Commons:Quality images candidates


Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎українська
float

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

PurposeEdit

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

GuidelinesEdit

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominatorsEdit

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

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


CreatorEdit

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

Technical requirementsEdit

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

ResolutionEdit

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media.

This does not apply to vector graphics (SVG).

Image qualityEdit

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

Composition and lightingEdit

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

ValueEdit

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

How to nominateEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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


Number of nominationsEdit

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


Evaluating imagesEdit

Any registered user, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination.
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to reviewEdit

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

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


Grace period and promotionEdit

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

How to execute decisionEdit

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

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

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

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)Edit

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 2016 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

Contents

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]] 19:42, 8 February 2016 (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.

February 8, 2016Edit

February 7, 2016Edit

February 6, 2016Edit

February 5, 2016Edit

February 4, 2016Edit

February 3, 2016Edit

February 2, 2016Edit

February 1, 2016Edit

January 31, 2016Edit

January 30, 2016Edit

January 29, 2016Edit

January 28, 2016Edit

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:Kamchatka_Brown_Bear_near_Dvuhyurtochnoe_on_2015-07-23.pngEdit

Kamchatka Brown Bear near Dvuhyurtochnoe on 2015-07-23.png

  • Nomination A Kamchatka Brown Bear (wild) near Dvuhyurtochnoe Kamchatka taken on July 23rd, 2015. --Rftblr 17:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Cccefalon 20:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have now uploaded a JPG version and linked it to the PNG version. I will do this for my other candidates as well. Do I have to retract the PNG version from QI and nominate the JPG version? --User:rftblr 8:03, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment you can keep it as it is, in fact, it´s the same picture. --Hubertl 08:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 08:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can you explain, A.Savin, why this picture should be uploaded as jpg and not in png? --Hubertl 10:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I also do not understand this request. Our QIC rules explicetly suggest a resolution for Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF). So what is the problem with png (which also is a FREE format)? --Cccefalon 10:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
See my comment at #File:Mischek_Tower_Vienna_from_W_on_2013-06-14.png. --A.Savin 16:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 08:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Ares_Tower_Vienna_from_SW_on_2015-07-10.pngEdit

Ares Tower Vienna from SW on 2015-07-10.png

  • Nomination The Ares Tower in Vienna seen from the south-west on July 10th, 2015. --Rftblr 17:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality although photographs should rather be saved as JPG. --Code 17:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment add a jpg for previewing purposes. rftblr --Hubertl 08:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 10:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have now uploaded a JPG version and linked it to the PNG version. --User:rftblr 19:34, 8 February 2016(UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 08:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Railwaystation_Neunkirchen_Lower_Austria_from_S_on_2015-07-11.pngEdit

Railwaystation Neunkirchen Lower Austria from S on 2015-07-11.png

  • Nomination The railwaystation of Neunkirchen, Lower Austria from the south on Juli 11th, 2015. --Rftblr 17:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Code 18:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment add a jpg for previewing purposes. rftblr --Hubertl 08:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 10:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Blueish cast all over the image (see signs). --C messier 15:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have now uploaded a JPG version and linked it to the PNG version. --User:rftblr 19:34, 8 February 2016(UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 08:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Strabag_Building_Vienna_from_SE_on_2015-07-10.pngEdit

Strabag Building Vienna from SE on 2015-07-10.png

  • Nomination The Strabag Building in Vienna seen from the south-east on July 10th, 2015. --Rftblr 17:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Code 18:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment add a jpg for previewing purposes. rftblr --Hubertl 08:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 10:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have now uploaded a JPG version and linked it to the PNG version. --User:rftblr 19:34, 8 February 2016(UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 08:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Parish_Church_Neunkirchen_Lower_Austria_from_SE_on_2014-03-08.pngEdit

Parish Church Neunkirchen Lower Austria from SE on 2014-03-08.png

  • Nomination The Parish Church in Neunkirchen, Lower Austria from south east on March 8, 2014. --Rftblr 17:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Code 19:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment add a jpg for previewing purposes. rftblr --Hubertl 08:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 10:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have now uploaded a JPG version and linked it to the PNG version. --User:rftblr 19:34, 8 February 2016(UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 08:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Church of Holy Trinity in Korolyov (fragment of gate and bell tower).jpgEdit

