschreibung --~~~~ |2=}}

Die Beschreibung sollte sehr kurz gefasst sein und aus wenigen Worten bestehen. Bitte lasse zudem zwischen deinem neuen Eintrag und einem noch existierenden alten Eintrag eine Zeile frei.

Wenn du das Bild eines anderen Wikimedianers nominierst, dann füge dessen Benutzernamen in die Beschreibung ein, Beispiel:

File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Nomination|Sehr kurze Beschreibung (by [[User:BENUTZERNAME|BENUTZERNAME)]] --~~~~ |}}

Hinweis: Es existiert ein Helferlein, QInominator, mit dem man Bilder einfacher vorschlagen kann. Es fügt einen kleinen „Nominate this image for QI“-Link oben auf jeder Dateibeschreibungsseite hinzu. Klickt man auf den Link, wird das Bild zu einer Liste möglicher Kandidaten hinzugefügt. Sowie diese Liste vollständig ist, bearbeite Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. Oben im Bearbeitungsfenster wird ein grüner Balken angezeigt. Klickst du auf den Balken, werden alle möglichen Kandidaten in das Bearbeitungsfenster eingefügt.

Anzahl der Vorschläge

Wähle sorgfältig deine besten Bilder zur Nominierung aus. Jeder Teilnehmer darf täglich bis zu fünf Bilder nominieren.

Hinweis: Wenn möglich, bewerte bitte für jedes Bild, das du vorschlägst, mindestens einen der anderen Kandidaten.

Bilder bewerten

Jeder angemeldete Benutzer bis auf den Vorschlagenden darf Bilder bewerten. Voraussetzung ist außerdem, dass sein Benutzerkonto mindestens 10 Tage existiert und der Benutzer mindestens 50 Bearbeitungen nachweisen kann.

Beim Bewerten von Bildern sollten Rezensenten dieselben Richtlinien beachten wie der Vorschlagende.

Wie man bewertet

Wie man den Status aktualisiert

Betrachte aufmerksam das Bild, öffne es in voller Auflösung und überprüfe, ob die Qualitätsstandards eingehalten worden sind.

  • Wenn du Dich entscheidest, das Bild zu unterstützen, ändere folgende Zeile von
File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Nomination|Sehr kurze Beschreibung --~~~~ |}}

nach

File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Promotion|Sehr kurze Beschreibung --Signatur des Antragstellers|Warum Du dafür bist. --~~~~}}

In anderen Worten, ändere die Vorlage von /Nomination in /Promotion und füge Deine Signatur hinzu, eventuell mit einem kurzen Kommentar.

  • Wenn Du Dich entscheidest, das Bild abzulehnen, ändere folgende Zeile von
File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Nomination|Sehr kurze Beschreibung --~~~~ | }}

nach

File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Decline|Sehr kurze Beschreibung --Signatur des Antragsstellers |Warum es Dir nicht gefällt. --~~~~}}

In anderen Worten, ändere die Vorlage von /Nomination in /Decline und füge Deine Signatur hinzu, eventuell mit Angaben zu den Gründen der Ablehnung (Überschriften von entsprechenden Abschnitten in den Richtlinien reichen). Wenn zahlreiche Probleme erkennbar sind, nenne am besten nur die zwei bis drei dringlichsten oder füge einfach die Phrase multiple problems ein. Bei einer Ablehnung hinterlasse bitte den ausführlichen Kommentar auf der Diskussionsseite des Benutzers. Denke daran, höflich zu bleiben. In dieser Nachricht solltest Du eine ausführlichere Begründung für Deine Ablehnung geben.

Hinweis: Bitte zuerst die ältesten Bilder bewerten.

Schonfrist und Ernennung

Wenn es innerhalb von zwei Tagen (genau 48 Stunden) nach der Bewertung keinen Widerspruch gibt, ist das Bild entweder ernannt oder gescheitert. Wenn du Einwände hast, kannst du das Bild in den Abschnitt einvernehmliche Beurteilung (consensual review) verschieben, indem du den Status des Bildes in Discuss änderst.

