Last modified on 18 May 2015, at 02:25

Commons:Quality images candidates


Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska
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 May 2015 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]] 06:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

May 23, 2015Edit

May 22, 2015Edit

May 21, 2015Edit

May 20, 2015Edit

May 19, 2015Edit

May 18, 2015Edit

May 17, 2015Edit

May 16, 2015Edit

May 15, 2015Edit

May 14, 2015Edit

May 13, 2015Edit

May 12, 2015Edit

May 10, 2015Edit

May 8, 2015Edit

May 5, 2015Edit

Consensual reviewEdit

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".


Consensual ReviewEdit

File:Nsg_amrumer_dünen_rand_mit_vordünen_1.jpgEdit

Nsg amrumer dünen rand mit vordünen 1.jpg

  • Nomination nature reserve Amrum Dunes --Dirtsc 17:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, nice view, but there are too many artifacts. --Halavar 18:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    I don't agree. --Dirtsc 18:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Lsg_amrum_strand_nebel.jpgEdit

Lsg amrum strand nebel.jpg

  • Nomination Eastern shore of the north-frisian island Amrum, beach near Nebel --Dirtsc 17:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, nice view, but there are too many artifacts. --Halavar 18:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    I don't agree. --Dirtsc 18:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Fields Messara plain from Phaistos Crete Greece.jpgEdit

Fields Messara plain from Phaistos Crete Greece.jpg

  • Nomination Fields in the Messara plain, as seen from Phaistos, Crete, Greece.--Jebulon 16:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not a QI to me, it lacks detail --Poco a poco 18:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC) I strongly disagree, it don't like details. I normaly don't discuss negative votes, but in this case I need other opinions.--Jebulon 20:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support no lack of details and sharp enough --Christian Ferrer 05:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Πάροδος Χανιά 8330 rt.jpgEdit

Πάροδος Χανιά 8330 rt.jpg

  • Nomination Parodos (side-street) Kondylaki, Chania. --C messier 10:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Isiwal 12:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's good, but there are some CAs. Please check the image.--XRay 14:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --C messier 14:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Ferrière-la-Petite, la « voie verte de l'Avesnois » et la Solre.jpgEdit

Ferrière-la-Petite, la « voie verte de l'Avesnois » et la Solre.jpg

  • Nomination La « voie verte de l'Avesnois » et la Solre à Ferrière-la-Petite.- Parc naturel régional de l'Avesnois, dans le Nord.- France.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)* Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It´s too dark in some parts. Like most of your pictures. You should think about calibrating your monitor! The picture itself is fine! Are you working with your notebook? --Hubertl 12:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    IMHO, the clouds are clipped. --C messier 13:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC) </>✓ Done darkness corrected in some areas. Thank you for your encouraging comment. I am working on a tower PC with a CPU I reviewed the parameters of RawTherapee. Maybe is this the better.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC) * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment unfortunately not,PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ, you brightened everything, not just the dark areas. C messier: In the first version, the clouds are not clipped at all (about 80%), in the second version, the cloud brightness raised up to 87%. Even that is not clipping --Hubertl 14:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    IMHO, the brightest part of the clouds show no structure (brightness was lowered, but information was already lost). According to GIMP, there is a distinct peak at 221, much higher than the rest. Also the part of the sky next to the house has the same brightness with the clouds. --C messier 14:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion There are two opposite positions, I give a Symbol support vote.svg Support and set it to discuss.--Hubertl 15:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    I agree (to set it to discuss :), clounds and a part of the sky are burned out. A try to recover information just turned them grey. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --C messier 15:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Central_Park_New_York_May_2015_006.jpgEdit

Central Park New York May 2015 006.jpg

  • Nomination Midtown skyline from Central Park. --King of Hearts 02:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Upper half shows blurry leaves, lower half is sharp. --Lucasbosch 07:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    @Lucasbosch:: Is it sharp enough at 6 MP? I don't see any significant unsharpness at this resolution. --King of Hearts 01:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    weak * Symbol support vote.svg Support from my side --Hubertl 07:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2015.05.08.-07-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Knolliger Hahnenfuss.jpgEdit

2015.05.08.-07-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Knolliger Hahnenfuss.jpg

  • Nomination Knolliger Hahnenfuß - Ranunculus bulbosus --Hockei 18:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --C messier 11:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose really sorry to have opposed the 3 images but this one too have disturbing burned out areas on the main subject --Christian Ferrer 17:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Villa_Johannesberg_Cafe_Gilf_Meran_2015.jpgEdit

