Open main menu

Commons:Quality images candidates

(Redirected from Commons:QIC)

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Canadian English • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Nederlands • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎latviešu • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎मैथिली • ‎ไทย • ‎中文 • ‎日本語
float

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. Please note that this is not the same thing as featured pictures. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

Contents

PurposeEdit

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons.
Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.

GuidelinesEdit

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominatorsEdit

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.


Image page requirementsEdit
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.


CreatorEdit

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technical requirementsEdit

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.


ResolutionEdit

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.


Image qualityEdit

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.


Composition and lightingEdit

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.


ValueEdit

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.


How to nominateEdit

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.


Number of nominationsEdit

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


Evaluating imagesEdit

Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination.
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.


How to reviewEdit

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.


Grace period and promotionEdit

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from review, the image becomes promoted or fails, according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.


How to execute decisionEdit

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red


Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)Edit

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 16 2019 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.


Consensual review processEdit

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

How to ask for consensual reviewEdit

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

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


Consensual review rulesEdit

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Shortcut: COM:QIC/L

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]] 14:53, 16 September 2019 (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.
If there are terms you are unfamiliar with, please see explanations at Photography terms.

Thank you.



September 16, 2019Edit

September 15, 2019Edit

September 14, 2019Edit

September 13, 2019Edit

September 12, 2019Edit

September 11, 2019Edit

September 10, 2019Edit

September 9, 2019Edit

September 8, 2019Edit

September 7, 2019Edit

September 6, 2019Edit

September 5, 2019Edit

September 4, 2019Edit

September 3, 2019Edit

August 28, 2019Edit

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   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 ReviewEdit

File:2019-07-06_BeachVolleyball_Weltmeisterschaft_Hamburg_2019_StP_0299_LR_by_Stepro-2.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination 2019 Beach Volleyball World Championships; Mariafe Artacho (AUS, Australia) celebrates her victory for place 3; bronze medal --Stepro 01:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --XRay 04:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Face is not sharp. --Ermell 07:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Photographic shots with high sensitivity settings always lose some of their sharpness of detail, which is in the nature of things. It is very pleasing that the photographer did not flatten the noise with the steamroller and thus achieved an overall very balanced image impression. Please note the difference between studio photography and action photography. --Smial 10:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I know the difference between studio photography and action photography. For me it is not sharp enough and too noisy. --Steindy 13:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 06:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Hertha_BSC_vs._West_Ham_United_20190731_(088).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Jordan Torunarigha, player of Hertha BSC Berlin. --Steindy 00:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Insufficient quality IMO. --Satdeep Gill 03:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportI disagree. --Ermell 07:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 06:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

File:2018-10-22_TV,_ARD,_Cast_-Rote_Rosen-_Staffel_16_IMG_1935_LR10_by_Stepro.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination TV, ARD, cast "Rote Rosen" season 16; Lara-Isabelle Rentinck --Stepro 06:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Focus is on the shoulder not on the face. --Ermell 07:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I concur. This is not sharp enough for a head shot.--Peulle 11:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ermell 06:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Vista_de_Quito_desde_El_Panecillo,_Ecuador,_2015-07-22,_DD_30-32_PAN.JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination View of Quito from El Panecillo, Ecuador --Poco a poco 07:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Nice view, but most of the city is out of focus. --Domob 18:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    Doesn't actually look bad to me for a shot of a far landscape, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 15:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The buildings in the right quarter (or third) of the picture all seem to tilt slightly outwards. The exposure is a little too bright. Both should be fixed if possible. The picture is not pixel sharp in all places, but in regard to the size and resolution of the photo, I consider this to be acceptable. --Smial 10:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Ermell 06:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Trattenbach_Manufaktur_Löschenkohl_Klingenschleifanlage-9435.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Grinding lathes with belt transmissions in a knife workshop --Isiwal 07:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion   Support
    Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 09:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose Sorry, there are some CAs in the left and partly in the middle window. --Steindy 23:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Seven Pandas 23:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Der_Augustusplatz_in_Leipzig;_Blick_in_Richtung_des_Gewandhauses,_links_das_City-Hochhaus_und_das_neue_Augusteum_und_Paulinum_(2016).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination The Augustusplatz in Leipzig; View towards the Gewandhaus. by Ichwarsnur
  • Discussion
  •   Support Quite noisy, but I guess that's because of ND filter use so hard to avoid for long exposure during the day. And I like it :) --Podzemnik 03:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. too noisy for me and the clouds look somewhat distorted. --Milseburg 12:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Definitely too noisy Poco a poco 08:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle 11:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas 23:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Automeile_auf_dem_Kartoffelmarkt,_Ford_Mustang_--_2019_--_9897.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Ford Mustang at the car exhibition on the potato market in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose The background is too distracting. --Bobulous 18:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree. It's sharp enough and the background is typical for this kind of event. --XRay 09:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine to me, I expect this kind of background in a street pic Poco a poco 08:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support as XRay and Poco --Stepro 11:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Poco. -- Smial 18:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   weak support since I think it's mostly OK, but the composition could be improved by getting lower, showing more ground and less sky.--Peulle 11:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 23:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Church_of_the_Saint-Michel_Priory_of_Grandmont_(4).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Interior of the church of the Saint-Michel Priory of Grandmont, Hérault, France. --Tournasol7 06:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Composition contains too much effectively empty space. --Bobulous 18:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, but it's not a reason for decline. --Tournasol7 21:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The space is not empty at all. The typical depth of Romanesque architecture is well depicted by the large stone floor, the walls and ceiling. --Palauenc05 06:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This photo conforms QI standard. There is no any about 'space' there --Nino Verde (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. The empty space is the church room. --Aristeas 09:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I do recommend to crop a part of the floor to improve the composition but it is not mandatory Poco a poco 08:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support as Aristeas --Stepro 11:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Palauenc05. This church interior is simply empty. --Smial 10:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 23:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

