Commons:Quality images candidates

Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

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


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]] 20:42, 28 July 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.


July 28, 2016Edit

July 27, 2016Edit

July 26, 2016Edit

July 25, 2016Edit

July 24, 2016Edit

July 23, 2016Edit

July 22, 2016Edit

July 21, 2016Edit

July 20, 2016Edit

July 18, 2016Edit

July 17, 2016Edit

July 15, 2016Edit

July 13, 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:Palm,_fingers.jpgEdit

Palm, fingers.jpg

File:FarrierKnockbracken (2).JPGEdit

FarrierKnockbracken (2).JPG

  • Nomination Farrier.Knockbracken , Co. Antrim, Ireland Notafly 13:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I know you don't have the tools for perspective adjustment yet, so I did that for you + a bit of light adjustment and crop. I chose the car as straight over the barn, impossible to do both. Someone else will have to do the review. W.carter 19:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion Well done, thank you! Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    Smoodgy and compression artifacts. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 10:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Montesquieu Pierre Bergoïoni.jpgEdit

Montesquieu Pierre Bergoïoni.jpg

  • Nomination Funerary inscription for Pierre Bergoïoni (13th ctry.), Montesquieu-des-Albères, France. --Palauenc05 07:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but with such soft texture on the tablet, I'm afraid the camera's focus ended up on the bricks over it. Try using focus lock for such motifs. W.carter 13:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree, I think, it is enough for QI --Hubertl 14:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Really? A stationary medium-sized object like this should not be hard to get a good focus on, but I will welcome the opinions of others at CR. W.carter 14:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version uploaded. --Palauenc05 08:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment why overwriting the first version, which has already been promoted as valued image? Both versions are useful. The first has low contrast due to soft lighting, but the new now has that hard shadow. -- Smial 09:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ Smial: Thanks for reviewing, actually, you are right. One shouldn't try to satisfy everybody. I also like the soft version better and don't find it too bad for QI. Hence, I go back to it and leave it as it is. --Palauenc05 11:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As said above, due to soft lighting the sharpness appears to be not very good, but as Hubertl: Good enough for QI. -- Smial 15:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 05:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

File:16-07-20-Marktplatz-Eberswalde-RalfR-WP 20160720 17 30 37 Pro.jpgEdit

16-07-20-Marktplatz-Eberswalde-RalfR-WP 20160720 17 30 37 Pro.jpg

  • Nomination Marktplatz Eberswalde--Ralf Roletschek 15:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 18:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Unsharp (looks almost like digital zooming), "frozen" water (longer exposure may help). Poorly categorized (of course). --A.Savin 16:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Frozen water might be intentional, but the image has some CA and much oversharpening combined with loss of detail due to blurring noise reduction. See esp. structures on the black roof and the gables (Schmuckgiebel) of the building right. --Smial 09:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 05:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Schlosspark Fulda (03).jpgEdit

Schlosspark Fulda (03).jpg

  • Nomination Sculpture in the park by the castle in Fulda --Verum 10:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong WB. --Smial 12:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it´s good practice, not immediately decline pictures with improveable faults. --Hubertl 19:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done (please reload page to see) I used the statue itself for WB, using the lightbulb behind it made it too blue as it is a warm afternoon (17:08) photo. W.carter 11:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Crop could be better but o.k.--Ermell (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ermell. --Basotxerri 18:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 06:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Schlosspark Fulda (02).jpgEdit

Schlosspark Fulda (02).jpg

  • Nomination Sculpture in the park by the castle in Fulda --Verum 10:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong WB --Smial 12:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it´s good practice, not immediately decline pictures with improveable faults. --Hubertl 19:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done (please reload page to see) I used the statue itself for WB. W.carter 11:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK. --A.Savin 16:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are clipping areas that have been artificially darkened so the histogram looks rather nice. But please look at the color hue, which is inconsistant everywhere at bright areas. This iamge (and the image above) can not be simply repaired using the JPG and general white balance settings. Perhaps it can be enhanced using raw format, if available. Of course it can be repaired by working on every single overexposed part separately. -- Smial 09:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 18:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 06:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:OndinadePlatareflejadaenelagua-jul2016.jpgEdit