Weitere Vorgehensweise

QICbot macht dies automatisch zwei Tage, nachdem eine Entscheidung getroffen worden ist. Ausgezeichnete Bilder werden unter Commons:Quality_Images/Recently_promoted zwischengespeichert, um kategorisiert zu werden, bevor sie automatisch auf die entsprechenden Qualitätsbilder-Seiten eingefügt werden.

Wenn du glaubst, ein Ausnahmebild gefunden zu haben, das den Status „Exzellentes Bild“ verdient, dann nominiere es auch auf Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder.

Vorgehensweise per Hand (nur in Notfällen öffnen)

Wenn ein Bild ernannt wurde,

  1. Füge das Bild in die Gruppe oder Gruppen auf der Seite Qualitätsbilder ein. Das Bild muss auch in den entsprechenden Unterseiten eingefügt werden. Nur drei bis vier der neuesten Bilder sollten auf der Hauptseite angezeigt werden.
  2. Füge den Text {{QualityImage}} ganz unten auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite ein.
  3. Verschiebe die Zeile mit der Nominierung und Kommentar nach Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives Oktober 2020
  4. Schreibe die Vorlage {{File:Bildname.jpg}} in die Diskussionsseite des Benutzers.

Wenn ein Bild abgelehnt wird,

  1. verschiebe die Zeile mit der Nominierung und Kommentar nach Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives Oktober 2020
  • Bilder, die noch bewertet werden müssen, sind blau umrandet.
  • Bilder, die ernannt wurden, sind grün umrandet.
  • Bilder, die abgelehnt wurden, sind rot umrandet.

Nicht beurteilte Bilder (blau umrandete Bewerbung)

Vorgeschlagene Bilder, die weder Stimmen für eine zustimmende noch für eine ablehnende Bewertung gesammelt haben oder Einvernehmen – gleicher Widerstand wie Unterstützung in einvernehmlicher Beurteilung – in der Bewertung erzielen, sollten nach acht Tagen auf dieser Seite ohne Auszeichnung von dieser Seite entfernt werden. Archiviert werden solche Bilder unter Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 26 2020, kategorisiert mit Category:Unassessed QI candidates auf der Beschreibungsseite des Bildes.

Einvernehmliche Beurteilung

Einvernehmliche Beurteilung (consensual review) wird immer dann eingesetzt, wenn der oben beschriebene Prozess nicht ausreicht und eine Diskussion erforderlich ist, um zu mehr Meinungen zu kommen.

Wie man um einvernehmliche Beurteilung bittet

Um eine einvernehmliche Beurteilung zu fordern, ändere einfach das /Promotion, /Decline zu /Discuss und füge unmittelbar an die Beurteilung deinen Kommentar an. Ein automatisierter Bot wird es innerhalb eines Tages in den Abschnitt Einvernehmliche Beurteilung verschieben.

Bitte schicke nur Dinge zur einvernehmlichen Beurteilung, die als angenommen oder abgelehnt beurteilt wurden. Im Falle, dass Du als Urteilender Dich nicht entscheiden kannst, hinterlasse Deine Kommentare, aber lasse den Kandidaten auf der Seite.

Regeln für die einvernehmliche Beurteilung

Siehe Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Rules

Seite neu laden: purge this page's cache

Nominations

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 20:09, 26 Oktober 2020 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

October 26, 2020

October 25, 2020

October 24, 2020

October 23, 2020

October 22, 2020

October 21, 2020

October 20, 2020

October 19, 2020

October 18, 2020

October 17, 2020

October 16, 2020

October 15, 2020

October 14, 2020

October 12, 2020

October 11, 2020

October 8, 2020

October 7, 2020

Consensual review

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 <tvar|promotion>/Promotion</>, <tvar|decline>/Decline</> to <tvar|discuss>/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   Oppose and   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 Review

File:Baia_dos_Porcos,_Fernando_de_Noronha.jpg

 

  •   Neutral I checked it again. Christian Ferrer and Peulle convinced me. I am not sure if this is QI any more. --Augustgeyler 08:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. IMO it is overprocessed --Christian Ferrer 08:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks oversaturated.--Peulle 08:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too strong noise, overprocessed. Parts of the sky have a greenish tint, parts are burnt. Of course a good composition, and as far as the extreme image processing allows an evaluation, a very nice lighting. --Smial 11:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much not fixable issues. --XRay 13:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? XRay 13:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Mayan_skull_front_p2.jpg