File:_Trier,_Jesuitenkirche_-_Orgel_(2019-05-15_Sp).JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination Pipe organ in the Jesuitenkirche in Trier Spurzem 15:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    CA on columns, quite grainy too --Podzemnik 05:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Podzemnik: Thank you very much for your competent review. I withdraw, though I don't agree with your opinion. -- ~~~~
    It was just a comment, I didn't disagree. Let's wait for other folks think --Podzemnik 03:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    O. K. -- Spurzem 16:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Some grain and small amounts of CA visible, if printed in poster size like 100cm*70cm. Good enough. --Smial 13:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for me. --Manfred Kuzel 04:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Due to the numerous organ pipes difficult to photograph. Not the best, but quite good. Enough for QI. --Steindy 00:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 23:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Tulln_Gartenbaumesse_Feuerwerk_20190831_03.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Fireworks on the occasion of the horticultural fair 2019 in Tulln, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 03:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Does not capture the fireworks at maximum size, brightness, and color. --Senator2029 11:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Maximum brightness and color? Don't get it. Maximum size? The firewoks together with the reflections on the water surface which are obviously part of the composition fills nearly the whole frame. Maybe the composition is not really impressive, but I can't find severe technical issues. --Smial 07:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
      Support Good quality. --Steindy 12:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support great composition, good quality; it's a photo not a digital artwork --Stepro 11:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks OK to me; the firworks are in focus.--Peulle 11:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 23:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Dusky_Sunbird_Branch_2019-07-26.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Dusky sunbird (cinnyris fuscus) near Halali in Etosha National Park Namibia --Axel Tschentscher 23:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion Frank Schulenburg 22:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
      Question @Frank: What was that vote? --Axel Tschentscher 19:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    Did you apply artificial blurring? The branch makes my head dizzy. --Muntashir.islam 18:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Was heavy JPEG compression used? The detail on the bird is very soft and noisy, despite a low ISO.--Bobulous (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough for me. The feathers on the neck and head seem particularly frayed. --Steindy 00:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is some chroma noise which can be repaired with a non blurring method. The focus is not absolutely perfect set to the head of that bird, but this is not an easy-to-take-image and overall sharpness is good enough for A4 print or more. But main issue is the too strong JPG compression, those artifacts can only be fixed by the uploader. I would support a version with jpg quality set to "best". --Smial 19:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Set jpeg to best quality. Thanks for the input. Also recomposed. --Axel (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Really great enhancement including the composition. --Smial 10:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas 23:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Ambleteuse.-_Fort_Vauban_en2019_(3).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Fort Mahon in Ambleteuse (Pas-de-Calais) --Pierre André Leclercq 10:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Steindy 11:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree. Tilt of horizon is too strong for a QI in my eyes. --Milseburg 14:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry I haven't seen it. Yes, Milseburg, you are right. --Steindy 17:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Steindy: It is repairable. So I do not recommend switching from promotion to decline right away. Reset both to Nomination or Discuss, so Pierre has more time to fix it. --Milseburg 18:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. --Steindy 20:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  Comment   Done Tilt of horizon correction angle 0.5, thank you for tour advice.--Pierre André Leclercq 08:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Tilt seems ok now in my eyes. For promotion I miss overal a bit more sharpness and less noise in the sky. There is also a slight dust spot above the left end of the castle. --Milseburg 13:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  Done More sharpness and less noise in the sky. Removing a slight dust spot above the left end of the castle. thank you for your advice.--Pierre André Leclercq 15:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas 15:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)~
  •   Support Good quality for me. --Manfred Kuzel 05:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Now okay. --Steindy 13:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 15:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Ambleteuse.-_Fort_Vauban_en2019_(4).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Fort Mahon in Ambleteuse (Pas-de-Calais) --Pierre André Leclercq 09:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Steindy 11:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Tilted ccw. --Milseburg 14:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry I haven't seen it. Yes, Milseburg, you are right. --Steindy 17:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. --Steindy 20:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  Comment   Done Tilt of horizon correction angle 1.3, thank you for tour advice.--Pierre André Leclercq 08:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Horizon is ok now. Could be a bit sharper, but good enough for QI IMO. --Milseburg 14:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportNow good quality for me. --Manfred Kuzel 04:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Now okay. --Steindy 13:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 15:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC))