Church of Holy Trinity in Korolyov (fragment of gate and bell tower).jpg

  • Nomination Korolyov, Moscow Oblast. The Church of the Holy Trinity. A fragment of the gate and the bell tower. --Dmitry Ivanov 12:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately, the sky is posterized. Can you redevelop from RAW? --Cccefalon 12:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC).
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To say the truth I don’t see significant posterization on the sky (some problems with a graphic system/a monitor are possible, though). So let’s ask for a third opinion. The reprocessing is possible, but not now, so, if the photo isn’t a QI, then it isn’t a QI. Thanks for review. Dmitry Ivanov 14:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC).
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For your convenience, I marked an area with the said posterization. Please make sure, that you verify with a quality monitor. Notebook monitor won't be good enough. --Cccefalon 14:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A new version (without the reprocessing from RAW) was uploaded. Also, see here, please. Dmitry Ivanov 21:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC).
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 08:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Museu da inconfidencia.JPGEdit

Museu da inconfidencia.JPG

  • Nomination Museum of the Inconfidência, Ouro Preto, Brazil (by Ricardotakamura) --ArionEstar 21:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. The overall quality is very bad. Nearly all details are gone. I don't know what happened in the postprocessing but this looks like upscaled ore somewhat. Hard to say. This cannot be QI in my eyes. --Code 14:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 08:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Donau_City_Vienna_from_Donaupark_on_2014-08-08_crop.pngEdit

Donau City Vienna from Donaupark on 2014-08-08 crop.png

  • Nomination The Donau City as seen from the Donaupark on August 8, 2014 (beschnittene Version). --Rftblr 17:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. In the description is English and German confused. --F. Riedelio 08:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment add a jpg for previewing purposes. rftblr --Hubertl 08:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 10:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 13:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have now uploaded a JPG version and linked it to the PNG version. --User:rftblr 19:36, 8 February 2016(UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 08:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Mischek_Tower_Vienna_from_N_on_2014-08-22.pngEdit

Mischek Tower Vienna from N on 2014-08-22.png

  • Nomination The Mischek Tower from the North on August 22, 2014. --Rftblr 17:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality: Perspective correction necessary. --F. Riedelio 08:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perspective distortion is ok like this, IMO --Hubertl 08:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 13:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have now uploaded a JPG version and linked it to the PNG version. --User:rftblr 19:36, 8 February 2016(UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 08:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Tech_Gate_Vienna_from_W_on_2015-08-31.pngEdit

Tech Gate Vienna from W on 2015-08-31.png

  • Nomination The Tech Gate in Vienna from the west on August 31, 2015. --Rftblr 17:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An interesting composition of modern architecture which is sharp enough to be a Q1one --Michielverbeek 20:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment add a jpg for previewing purposes. rftblr --Hubertl 08:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 10:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 13:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have now uploaded a JPG version and linked it to the PNG version. --User:rftblr 19:36, 8 February 2016(UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 08:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:May2015 Volgograd img06 View from Mamaev Hill.jpgEdit

May2015 Volgograd img06 View from Mamaev Hill.jpg

  • Nomination Volgograd: view from Mamaev Hill --A.Savin 15:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality: An unfavourable image section (too much foreground), right edge of the image is out of focus. --F. Riedelio 08:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry please other opinion: it is the view as it is at this point, and where do you see any blurred areas? --A.Savin 14:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @A.Savin: Please see annotations. --F. Riedelio 13:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand your issues very well, but I don't get the problem. --A.Savin 16:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would say too much sky, but the horizon is at the one third of the image. The composition actually lies at thirds (one sky, one city, one foreground). The lack of sharpness descripted isn't something worth declining (or mentioning). --C messier 15:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 08:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Hermit_Ibis_in_Vienna_Zoo_on_2013-05-14.pngEdit

Hermit Ibis in Vienna Zoo on 2013-05-14.png

  • Nomination A Hermin Ibis in the Vienna Zoo on May 14, 2013. --Rftblr 17:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Animal centered and in focus --Daniel Case 18:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment add a jpg for previewing purposes. rftblr --Hubertl 08:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 10:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 13:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 08:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Mischek_Tower_Vienna_from_W_on_2013-06-14.pngEdit

Mischek Tower Vienna from W on 2013-06-14.png

  • Nomination The Mischek Tower in Vienna from the west on June 14, 2013. --Rftblr 17:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good angle; nice and sharp --Daniel Case 18:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment add a jpg for previewing purposes. rftblr --Hubertl 08:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 10:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What's wrong with PNG? Same colour depth possible, and used (24 bit/pixel), no (additional) compression artifacts. Ok, bigger file size than comparable JPG, and no EXIF data, but I didn't know lossy compression and exif are mandantory. -- Smial 12:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Ps: I'd suggest very slight clockwise rotation.
Read here. Common practice on Commons: JPG for photos, PNG/SVG for graphics. PNG -> no gain of quality. A truly lossless format is TIFF, with file size of 50-60 MB and more. --A.Savin 16:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 08:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Donau_City_Vienna_from_Donauinsel_on_2014-08-28.pngEdit