OndinadePlatareflejadaenelagua-jul2016.jpg

  • Nomination Estatua Ondina de Plata y su reflejo en el agua, Jardín Botánico de Buenos Aires, Argentina --Ezarate 01:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 03:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Shouldn't QIs be correctly categorized? --Berthold Werner 11:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC) --Berthold Werner 09:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Ezarate 12:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok now. W.carter 11:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --A.Savin 18:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Χώρα Σερίφου 9536.jpgEdit

Χώρα Σερίφου 9536.jpg

  • Nomination View of Chora of Serifos. --C messier 08:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is some purple CA on buildings. And then there is noise all around. Kruusamägi 09:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done --C messier 10:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For me it still doesn't seem to be good enough. That purple halo on building edges really annoys me. Kruusamägi 10:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I had to zoom way more than 100% to find any CAs, and there was no purple CA on building edges. --C messier 10:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Will support if the black triangel (caused by perspective correction) down right is removed. The halos do not disturb in 100% view. If I zoom in to find them, I see a really horrible problem instead: the sharpness is NOT sufficiant to read the car plates!!!! -- Smial 13:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done --C messier 10:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 06:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Άσπρος Πύργος Σερίφου 9546.jpgEdit

Άσπρος Πύργος Σερίφου 9546.jpg

  • Nomination Building material from white tower of Serifos. --C messier 17:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To me, the blocks are a little bit too bright. --Dirtsc 15:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not according to the histogram. --C messier 18:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I didn't meant that the blocks are blown out, I would just suggest to darken them a bit. I think you can avoid the harsh contrast. --Dirtsc 13:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI agree with Dirtsc, but this is one argument we are never going to win as long as the histogram is right, better send it to CR and let others decide. W.carter 07:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment And further more, a photographer from the mediterranean (e.g. C messier) tends to have a different view about how colours and brightness should be than photographers living in a land with only a couple of hours of daylight during december (e.g. W.carter and me). ;-) --Dirtsc (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mediterranean sun and clear sky will result in high contrasts also in the evening. To me the image looks quite natural. -- Smial 13:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me okay --A.Savin 18:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 06:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Συκαμιά Σερίφου 1923.jpgEdit

Συκαμιά Σερίφου 1923.jpg

  • Nomination Sykamia, Serifos. --C messier 14:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO too unsharp. May be too low contrast too. I think it's difficult to take another one. --XRay 06:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)--XRay 15:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Added some contrast, but I don't see unsharpness. --C messier 10:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks. IMO the water can crop out at the top too. But it's acceptable. --XRay 15:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp enough in 100% view -- Smial 09:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --A.Savin 18:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

File:16-03-30-Jerusalem_Mishkenot_Sha’ananim-RalfR-DSCF7635.jpgEdit

16-03-30-Jerusalem Mishkenot Sha’ananim-RalfR-DSCF7635.jpg

  • Nomination Mishkenot Sha’ananim, Jerusalem --Ralf Roletschek 10:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion

Good quality. --Hubertl 11:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a large dust spot in sky, correctable --Llez 15:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ✓ Done --Ralf Roletschek 17:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment there are some other dust spots too, see notes. --Hubertl 18:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok now --Hubertl 19:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine! --Palauenc05 14:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 19:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

File:BasílicaLujan-jul2016.jpgEdit

BasílicaLujan-jul2016.jpg

  • Nomination Front view of Nuestra Señora de Luján Basílica --Ezarate 22:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Stitching error left side, retouching leftover at the lamp right side, too magentaish, too dark. --Cccefalon 06:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done redone --Ezarate 13:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA. -- Smial 10:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)i
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Smial: Could you please add notes on the picture over the CAs, thanks!! --Ezarate 13:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment reworked Ezarate 00:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 19:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Эхинокактус Грузона - Echinocactus grusonii.jpgEdit