 

  • Nomination Real size resin skull, Chiapas Mexico, Image produced by combining 3 pictures: --Cvmontuy 14:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Nice --Wilfredor 14:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Compared to the other nominated image, I think the white balance is off. Look at the non white / gray background. --Augustgeyler 10:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  Comment I have reprocesed the image please review again --Cvmontuy 19:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:38650_IMG_2597.jpg

 

  • Nomination Jewish cemetery in Sataniv. By User:Roman Starchenko --Andrew J.Kurbiko 08:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment Very well composed. But can you please upload a version with higher resulution? --Augustgeyler 12:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose overprocessed. --Kallerna 07:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Kallerna: it is no good behaviour to change this to Decline, while I made a comment and wait for an edit by the author. --Augustgeyler 10:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • IMO perfectly OK, if they think that the picture is not a QI anyway. --A.Savin 14:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Resolution, meaningless file name. Plus the sky is a bit strange. --A.Savin 14:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 16:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 16:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Institut_océanographique_de_Paris_20140430.jpg

 

  • Nomination Institut océanographique de Paris (by DXR) --Sebring12Hrs 10:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Need Vertical fix --Wilfredor 14:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think it needs a lens correction, more than a perspective correction. --Augustgeyler 11:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Augustgeyler.--Peulle 08:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment A good photo for me. The distortion should be fixable; let's give the author some time to adjust it. --Lion-hearted85 10:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Paris 16: Hello, I know you are a specialist about perspective problems and Paris pictures. Please I'm very bad in using Shift N. Please, may you help us ? Sebring12Hrs (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Again, I think you need a lens correction, not a perspective one. --Augustgeyler 19:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Rote_Moschee_IMG_1371.jpg

 

  • Nomination Rote Moschee im Schloßgarten von Schwetzingen, ehemalige Sommerresidenz der Kurfürsten von der Pfalz, Baden-Würtemberg, Deutschland. --Fischer.H 16:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose A static motif like this should have at least 6 MPixels. Also weird regular noise pattern in dark areas. A pity, because lighting and composition are good --Smial 20:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Discuss. --Fischer.H 16:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question Fischer.H, don't you have a larger version? Also, is the green oversaturated? -- Ikan Kekek 07:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image is very well composed, but also clearly downsized.--Peulle 08:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 10:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:09011280_-_tower_of_st_Mary_-_Berlin-Mitte_-_1280.jpg

 

  • Nomination Tower of St Mary in Berlin--Virtual-Pano 10:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose tilted --Charlesjsharp 13:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment could you please specify area and direction so I can work on it accordingly? --Virtual-Pano 19:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done tilt and exposure corrected (reduced highlight) version uploaded --Virtual-Pano 23:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Full   Support Excellent rework. --Smial 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good -- Spurzem 11:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 10:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:09011264_-_Berlin_-_Rotes_Rathaus_-1861.jpg

 

  • Nomination Tower of 'Rotes Rathaus' in Berlin --Virtual-Pano 10:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Lion-hearted85 10:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too dark --Charlesjsharp 13:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment could you please specify which area is too dark? --Virtual-Pano 19:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done exposure has been adjusted--Virtual-Pano 21:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough quality, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 07:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good image, for me not only good enaugh. Sometimes in the night it is dark. -- Spurzem 11:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support With Spurzem. Its a very clear, sharp and balanced image. --Augustgeyler 11:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 10:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Brussels_Central_station_world_wars_memorial_(DSC_0318).jpg

 