Donau City Vienna from Donauinsel on 2014-08-28.png

  • Nomination The Donau City in Vienna as seen from the Donauinsel on August 28, 2014. --Rftblr 17:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image of an eminently photogenic set of buildings --Daniel Case 18:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016(UTC)

--Hubertl 10:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Hubertl 08:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 10:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 08:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:DC_Tower_1_Vienna_from_SW_on_2013-09-24_perspective_controlled.pngEdit

DC Tower 1 Vienna from SW on 2013-09-24 perspective controlled.png

  • Nomination DC Tower 1 in Vienna, nearly completed from south-west on September 24, 2013 (perspective controlled). --Rftblr 17:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice golden hour shot --Daniel Case 18:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment add a jpg for previewing purposes. rftblr --Hubertl 08:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 10:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 08:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Panorama vom Bürgerturm Gotha.jpgEdit

Panorama vom Bürgerturm Gotha.jpg

  • Nomination Panoramic view from Bürgerturm Gotha near Gotha in Thuringia. --Milseburg 15:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The white spots (especially in the lower right corner of the image) should be removed. Otherwise grand panorama. --F. Riedelio 15:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I´ve uploaded an improved version. But I believe that your "white spots" are nothing unnatural. Just light on the leaves. --Milseburg 17:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The improved version is not really better. The white dots still remain and look unnatural IMHO. --F. Riedelio 15:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO, this white dots are the result of not using a polarize filter, which often occurs with leave surfaces reflecting sunlight. Though for me QI. --Hubertl 19:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I restored the more authentic original version! --Milseburg 02:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 19:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2015_09_08_022_Abriss_Tortenschachtel.jpgEdit

2015 09 08 022 Abriss Tortenschachtel.jpg

  • Nomination Construction worker squirts water for the reduction of the formation of dust at demolition work. --F. Riedelio 14:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The crop on the left is disturbing imo. --Moroder 18:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    • ✓ Done
      New version with changed image cropping uploaded. --F. Riedelio 13:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment At the moment the compo is messed up by an inappropriate image ratio and disturbing elements. I made a combined crop&clone-out proposal to salvage the motif. --Cccefalon 08:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Symbol support vote.svg Support The new crop is convincing - the construction worker is now the necessary eye catcher among the assortment of different ragged elements with different directional lines. What you could do for further improvement is a slight untilt for the background verticals. --Cccefalon 10:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Moroder 11:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 09:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Metro_MSK_Line9_Savyolovskaya_(img1).jpgEdit

Metro MSK Line9 Savyolovskaya (img1).jpg

  • Nomination Savyolovskaya Station of Moscow Subway --Florstein 07:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurry image, probably focus error. --Shansov.net 12:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality for me -- Spurzem 18:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low DOF, somewhat too noisy. -- Smial 15:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 11:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Mastle_y_Pic_dinviern_Gherdëina.jpgEdit

Mastle y Pic dinviern Gherdëina.jpg

  • Nomination The mount Pic and Mastlé in Val Gardena - up front the Bosch dala Crëusc woodland. --Moroder 19:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality: IMHO the image background is too light (too little contrast). --F. Riedelio 10:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMHO the setting is presented authentically. --Milseburg 12:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks. Yes, that was exactly the ambiance --Moroder 18:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for quality reasons: strong pixelation at the brightened shady trees. --Carschten 22:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support. Maybe not the best weather and lighting for a colourful postcard idyll, but I can not see severe flaws in 100% view. With extreme pixelpeeping some small amount of noise can be seen in dark areas and not every pixel is crisp. But, hey, this is an image with 36 MPixels! As A.Savin often says: No double standards, please. -- Smial 11:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Smial. --Hubertl 14:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 14:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Metro_MSK_Line2_Dinamo_Central_Hall.jpgEdit