Эхинокактус Грузона - Echinocactus grusonii.jpg

  • Nomination Эхинокактус Грузона - Echinocactus grusonii--AlixSaz 16:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose File too small (min 2 Mb) and stones overexposed.--W.carter 16:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see the overexposed stones, but the photo is nearly 3 Mpix (we count size Mpix not MB). --C messier 17:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Then plese lets see what a CR will bring. I dont see a significant overexposation. --Dirtsc 15:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is good in my opinion. --Dirtsc 07:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. Jkadavoor 09:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If overexposure is the problem, surely that can be fixed in the edit? Waiting for a new version before voting. --Peulle 16:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me --Uoaei1 20:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others + image is overcategorized. --A.Savin 16:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK 4 me --Palauenc05 15:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 22:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_Cologne-Gay-Pride-2016_Parade-032.jpgEdit

Cologne Germany Cologne-Gay-Pride-2016 Parade-032.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: Headgear of a participant of Cologne Pride Parade 2016 --Cccefalon 03:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The head gear is sharp enough but it is so dominating that it should be centered in the pic, perhaps a crop? The white downy fluff needs a bit more structure and the rater white/light sky and flags behind it could use a little boost. There is some slight CA on the small building top right. Do you think you could fix this? --W.carter 21:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad crop --Atamari 18:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks pretty much as a huffy reaction on the QIC Abuse thread. However, it is also bad behaviour to override a review comment with an oppose without giving the opportunity to look into the alleged issue. --Cccefalon 20:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nein, keine Rache-Aktion (das mag ich nicht), ich schaute aber bei dem "First class premium-Revier" wie seine Bilder aussehen. Dieses ist für deine Verhältnisse nur ein mittelmäßiges Bild - das kannst du besser. Das Bild ist zwar scharf im Bereich der linken Schulter aber der Ausschnitt überzeugt (mir) nicht. Links ist das Objekt, der Kopfschmuck, das wohl der Fokus des Bildes darstellen soll, zu sehr am Rand gedrängt. Vielleicht es ging wohl nicht besser. Und oben setzt sich auch der Kopfschmuck auch nicht schön von der Flagge ab. Nach unten ist der Kopfschmuck auch unglücklich beschnitten, auch ragt dort unten rechts ein halber Kopf hinein. Wenn du doch schönere Bilder machen kannst - warum dieses Bild? Was hat bei deiner Wahl hier gestört? Ging es dir hier um +1 auf des QI-Konto? ;-) --Atamari (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Dear, it is not that I am short of images for nomination, I have around 50.000 unprocessed here and if you observe my upload list, you easily see that I am far from putting every photo to my nomination list. It is a petty demand, to ask the same quality for street photography than for studiophotography or architecture/landscape photography. What the fuck - after having nominated some superior photos, you think I cannot achieve promotion for a photo of normal quality? This photo is good as it is. It is taken with the best camera settings you can obtain for a close-up for moving objects in a crowd. --Cccefalon 08:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The right part of the head gear is out of focus, and the white parts of it blends with the background. --Peulle 15:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can´t see, how to make it better. A smaller crop maybe? The back of the head and the main part of the head figure - which is in fact the main subject, is perfectly sharp. --Hubertl 04:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cropped a bit tight but QI for me.--Ermell 20:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support like Hubertl --Verum 10:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK4QI --A.Savin 16:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --A.Savin 18:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Wed 20 Jul → Thu 28 Jul
Thu 21 Jul → Fri 29 Jul
Fri 22 Jul → Sat 30 Jul
Sat 23 Jul → Sun 31 Jul
Sun 24 Jul → Mon 01 Aug
Mon 25 Jul → Tue 02 Aug
Tue 26 Jul → Wed 03 Aug
Wed 27 Jul → Thu 04 Aug
Thu 28 Jul → Fri 05 Aug