  • Nomination Brussels Central station world wars memorial --Trougnouf 06:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment You'd improve your picture substantially cropping the bottom of the lower level --Poco a poco 18:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like it. To me it shows life and people are moving places after we've gone through these attrocities. Hopefully in the right direction, even though the artwork is largely ignored. Is that crop a factor for QI ? --Trougnouf 19:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment To me that area is just disturbing and not adding anything to the image, as it is jus to small to me to consider it a essential element in the composition. Other opinions? --Poco a poco 18:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I am with Poco. The lower part might make sense, if there would have been more of the sub-scenery shown. But in that case it is so small that I'd cropp it out, too. --Augustgeyler 19:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support It's true that could have been a little wider, but that small background area makes makes it easier to understand the context in which the artwork is placed. I have tried to crop it on my pc and it looks good, of course, but the uncropped version makes more sense to me. Generally speaking, it's well composed and the quality is good for me. --Lion-hearted85 10:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. I agree with the others, but I respect the artist's motivations and artistic license. -- Ikan Kekek 07:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support with or without (the crop) - excellent focus and exposure --Virtual-Pano 20:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Virtual-Pano (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_José,_Ponta_Delgada,_isla_de_San_Miguel,_Azores,_Portugal,_2020-07-30,_DD_43-45_HDR.jpg

 

  • Nomination Church of St Joseph, Ponta Delgada, São Miguel Island, Azores, Portugal --Poco a poco 08:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 08:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment CA at the windows should be removed. --Ermell 21:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment As there was already a promotion vote before Ermell commented, I changed this to Discuss. --Augustgeyler 22:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I removed the IMHO really slight CA, a tough review in my eyes for such a big file and under challenging constraints Poco a poco 10:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good image. --Augustgeyler 16:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree. Very sharp image taken under challenging conditions and good composition. --Lion-hearted85 00:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell 07:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

File:25914_IMG_2589.jpg

 

  • Nomination Jewish cemetery in Sataniv. By User:Roman Starchenko --Andrew J.Kurbiko 08:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment Very well composed. But can you please upload a version with higher resulution? --Augustgeyler 12:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose overprocessed. --Kallerna 07:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like it was taken with a graduated filter, however it's a good photo for me, I like its composition. Maybe the darkening effect on the sky can be rolled back a bit? It would be nice if a higher resolution is available. --Lion-hearted85 10:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 10:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Great scenery! But the graduated filter or the graduated filter effect at the sky looks unnatural as well as the resolution is very low. --Augustgeyler 10:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I know that we still have the minimum 2mpix requirement, but it is obsolete and an image resolution of just hardly above 2mpix is not sufficient nowadays IMO. The file name is meaningless and should be changed. (I may change to support once the picture is renamed and a significanrly higher resolution with increase of detail is provided.) --A.Savin 13:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with the others that this kind of motif needs a bigger size in 2019 to be a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 07:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too small, massive overprocessing. --Smial 11:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 07:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Maison_à_Locronan.jpg

 

  • Nomination House in Locronan (Finistère, France). --Gzen92 07:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose blown sky --Kallerna 17:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like the sky of a cloudy day to me. Please discuss. --Lion-hearted85 09:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support ok for me.--Ermell 10:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 07:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Rainy day, see other photos. Gzen92 07:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 07:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Maison_de_marchand.jpg

 

  • Nomination Merchant's house in Locronan (Finistère, France). --Gzen92 07:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose blown sky --Kallerna 17:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like the sky of a cloudy day to me. Please discuss. --Lion-hearted85 09:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support The sky is ok.--Ermell 10:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sky is perhaps just slightly overexposed, and it looks like there's a bit of magenta CA on the left side of the chimney. -- Ikan Kekek 07:21, 25 October 2020

  Comment Rainy day, see other photos. Gzen92 07:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC) (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Orthodox_Cathedral_Riga_07.jpg

 

  • Nomination Towers of Nativity of Christ Cathedral – Russian Orthodox Church in Riga, Latvia --Scotch Mist 06:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Underexposed. --Kallerna 07:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Kallerna: Would appreciate the views of others, especially on whether apparent 'underexposure' automatically rules out QI irrespective of whether any significant detail is lost or not (this is not my reading of QI Guidelines) and if necessary whether any 'remedial action' can be taken? --Scotch Mist 08:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The photographer tried to compensate for the overexposed gold on the dome. Unfortunately this did not work. Gold is always problematic.--Ermell 10:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 10:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Orthodox_Cathedral_Riga_09.jpg

 