Villa Johannesberg Cafe Gilf Meran 2015.jpg

  • Nomination Villa Johannesberg in Meran, Passeggiata Inverno 45-51 --Tuxyso 06:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Lucasbosch 07:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Disagree, left and right side leaning in. --Hubertl 07:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    You are right, but this time I decided knowingly to do no full vertical correction because my shooting position was quite low in relation to the building. Let's discuss. --Tuxyso 08:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    For comparision: fully corrected version --Tuxyso 09:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You are right, that a completely "perspective correction" would be absolutely wrong. Something inbetween should work. Everything else is QI for me! --Hubertl 07:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Hubertl|, I've uploaded a new version, please take another look. --Tuxyso 06:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 07:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:RhB E-Lok IMG 2512ac.jpgEdit

RhB E-Lok IMG 2512ac.jpg

  • Nomination Electric locomotive typ Ge 6/6 II of the meter gauge Rhaetian Railways entering the station of Bergün Switzerland --CHK46 08:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Billy69150 08:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Really QI? Is it not a bit overexposed at the right? -- Spurzem 20:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yes, it is. --Berthold Werner 07:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Spurzem 18:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 19:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Notocactus uebelmannianus Kh.499 (Khanon-201 select).jpgEdit

Notocactus uebelmannianus Kh.499 (Khanon-201 select).jpg

  • Nomination Notocactus uebelmannianus (Parodia werneri) - plant selection (large flowers, bright violet color). --Финитор 12:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Below the minimum resolution of 4 mp. --Crisco 1492 01:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done resolution-600 Thank you. --Финитор 11:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    Resolution (number of megapixels), not file size.Crisco 1492 00:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done --Финитор 14:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    I've uploaded a new version (a bit of middle ground), but this makes me too involved to pass the nom. Second opinion neededCrisco 1492 23:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 08:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Kvarteret_Toppsockret_May_2015_01.jpgEdit

Kvarteret Toppsockret May 2015 01.jpg

  • Nomination Facade of residential building in Hökarängen. --ArildV 20:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)* Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment has Sweden been visited by Mr. Hundertwasser in his early days? Please look at the lines on the upper side. Looks like an result of an earthquake. --Hubertl 05:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Perharps before Mr. Hundertwasser stopped using a ruler. The horizontal lines are not straight because the building is curved, please compare with this images and the category--ArildV 06:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In this case, this image has been taken just about on meter more from the left, to demonstrate this construction detail. In this case, the picture doesn´t show this special construction. I´m happy to get some more opinions. Basicly, the technic is ok, but the composition is bad and incorrect. --Hubertl 07:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I strongly disagree, the point was to show the design of balconies and windows (not to demostrate the sharp of the building). One out of ten images focusing on different aspects of the building. I therefore dont think this symmetrical composition is bad or wrong. --ArildV 07:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Somewhat dull lighting, but in all other aspects absolutely QI. I really do not understand the decline vote above. -- Smial 09:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 05:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Winterswijk_(NL),_Woold,_Boven_Slinge_--_2014_--_3151.jpgEdit

Winterswijk (NL), Woold, Boven Slinge -- 2014 -- 3151.jpg

  • Nomination Boven-Slinge in Woold near Winterswijk, Gelderland, Netherlands --XRay 04:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed at the upper third. --MB-one 14:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree Symbol support vote.svg Support Not OE --Moroder 17:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 05:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-008.jpgEdit

14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-008.jpg

  • Nomination Flytoget train in Oslo, Norway --Ralf Roletschek 10:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Es schaut im ersten Moment aus, dass der Bahnsteig schief ist, wahrscheinlich ist es auch so wg. einer erhöhten Bahnsteigkante für diesen Zugtyp. enkrechten im Bild. --[[User:Ralf Roletschek|Ralf Roletschek]] 20:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC) I don´t know why this happens, but I promoted this picture on 16th of May. 20:25 UTC. --Hubertl 07:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Do I misunderstand something? But you are qualifying your own nommination!--CHK46 20:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hence moved to discussion -- KlausFoehl 11:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment das war irgendein Editunfall. Ich habe auf die Frage von Hubertl geantwortet, da ist etwas schiefgegangen. --Ralf Roletschek 12:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some barrel distortion, high contrast not well handled, background widely overexposed. In addition the wide angle lens leads to a very unnatural view of the train (composition aspect). -- Smial 09:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Tere schoonheid van de Camellia × williamsii 'Jury's Yellow' bloem. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei 01.jpgEdit

Tere schoonheid van de Camellia × williamsii 'Jury's Yellow' bloem. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei 01.jpg

  • Nomination Delicate beauty of the Camellia × williamsii 'Jury's Yellow' flower. Location. Garden sanctuary JonkerValley.
    Famberhorst 04:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion

Symbol support vote.svg SupportA few dark but good --Livioandronico2013 06:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, it is really too dark and underexposed.--Jebulon 19:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yes, it's underexposed. --Berthold Werner 06:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    *✓ Done Correctie WB. --Famberhorst 15:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO OK now. --XRay 17:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support after correction. --Hubertl 10:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Ngayogyakarta-style blangkon, 2015-05-17 01.jpgEdit