Metro MSK Line2 Dinamo Central Hall.jpg

  • Nomination Dinamo Station of Moscow Subway --Florstein 09:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lights too overexposed; some CA visible --Daniel Case 06:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, I think it is not as awful as you described. I beg your sanction to ask the society. --Florstein 09:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not perfect but sufficient for QI. Btw, photographing with tripod is not allowed in Moscow Metro. --A.Savin 14:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't know what exactly you were doing wrong, but this image is noisy and not sharp, especially at the sides. Sorry, but this location is easily accessible and easy to capture with a modern camera. --Shansov.net 12:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Shansov.net: О, мой грандиозный критик! Я понимаю, что рецензировать работы - дело сложное - гораздо легче приехать/прилететь в Москву и снять свои замечательные фотографии метрополитена, станции которого освещены лишь ненамного лучше, чем подвалы многоэтажек и в котором запрещено фотографировать со штатива. А то я вот порою встречал людей, которые тоже любили покритиковать, но когда у них слова доходили до дела - на выходе получался столь оглушительный пшик, что за них делалось очень неловко. ;) --Florstein 17:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Florstein: "Сперва добейся", да? :) Вовсе не надо самому быть поваром, чтобы оценивать вкус еды. Я даже нигде не говорил, что снял бы лучше. Мало того, здесь даже не мне решать, будет ли это QI или не будет, я просто высказал своё мнение. По моему мнению это хорошие фотографии и по композиции и по цвету, хорошо выбрано время без посетителей, просто по моей оценке технического качества это не QI, либо было бы QI при понижении разрешения. VI - уж точно. Приезжать и прилетать в Москву не обязательно, в ней и так много пользователей Вики. И про освещение вы преувеличили сильно. Освещение этих станций - 6-7 EV, как минимум на 4 ступени выше, чем освещение подвала, а то и больше - штатив не требуется. --Shansov.net 07:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Shansov.net: да ну, при чём тут "сперва добейся". Было бы чего добиваться. Если говорить серьёзно, то вот я, например, когда складываю своё суждение о чужих работах, пытаюсь выбирать нужный "шаблон" для каждого случая. Если, например, снимаешь на солнечной улице хорошей камерой (часто фулфреймом) мутную хрень с неизвестно какими цветами, выкладываешь её "как снято" и при этом пытаешься выдать фото за шедевр, то ты криворук и не в состоянии трезво оценить свою работу. Это один шаблон оценки. А когда пытаешься выжать что-то из хилой оптики, выкручивая диафрагму на максимум, завышая исо для нормальной съёмки в полумраке залов, явно возясь в фотошопе с конечным результатом - это, как ни крути, другой шаблон оценки. Говорю как о своих работах, так и о чужих. Шум и сильно не кристальная чёткость на полном просмотре тут не являются решающими критериями. И чтобы вы ни думали об освещённости станций Московского метро, его сильно не достаёт: некоторые станции действительно освещены, как двемерские пещеры. По-хорошему, чтобы получить отличный результат, нужно выставлять f7-8 и ИСО не более 200, а тут уж без треноги никак. Я не оправдываюсь, просто пытаюсь донести своё видение проблемы, и отчего я, по вашему мнению, пытаюсь продвинуть в КИ заведомую ерунду. --Florstein 12:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Ещё можно купить какую-нибудь Sony A7S II, там с шумоподавлением всё путём при ИСО 800~1200, вот только разрешение её матрицы составляет ни много ни мало - 12 (двенадцать) мегапикселей, при цене в 230 000 (двести тридцать тысяч) рублей, вау :) --A.Savin 13:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Я как раз и удивился, что у вас получился такой уровень шумов и низкая чёткость при использовании практически последних достижений аппаратостроения - камерам, вроде, меньше года. А тут - исо 250 и 500. Как-то привык, что на 800 уже давно можно снимать вообще без шума, но видимо в мире кропов это ещё не так :( Уже вижу, что моё мнение не совпало с мнением большинства и новые ваши номинации не отклоняю. Да, понятно, что надо подходить с разными критериями при разных условиях, но надо ещё и учитывать суть номинации на QI. Если снято что-то полезное - то это VI, если что-то впечатляющее или красивое - то это FP, а QI - это именно технически качественное. По поводу темноты на станциях метро, тем не менее, не соглашусь. Не воспринимайте это как личный наезд. --Shansov.net 14:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Shansov.net: не понимаю смысла в проекте VI, его с успехом можно полностью заменить FP, но в рад, что в целом мы друг друга поняли. Будем расти над собой. :) Что касается камеры, то её вины тут нет, насколько я могу доверять своему небогатому опыту: всё упирается в мыльный объектив и мои кривые ручки, конечно же. --Florstein 17:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality --Christian Ferrer 11:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 14:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 14:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Sun 31 Jan → Mon 08 Feb
Mon 01 Feb → Tue 09 Feb
Tue 02 Feb → Wed 10 Feb
Wed 03 Feb → Thu 11 Feb
Thu 04 Feb → Fri 12 Feb
Fri 05 Feb → Sat 13 Feb
Sat 06 Feb → Sun 14 Feb
Sun 07 Feb → Mon 15 Feb
Mon 08 Feb → Tue 16 Feb