  • Nomination Façade Perspective of Nativity of Christ Cathedral in Riga --Scotch Mist 06:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Underexposed. --Kallerna 07:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Kallerna: Would appreciate the views of others, especially on whether apparent 'underexposure' automatically rules out QI irrespective of whether any significant detail is lost or not (this is not my reading of QI Guidelines) and if necessary whether any 'remedial action' can be taken? --Scotch Mist 08:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes, the building itself was underexposed. The exposure settings seam to be adapted more to the sky than to the main object. --Augustgeyler (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Augustgeyler: Follow your comment but you have not addressed the point that assuming 'underexposure' does not automatically rule out QI in all circumstances (not indicated in QI Guidelines), what have you identified as missing detail or poor representation that in your mind diminishes the quality of this particular image beyond subjective opinion? --Scotch Mist 08:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, you are free to use underexposure as an artificial tool. In that case it is producing an unnatural look as well as very dark shadows at the façade making it unnecessary hard to detect these shadowed details. --Augustgeyler 16:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective problems. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Additionally, it is lacking sharpness, and on the sky you clearly see noise suppression -- that's not nice. --A.Savin 13:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment There was no "noise suppression" or any other 'post-processing' of the sky - in fact if I had lightened the whole photograph it would probably have conformed more with some assessments of QI as expressed here, but IMO would have resulted in a more bland image and the ethereal (perhaps seemingly "unnatural") cloud pattern complementing this 'spiritual building' would have been disproportionately reduced in favour of some secondary details in the shadows. Am not sure what "perspective problems" refer to but understand my perspective is not necessarily shared by others with strict interpretation of technical guidelines being personally less important than producing what appeals to me and perhaps a few other 'misguided individuals'!:) --Scotch Mist 05:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question That perspective is intentional? It looks weird to me. -- Ikan Kekek 07:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Orthodox_Cathedral_Riga_06.jpg

 

  • Nomination Dome Perspective of Nativity of Christ Cathedral in Riga --Scotch Mist 06:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Too mush sky, it looks underexposed --Podzemnik 19:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose underexposed, perspective. --Kallerna 07:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done @Podzemnik: Thanks for your review - have cropped and adjusted WB --Scotch Mist 07:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Kallerna: Would appreciate the views of others, especially on whether apparent 'underexposure' automatically rules out QI irrespective of whether any significant detail is lost or not (this is not my reading of QI Guidelines) and if necessary whether any 'remedial action' can be taken? --Scotch Mist 08:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 08:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Hall_Of_the_pavilion_at_the_Granite_pier_(Pavilion_under_the_flag).jpg

 

  • Nomination Hall Of the pavilion at the Granite pier (Pavilion under the flag): Elagin island, 4N, North-East of Elagin Palace, Petrogradsky district, Saint Petersburg --Александр Байдуков 02:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose overprocessed --Kallerna 07:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I have to disagree. Quality good enough for me, maybe an image resize could be useful --PantheraLeo1359531 11:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I see no lack. -- Spurzem 10:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Kallerna: Could you please describe what you meant with "overprocessed" in this case here? --Augustgeyler 10:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment highlights/shadows adjusted too much. No contrast. There is also too much floor. --Kallerna 08:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Thank you. In this case I can agree only partially. Yes it might be a bit processed to adjust shadows. But the low contrast you mentioned here must be caused by the real scenery, which has mostly white and light grey and surfaces. So I think it's OK. --Augustgeyler (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Infoschild_Bürgerpark_Trogen_20201021_DSC4426.jpg

 

  • Nomination Information board about an upcoming civic park in Trogen. --PantheraLeo1359531 20:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose underexposed, copyvio? --Kallerna 17:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done i have to disagree. Image was brightened, it is NOT a copyright violoation due to freedom of panorama in Germany (COM:FOP Germany). The FOP rule also applies to public and permanent information boards, one can be seen in this picture. Changed to discuss --PantheraLeo1359531 11:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support OK to me. --Augustgeyler (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support ok for me.--Ermell 10:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 07:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Mural,_Kadikoey,_Istanbul_(P1100172).jpg

 

