Last modified on 18 April 2015, at 01:59

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]] 17:32, 6 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 6, 2015Edit

May 5, 2015Edit

May 4, 2015Edit

May 3, 2015Edit

May 2, 2015Edit

May 1, 2015Edit

April 30, 2015Edit

April 29, 2015Edit

April 28, 2015Edit

April 27, 2015Edit

April 24, 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:Som_et_lumiere.pngEdit

Som et lumiere.png

  • Nomination Le Charmand Som et Grande Sure un jour de pluie --Brucyn 13:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Very nice scene and amazing light, but blurry, sorry. --Kadellar 15:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    to me its QI, please discuss. Why PNG? --Ralf Roletschek 20:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry,Kadellar have full right --Livioandronico2013 21:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)✓ New version uploaded I made some CA corrections, it should improve sharpness slightly --Brucyn 23:02, 5 May

2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose impresive picture but sorry no QI for me, noisy in dark parts. --Denkmalhelfer 05:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Trier_Christuskirche_BW_2014-09-20_12-48-39.jpgEdit

Trier Christuskirche BW 2014-09-20 12-48-39.jpg

  • Nomination Trier, Christuskirche, bell tower --Berthold Werner 06:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks fine for QI --Denkmalhelfer 10:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, the perspective correction - especially in this case - is a little bit to much of the good. You are losing the spatial aspects. But third opinion appreciated! Would give a PRO when corrected.--Hubertl 10:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I also think that perspective correction is a bit overdone. I know it's vertical now, but it doesn't look so natural. --Kadellar 15:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 07:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Південне_Демерджі_на_світанку.jpgEdit

Південне Демерджі на світанку.jpg

  • Nomination Урочище «Демерджі», м. Алушта, с. Лучисте, Алуштинське л-во, кв. 38. By User:Ya gujinskaya --Ahonc 22:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed, no realistic colors --Uoaei1 14:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support total disagree, a very good picture --Denkmalhelfer 10:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see notes. There are so many basic quality problems, including, that there is no english description, that this picture can´t be QI. For educational purpose: see notes! --Hubertl 07:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with the notes + a strange dotted line in the bottom --Brucyn 12:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 07:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_Santa_María,_Gdansk,_Polonia,_2013-05-20,_DD_05.jpgEdit

Iglesia de Santa María, Gdansk, Polonia, 2013-05-20, DD 05.jpg

  • Nomination Church of St Mary, Gdansk, Poland. --Poco a poco 17:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Bad light conditions, deformed by perspective correction, not convincing composition. Sorry --Moroder 20:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded, should be enough for QI IMHO Poco a poco 20:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    I think it's good enough for QI, I would suggest a tighter crop though. --MB-one 16:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks fine for me. --Denkmalhelfer 05:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

File:CityJet_British_Aerospace_Avro_146-RJ85_EI-RJC_MUC_2015_01_crop.jpgEdit

CityJet British Aerospace Avro 146-RJ85 EI-RJC MUC 2015 01 crop.jpg

  • Nomination CityJet British Aerospace Avro 146-RJ85. --Julian Herzog 14:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 15:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, some CAs (see image notes). Should be fixable. --MB-one 15:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I see nothing which must be corrected. -- Spurzem 21:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I see the problem, should be fixed. Thanks for noticing. Julian Herzog 07:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now QI. --MB-one 09:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks fine --Denkmalhelfer 10:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 14:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Large_red_damselfly_(Pyrrhosoma_nymphula)_female_form_typica.jpgEdit

Large red damselfly (Pyrrhosoma nymphula) female form typica.jpg

  • Nomination Large red damselfly (Pyrrhosoma nymphula) female form typica, Cumnor Hill, Oxford --Charlesjsharp 08:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the head and a part of the body is not really sharp, maybe a bit out of focus --Christian Ferrer 20:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose indeed not sharp --Denkmalhelfer 10:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Another opinion please? Looks in focus to me. --Charlesjsharp 07:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp enough. --MB-one 13:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 14:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Hıdırlık Tower 02.jpgEdit