File:Ortskapelle_Grub_1.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Ortskapelle in Grub (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      OpposeTilted. Strange effect in the sky again --Podzemnik 06:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
      Done
    Neue Version hochgeladen .--Manfred Kuzel 17:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    Still tilted - check the left side of the chapel. Now there is also a white line with dead pixels on the left --Podzemnik 18:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
      Done
    2. new version uploaded. --Manfred Kuzel 05:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry but I still see it tilted. Strange pattern all over the picture now, it looks like a scan from a book --Podzemnik 04:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
      Comment Did you empty the browser cache? --Manfred Kuzel 04:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    +1 to Podzemnik, espacially the stripes on the door of the hause. --Steindy 17:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    * This is the grid in front of the door glazing! --Manfred Kuzel 04:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It might be not the most beautiful photo, but for me is quality high enough for Q1. You have kept a lot of sky in the top --Michielverbeek 18:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilted (you can see it at the door) and these strang stripes like the Moire pattern (known from scans) -- DerFussi 19:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Ich sehe zwar nach wie vor an der bezeichneten Stelle nur das Gitter der Türverglasung, aber ich habe eine neue Version hochgeladen und hoffe, damit die Kritikpunkte zufriedenstellend gelöst zu haben. --Manfred Kuzel 04:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --DerFussi 19:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

File:White_Rhinoceros_Alert_2019-07-27.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination White rhinoceros near Namutoni, Etosha, Namibia --Axel Tschentscher 15:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Great photo, but it feels like it's tilting to the left a degree or so. --Bobulous 16:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Adjusted left tilt. Great eye! Thanks. --Axel Tschentscher 13:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support GQ --Palauenc05 05:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas 20:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The adjusted version looks great.--Bobulous 18:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't understand why in cases like this, where an improvement is easy to do, have to be discussed in this section Poco a poco 08:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 11:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Hertha_BSC_vs._West_Ham_United_20190731_(037).jpgEdit

 

 
Unprocessed original photo (does not stand for candidature)
  • Nomination Vladimír Darida (Hertha BSC Berlin) in duel with Aaron Cresswell (West Ham United) --Steindy 08:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose It looks overprocessed to me. Like too much limuninace was applied, there is no detail left --Podzemnik 05:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry Podzemnik, I don't know, which details you are missing and I don't know, what "limuninace" is. The "overprocessing" is the quality of a Canon 2,8/300 objectiv. --Steindy 11:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries - I meant "luminance" :) Let's hear other opinions--Podzemnik 01:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, now I understand what you meant. Sorry, I do not know what I could do better with this picture ;-( --Steindy 09:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support schwierige Situation, perfekt umgesetzt. --Ralf Roletschek 12:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good image. I don't understand the criticism above. -- Spurzem 13:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Podzemnik. --Manfred Kuzel 13:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)