  • Nomination Mural in Kadiköy. Inscription reads: “Gerçekten evrenin sırrını arıyorsanız, benim yaptığım gibi sayılara gelin.” --MB-one 18:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose blown sky. --Kallerna 17:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment CAs at the sky border should be corrected, otherwise OK for me --PantheraLeo1359531 11:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @PantheraLeo1359531: Thank you for the review. Removed CA. ----MB-one 12:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you, good for me now --PantheraLeo1359531 19:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me, too. The sky is not much of a problem for me here. --Lion-hearted85 00:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. I think it's arguable whether the sky is a tad overexposed or not. I think not, but it's in any case pretty much de minimis for this photo. -- Ikan Kekek 07:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 07:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Tonndorf_friedhof_kd_29638_mausoleum_kock_01.jpg

 

  • Nomination Cemetery in Hamburg-Tonndorf, view to mausoleum family Kock --Dirtsc 14:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose A good composition, but the focus is not sharp given the static subject. Shadows distracting. --Tagooty 03:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, but I like to see more opinions. The shadows are an essential part of the image and I don't see probblems with the sharpness. But maybe I'm totally wrong. ;-) Greetings --Dirtsc 08:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment See the top of the column and the right knee for lack of sharpness. Also, the writing on the sign and the red leaves of the plant at the bottom. --Tagooty 15:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose It's a well composed arrangement. The warm sunlight spot at the centre of the statue is very good. But the hard shadows at the main object, especially on its top, are more distracting than adding something. --Augustgeyler (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality - agree with Dirtsc - shadows add depth to this well-composed photograph and do not distract from primary interest such as the face and posture of the subject --Scotch Mist 12:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Scheepswrak_van_de_Queen_Anne._31-08-2020._(actm.)_03.jpg

 

  • Nomination Digging part of the frames of the Queen Anne in the Schoterveld nature reserve near Bant in Flevoland. --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 04:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose wb off --Kallerna 17:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 10:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment there is also very similar photo already QI. Why promote both? --Kallerna 08:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Because QI is not VI or FP. ;-) --XRay 08:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there a need for several so similar QIs? We should not encourage nominating duplicates. --Kallerna 11:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose A very good composition showing a dramatic scenery. But the level of detail is a little low and I am missing sharpness, especially in the foreground. --Augustgeyler 08:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   CommentAgnes, I'm very clearly seeing magenta CA on the upper reaches of the two pieces of wood furthest to the left. Please fix that. After that's fixed, this will be a QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 10:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done. Ca’s removed. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Route_langs_zandsculpturen_in_het_Kuinderbos_(Flevoland)._31-08-2020._(actm.)_14.jpg

 

  • Nomination Walking route along sand sculptures in the Kuinderbos-Flevoland. (Viewpoint along the route). --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 04:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose wb off. --Kallerna 17:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think the white balance is OK, showing that special weather light. But the image seams to be slightly tilted ccw. --Augustgeyler 22:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. Would you like to indicate which side, left or right?--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment ccw (counter clockwise), that means it is leaning very slightly to the left. --Augustgeyler 10:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done. Vertical correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan 15:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good for me -- Spurzem 10:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Spurzem. -- Ikan Kekek 07:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment there is also very similar photo already QI. Why promote both? --Kallerna 08:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality --PantheraLeo1359531 15:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Well improved. Good composition. I am just missing some sharpness. --Augustgeyler 08:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --PantheraLeo1359531 15:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Walls_and_remains_of_towers_and_bastions_of_the_Roundabout_city.jpg

 

  • Nomination Walls and remains of towers and bastions of the roundabout city of the XV-XVI centuries: Velikaya river embankment, Sverdlova street, Pskov, Pskov region --Александр Байдуков 02:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. Geotag would be useful --Podzemnik 02:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose strong halo effect. --Kallerna 17:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I think it is a bit over-processed. The wall in the foreground should have been made just a little less light for a less artificial look. --Augustgeyler 08:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:The_Elagin_Palace._Lion_sculpture_at_the_front_entrance.jpg

 