Hıdırlık Tower 02.jpg

  • Nomination Hıdırlık Tower, Antalya, Turkey--Bgag 21:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 21:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too soft imo. --Kadellar 22:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Bad mood,Kadellar? I´m just asking without obligation. --Hubertl 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can't I oppose? If we promote every picture, we don't need nominations, just include the template. I think it was harder to get a QI two years ago. --Kadellar 00:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no QI --Denkmalhelfer 07:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC) – Would you kindly explain why it is no QI? -- Spurzem 11:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Good composition, good sharpness, good colors. Perhaps a little bit too bright. -- Spurzem 11:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overall unsharpness. Alvesgaspar 13:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough. --Palauenc05 05:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kadellar.--Jebulon 14:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Bgag, why do you use f9? I saw another picture of yours with f11 or 13. I think f7.1 is enough for DoF, and it will improve sharpness. -Kadellar 09:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Jebulon 14:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Colza_en_la_cuenca_del_Torote_-_01.jpgEdit

Colza en la cuenca del Torote - 01.jpg

  • Nomination Rapeseed in the Torote basin, in Jarama and Henares basin, Communty of Madrid, Spain. --Kadellar 08:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 11:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry The background is blurred, and nothing is sharp in the left side.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hahaha nice revenge. Buy a better camera and shoot RAW and you won't have any more jpeg artifacts. This is QI, not Flickr. --Kadellar 00:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    11mm on a 60D, at f7.1, gives an hyperfocal of 0.90 m (where it is focused), so everything from 45 cm to infinite is in focus, that should be enough. --Kadellar 02:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentPlease, why would it be sweet revenge? I want to believe that on a 11mm 60D at F7.1 gives a hyperfocal 0.90 m, but at 100 ISO, the photo should be surely more detail ... Check also the sky it seems overexposed... like what a good Canon EOS 60D can give poor pictures as that an Instamatic. A liottle precision: on a DMC-TZ55 LUMIX the High Sensitivity CMOS sensor is 16 megapixels on a Canon EOS 60D is 18 MP (There is no big differences). For information submitted in QI my pictures are corrected with Raw Therapiee 02.04.74. No hard feelings, in future I would submit my photos taken with my Sony α NEX-F3. Smile--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 08:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ahhahaha Kadellar is infinite blurred,is simple and easy. Also on flicrk there bad images. --Livioandronico2013 07:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice but unsharp. A better exposure solution, maybe? Alvesgaspar 13:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sure what should be subject. --Denkmalhelfer 10:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe: Rapeseed in the Torote basin, in Jarama and Henares basin, Communty of Madrid, Spain. as the description exactly says? --Hubertl 14:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 01:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Weißstorch im Anflug auf Nest (3).jpgEdit

Weißstorch im Anflug auf Nest (3).jpg

  • Nomination White storks in Lower Saxony. --Hydro 07:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO too bright. Details missing.--XRay 08:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see Xray and not sharp --Denkmalhelfer 12:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is sharp. Good composition. Overexposed parts good enough for QI. --Kadellar 00:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough imo. Alvesgaspar 13:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 22:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Waterfall_of_Cavaterra_in_Nepi_-_end.jpgEdit

Waterfall of Cavaterra in Nepi - end.jpg

  • Nomination Waterfall of Cavaterra in Nepi - end --Livioandronico2013 06:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 06:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but some areas are clearly overexposed, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 07:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose same as poco --Denkmalhelfer 07:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A very nice picture but I have to agree with the opposers. Alvesgaspar 13:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 01:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Wieden_-_filharmonia.JPGEdit

Wieden - filharmonia.JPG

  • Nomination Musikverein --Albertus teolog 22:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 10:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop imo. CA too. --Kadellar 00:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 08:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 08:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop too tight, image too grainy and unsharp. The camera is to blame, I suppose. Alvesgaspar 13:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. Too much below, not enough up.--Jebulon 14:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Jebulon 14:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Canny-sur-Thérain (5).jpgEdit

Canny-sur-Thérain (5).jpg

  • Nomination Espaces verts et parcs à Canny-sur-Thérain . PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong compression, no detail. --Kadellar 09:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree --Hubertl 14:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see Hubertl --Denkmalhelfer 12:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
     ??? My vote was disagreeing the opposiong from Kandellar. --Hubertl 19:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you Hubert1 this proves that some photographers do not look the proposed images.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The stairs of the slide are a bit disturbing but this is not worth to be mentioned. -- Spurzem 21:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too soft, visible artifacts on darker area. Alvesgaspar 14:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 06:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Kłodzko,_klasztor_klarysek,_07.jpgEdit