Ngayogyakarta-style blangkon, 2015-05-17 01.jpg

  • Nomination Ngayogyakarta-style blangkon, a traditional Javanese hat Crisco 1492 01:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --King of Hearts 02:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see notes, loss of texture in the front (not enough light, maybe), unclear lighting on the left backside. Please see notes. Third opinion appreciated.--Hubertl 04:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    Texture is visible for me (screen calibration?). Will touch up that one edge.Crisco 1492 05:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    I've retouched the gold edge, though in all of the base shots there wasn't all that much texture there. Crisco 1492 05:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 08:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Ngayogyakarta-style blangkon, 2015-05-17 03.jpgEdit

Ngayogyakarta-style blangkon, 2015-05-17 03.jpg

  • Nomination Ngayogyakarta-style blangkon, a traditional Javanese hat Crisco 1492 01:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment stacking problems, see notes. --Hubertl 04:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There's not much detail in the originals, either (and, a side note, I'm using Helicon Focus, not PS).Crisco 1492 05:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC) I don´t know, how the original looks like, but I don´t want to prevent a nomination. I believe, that there are some basic mistakes made during the whole process. --Hubertl 07:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 08:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Kehlsteinhaus Umgebung.JPGEdit

Kehlsteinhaus Umgebung.JPG

  • Nomination "Eagle´s nest" and Alps --Nordenfan 12:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. See notes ;-) --Hubertl 16:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Verry informative and well labeled. But a unfortunate composition. To much sky and no golden cut. You´ve already given the QI award yourself. This is not o.k. --Milseburg 17:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC) * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment und inwieweit habe ich mir den Award selbst gegeben? Bin ich Nordenfan, Milseburg? Ich glaube, du liegst damit jetzt aber gewaltig schief. Ich reagiere immer etwas unwirsch auf solche Anschuldigungen. Nachhaltig.--Hubertl 17:55, 18 May 2015 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, Milseburg, ich hab jetzt erst gesehen, was du gemeint hast. Das ist wirklich sehr eigenwillig, was sich da der Nordenfan gedacht hat.--Hubertl 18:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC) (UTC) Auch sorry, ich hätte deutlicher machen sollen, wen ich anspreche. Selbstredend war Nordenfan gemeint. Das Lob für die Beschriftung geht aber eindeutig an dich, Hubertl. Ich bemerkte eben erst, dass die von dir ist. --Milseburg 19:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 07:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Königssee Hütte.JPGEdit

Königssee Hütte.JPG

  • Nomination Königssee Germany--Nordenfan 12:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality maybe the left side is a bit too dark. --Hubertl 16:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good, but: There is no English description and the author has already given the QI award to himself. --Milseburg 17:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment BTW: An english description is not necessary. The requirement is just a description in one or more languages. --XRay 17:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Ok. English description isn´t necessary and the author promised never to do QI-Bot´s work again. So I give up opposition in this case. --Milseburg (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Stadtmauer RE.jpgEdit

Stadtmauer RE.jpg

  • Nomination Townwall of Recklinghausen --Nordenfan 12:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 20:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I disagree again. Both sides leaning in. No QI for me. Although the QI-plaque is already there. --Milseburg 17:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image needs perspective correction. But IMO a good correction isn't passable. --XRay 18:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, nice composition, but per XRay and CA in the tree --DKrieger 22:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 07:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Dome_of_Musei_capitolini.jpgEdit

Dome of Musei capitolini.jpg

  • Nomination Dome of Musei capitolini --Livioandronico2013 13:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can you get the crop symmetrical? It's a bit tighter to the left. --C messier 16:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed in center --Daniel Case 02:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO, the center, although brighter from the rest of the image, due to light I suppose, is not overexposed, (no FFFF, shows structure). Please discuss. --C messier 07:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support no futher comment.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 14:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 05:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Minoan ewer archmus Heraklion.jpgEdit

Minoan ewer archmus Heraklion.jpg

  • Nomination A minoan ewer, ca.1500 BCE, Archaeological Museum of Heraklion, Crete, Greece.--Jebulon 10:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality -- Spurzem 11:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not for me,DOF no good,the superior part is out of focus,ask to discuss me too and I would like a geocode, please (not a mandatory, I know).--Livioandronico2013 21:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Typical revenge vote (read the quote). As the object is moving in the museum and not always as the same place, the geocode is included in the "institution template", created by me on purpose. Please be careful when reviewing, anyway more than when categorizing !! Smile--Jebulon 08:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It is not revenge, do not I have opposed all your photo only to those who do not consider QI, given that demand pinpoint accuracy then we do it your way. The rules apply to all or only some? If you want to be precise you have to be yourself! Clin Let's see if others will give me wrong then I am wrong, or not, this serves a community --Livioandronico2013 10:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too low DoF, and at least one masking error. I'm also unsure if it's a good idea to use an artificial background, where it's structure is completely different from the noise of the photographed subject. I think, a neutral white or a neutral black background is more suitable. -- Smial 20:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Please sign your vote. For now, it is not valid as anonymous votes are not allowed. Thanks.--Jebulon 19:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Thank you Smial (not for your vote, of course ! Smile--Jebulon 20:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • BtW, Smial, where is the masking error, please ?--Jebulon 20:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 05:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