  • Nomination The Elagin Palace. Lion sculpture at the main entrance: Elagin island, 4, Petrogradsky district, Saint Petersburg --Александр Байдуков 02:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 02:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment The photo is sharp and well composed, but I think that the black halo around the lion (caused by exposure processing) should be made less obvious. --Lion-hearted85 16:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I see no lack. -- Spurzem 11:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes, as Lion-hearted85 stated, the black halo is way to obvious. --Augustgeyler 11:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose overprocessed. --Kallerna 07:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I see natural blemishes and dirt on the lion, but no signs of overprocessing. Would appreciate if someone indicates the defects. --Tagooty 16:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Tagooty, Spurzem: Just look at the thump. There is a dark halo following the silhouette of the lion making the background black. I just marked it directly on the image. --Augustgeyler (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment @Augustgeyler: Thanks for marking the halos, I see the problem now. In my experience, halo is a few pixels wide, so I missed this 100-200 pixels wide black area. In LR, sharpening radius is max 3 pixels. I'm wondering what sort of processing can cause this? --Tagooty 15:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose blurred outer rim (upper part of mane and far right part of tail) --Virtual-Pano 00:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose overprocessed. --Smial 11:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Virtual-Pano 12:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:The_Haunting_Tree.jpg

 

  • Nomination The Haunting Tree --Jim Evans 19:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Can we get more specific categories? GEO tag would be extremely useful --Podzemnik 06:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I find Categories difficult. I did what I could. If a GEO tag is the coordinates of the location where the picture was taken I would have to guess. Jim Evans 13:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question Is a GEO tag required for QI images? Jim Evans 11:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment No but it is very helpful, especially if there is no other way (within Wikimedia) to pinpoint the location of your shot, like a specific category or linked article. (A tree in Houston has less educational value than a specific tree that can be tracked over time.) I think the descriptive location is OK if that's all you have, though if the tree is your subject then you should identify its species. --Trougnouf 10:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm sorry, I don't know the species of the tree.
  •   Oppose too much noise in criss crossing branches --Virtual-Pano 14:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm moving this to discussion mostly to try to understand how far afield reasons for disapproval of images can go. Apparently whether an image has enough categories has been accepted as a criteria for some time. It seems to me it has little to do with whether an image is of good quality. But, coordinates? I don't understand what location has to do with whether an image is of good quality?. I haven't checked but I suspect there are many images approved for QI that have no coordinates. Again, I don't understand how the species of the tree relates to the quality of the image. --- As for the complaint about digital noise. I see no unusual digital noise. When there's noise it's usually apparent first in the sky, but I see none it the tree either. Finally, I apologize for missing the request for a general location. As the image description explains, the tree is located beside the Johnson Space Center, off Space Center Blvd., somewhere between Middlebrook Drive & NASA Road 1. -- Jim Evans 13:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment imo the subject should be identified and the categories should capture the subject and the location. Proper categorization is one of the criteria listed in Commons:Image_guidelines#Image_page_requirements; it adds greatly to the educational value which is Commons' main goal (see Commons:Project_scope: "makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all ... "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative""; quality is not necessarily just technical quality but in this scope educational value or the amount of information counts). If the location is vague or wide then geocoordinates are a big help. Geocoordinates are always appreciated but I think the location description you provided is fine. If your subject is a particular tree then it needs to be identified on the same basis as any life form. I think it would be fine to capture a scene where the tree is present and describe the scene, but there is nothing else to go for here. I think the quality is ok, there is not the greatest amount of detail but it's good enough for QI. Your assumption of noise is not entirely correct; noise is easily visible in the sky because the sky should be smooth (low frequency) whereas noise has high frequency, but noise is the sensor's uncertainty and it shows up mainly when increasing the captured values, ie increasing ISO or raising the shadows. In this case you left the shadows looking black but if you raised their value such that details become visible then there would be significant noise. Note that your picture shows some noise visible in the sky here at a reasonable zoom level, but not a disturbing amount. --Trougnouf 17:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have placed a note box on the noise I am referring to --Virtual-Pano 00:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't think the note made by Virtual-Pano shows noise, it looks like a real feature in the tree. Greetings --Dirtsc (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose It is a well composed image. But its level of detail is quit low. Noise reduction made it worse. --Augustgeyler 22:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment For the record, no n