Kłodzko, klasztor klarysek, 07.jpg

  • Nomination Saints George and Adalbert church in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 08:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 09:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose disagree, strong shadow and noisy. --Denkmalhelfer 10:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support there are neither strong shadows nor too much noise for QI --Hubertl 14:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Neither too strong shadow nor any noise. Another hilarous oppose. --Cccefalon 00:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Wiener Rathaus 2007 Detail b.jpgEdit

Wiener Rathaus 2007 Detail b.jpg

  • Nomination Rathaus, Vienna --Tsui 22:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry incline and partly not sharp --Denkmalhelfer 10:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC) – This vote is unintelligible for me and should in my opinion not be allowed. -- Spurzem 16:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perspective distortions from this position are ok, the main subject, the figure is completely sharp.--Hubertl 15:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral perspective distortions? .--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I had decided to take not part here any longer. But if I see diverse votes I can not keep to myself. The composition of this image is very good. Where will you have perspective corrections? -- Spurzem 13:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just curious: Can someone point me to an image of a similar subject (relatively close-up of a statue in front of a corresponding and several meters high part of the building's façade it is part of, seen from below, from ground, respectively a visitors, level) that is not "distorted"? Where the statue does not get unnaturally distorted, when correcting the buildings lines. -Tsui (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't know why this troll is doing reviews, but I already pointed out some days ago to him, that total perspective correction is not asked in QI for photos that are taken from a very close distance. Also, I would be very happy, if all photos here would have this level of sharpness --Cccefalon 23:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Westdeutsche_Lotterie_--_2015_--_5720.jpgEdit

Münster, Westdeutsche Lotterie -- 2015 -- 5720.jpg

  • Nomination Office building of the Westdeutsche Lotterie in Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 16:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bold perspective, but good quality for me.--Famberhorst 16:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not for me, sorry, because of bold perspective... Needs a debate, IMO.--Jebulon 20:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, incline no QI --Denkmalhelfer 10:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, perspective. --Code 18:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective distortions too bad.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 06:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Erythronium tuolumnense White Beauty. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 02.jpgEdit

Erythronium tuolumnense White Beauty. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 02.jpg

  • Nomination Tuolumnense Erythronium White Beauty. Location, Garden Tuinreservaat Jonker Valley.
    Famberhorst 04:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 07:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm afraid the white balance is wrong (green cast). Maybe should we discuss...--Jebulon 20:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Famberhorst can you check? thanks --Livioandronico2013 08:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Answer: the greenish drawing in the flour should be. That is the charm of this cultivar. See the two other pictures (below).--Famberhorst 15:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose looks green and partly not sharp --Denkmalhelfer 10:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I see no lack! -- Spurzem 21:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WB ok imo. It just could be enhanced be cropping 10px tighter on the right side to get rid of the wedge shaped white in the upper part. But anyhow QI. --Cccefalon 00:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me --Isiwal 08:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Bratyslawa_Dom_u_Dobrego_Pasterza.JPGEdit

Bratyslawa Dom u Dobrego Pasterza.JPG

  • Nomination House of the Good Shepherd --Albertus teolog 22:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 07:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too soft in focus, shallow DoF, and some CA. Lets discuss. -- Slaunger 19:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose left part (stairs) very dark and noisy --Denkmalhelfer 10:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Slaunger --DKrieger 20:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 00:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Mosquito_(Tipula_Maxima),_jardín_del_molino,_Sierra_de_San_Felipe,_Setúbal,_Portugal,_2012-05-11,_DD_01.JPGEdit

Mosquito (Tipula Maxima), jardín del molino, Sierra de San Felipe, Setúbal, Portugal, 2012-05-11, DD 01.JPG

  • Nomination Mosquito (Tipula maxima), mill garden, Sierra of Saint Philip, Setubal, Portugal --Poco a poco 22:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this is a crane fly, not a mosquito.--Charlesjsharp 09:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    Note:Crane flies belong to the Tipulidae familie, also the Tipula Maxima, are you fine if I rename to "Tipúlidos (Tipula maxima)"? Poco a poco 15:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportlooks fine. --Denkmalhelfer 10:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, renaming won't help; this not Tipula maxima. --Charlesjsharp 10:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 16:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_kościół_Wniebowzięcia_NMP_21.jpgEdit