File:CoA_Pius_IX_in_Porta_Portese.jpgEdit

CoA Pius IX in Porta Portese.jpg

  • Nomination CoA Pius IX in Porta Portese --Livioandronico2013 08:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 08:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now. Categorization (done). IMO the perspective does not need such a tilt (to be discussed)) and I would like a geocode, please (not a mandatory, I know).--Jebulon 10:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No, no ... I thought, I not retreat. The perspective is perfect (I hate distortion) is not frontal. Come on guys, what you think? --Livioandronico2013 21:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • you can keep the lateral perspective, which is nice and more interesting than a frontal view (relief), but correcting the horizontal line, which is excessively tilted IMO.--Jebulon 11:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
If is lateral don't need horizontal but lateral adjustment.--Livioandronico2013 14:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand.--Jebulon 20:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMHO for this picture, the perspective is ok, because it is not a frontal shoot. QI is not about interesting composition, we are working with tecnical rules --The Photographer 16:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I don't agree with Photographer. Composition is a very important component of quality. This disturbs me a lot. Since it is almost frontal a correction of horizontal lines is due and even very easy as I guess.--Moroder 21:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 05:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Daruma doll, cut out, 01.jpgEdit

Daruma doll, cut out, 01.jpg

  • Nomination Japanese Daruma doll Crisco 1492 08:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not good enough for a studio work. No DOF, edges are completely unsharp. --Hubertl 09:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    Since this is a focus stack, I think it's the cut-out. Fixed.Crisco 1492 15:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I changed to neutral, because in my opinion, it is not just the cut out, its more the problem with the lighting, which made this a bit unclear. I understand it very good, that especially with this surface (and this color too!) it is really difficult to get clear edges.--Hubertl 06:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Indeed. My first and foremost goal was to avoid blowing the reds... *shudder* but in the end it just didn't look right. A black background may work a bit better in the future. I'll have to consider that.Crisco 1492 07:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 05:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Daruma doll, cut out, 02.jpgEdit

Daruma doll, cut out, 02.jpg

  • Nomination Japanese Daruma doll Crisco 1492 08:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not good enough for a studio work. No DOF, edges are completely unsharp. --Hubertl 09:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    Since this is a focus stack, I think it's the cut-out. Fixed.Crisco 1492 15:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I changed to neutral, because in my opinion, it is not just the cut out, its more the problem with the lighting, which made this a bit unclear. I understand it very good, that especially with this surface (and this color too!) it is really difficult to get clear edges.--Hubertl 06:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 05:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Daruma doll, cut out, 03.jpgEdit

Daruma doll, cut out, 03.jpg

  • Nomination Japanese Daruma doll Crisco 1492 08:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • {{o}} Not good enough for a studio work. No DOF, edges are completely unsharp. --Hubertl 09:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    Edges are unsharp; understood, as there was an issue with my selection (feathering)... but how do get no DOF out of that? Crisco 1492 09:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    Hubertl, I've reedited the image. Crisco 1492 10:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I changed to Symbol support vote.svg Support in this case. The conditions are better, there is more contrast. Maybe it would have been better, if you have used a dark background. --Hubertl 06:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Perhaps. I'll have to consider doing that in the future. I've got a couple things here (now that I've got a light tent and lighting system set up, Yay!) that I want to photograph with a dark background.Crisco 1492 07:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What about copyright ? (Only for my knowledge, thanks)--Jebulon 11:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
        • This deletion request closed with a consensus that works of folk art in traditional style, even modern ones, can be considered to not attract a new copyright (Not the exact phrasing of the closer, admittedly, but that was the gist of the conversation). I can leave a note about that, if necessary.Crisco 1492 12:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks for quick answer and reference. I remember this discussion.--Jebulon 20:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DoF is ok. --The Photographer 16:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 16:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Fri 15 May → Sat 23 May
Sat 16 May → Sun 24 May
Sun 17 May → Mon 25 May
Mon 18 May → Tue 26 May
Tue 19 May → Wed 27 May
Wed 20 May → Thu 28 May
Thu 21 May → Fri 29 May
Fri 22 May → Sat 30 May
Sat 23 May → Sun 31 May