2014 Kłodzko, kościół Wniebowzięcia NMP 21.jpg

  • Nomination Church of the Assumption in Kłodzko 1 --Jacek Halicki 08:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Ciekawa kompozycja. --Albertus teolog 14:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it is too drak for me --Denkmalhelfer 12:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 23:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Monumento_a_Jaime_I_El_Conquistador,_Valencia,_España,_2014-06-29,_DD_11.JPGEdit

Monumento a Jaime I El Conquistador, Valencia, España, 2014-06-29, DD 11.JPG

  • Nomination Monument to James I the Conqueror, Valencia, Spain --Poco a poco 17:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment this picture seems stretched in two different directions. This result can´t be the original perspective. See notes.--Hubertl 18:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the new version does´nt convince me really. See notes. Third opinion appreciated. --Hubertl 22:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 13:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Edersee 01.jpgEdit

Edersee 01.jpg

  • Nomination Edersee with Castle Waldeck in the background --Derzno 10:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Es fehlt die englische Beschreibung auf der Bildseite. Die deutsche verstehe ich nicht, da kein Staudamm zu sehen ist. --Milseburg 14:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Added missing information in english and changed german text either --Derzno 16:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support o.K. for me now. --Milseburg 11:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose disagree, blow out ship and not sharp at all --Denkmalhelfer 12:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good for QI --Hubertl 17:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 18:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality .--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 07:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Tere schoonheid van de Camellia × williamsii 'Jury's Yellow' bloem. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei 05.jpgEdit

Tere schoonheid van de Camellia × williamsii 'Jury's Yellow' bloem. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei 05.jpg

  • Nomination Delicate beauty of the Camellia × williamsii 'Jury's Yellow' flower. Location. Garden sanctuary JonkerValley.
    Famberhorst 15:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Even when the background is pretty dark, But the subject is the rosa. --Hubertl 16:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose... which is really too dark too (for my taste). I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 16:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)...which is a camelia, not a rosa...--Jebulon 16:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes,sure...is a few dark but good for QI in my opinion --Livioandronico2013 20:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportlooks good. --Denkmalhelfer 12:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fine, but underexposed. Should be brightened. --Kadellar 01:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportlooks good.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 08:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 07:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

File:Hilton Garden Inn, Konya.jpgEdit

Hilton Garden Inn, Konya.jpg

  • Nomination Hilton Garden Inn, Konya, Turkey --Bgag 14:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Not very crisp, boring composition --Moroder 21:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not agree. IMHO it's a pretty nice image with a good quality. --Halavar 10:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Moroder --Livioandronico2013 20:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Sharpness meets QI standard and I don't see any problem with the composition. --Code 18:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question. Is this a hotel or a bycicle and minibus parking lot? I'm disgusted disappointed --Moroder 20:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 06:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Πρόσοψη αρχαιολογικού μουσείου Αθηνών 8616.jpgEdit

Πρόσοψη αρχαιολογικού μουσείου Αθηνών 8616.jpg

  • Nomination Facade of the National Archaeological Museum of Athens --C messier 12:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Bgag 13:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose My graal !Clin But looks hazy, lack of crispness. And the sky is too noisy IMO. I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 14:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose colour noise --Denkmalhelfer 15:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per jeb --Livioandronico2013 20:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Denoised and added some contrast but I see no lack with sharpness. --C messier 07:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok now.--Hubertl 08:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see any problem. I only miss some flowers at the foreground. --Kadellar 01:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Can't see any chroma noise -- Alvesgaspar 15:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 18:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support .--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 13:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Great_Egret_during_mating_season_at_Smith_Oaks_Sanctuary,_High_Island.jpgEdit

Great Egret during mating season at Smith Oaks Sanctuary, High Island.jpg

  • Nomination Great egret (Ardea alba) during mating season at Smith Oaks Sanctuary, High Island --Frank Schulenburg 03:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 05:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The head is not very sharp and the white feathers are overblown. --Charlesjsharp 14:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No problem with the sharpness. Too tight at bottom (paws are cropped). Little chromatic aberration (see the edges of the white head)?--Lmbuga 13:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good 4 me. --Palauenc05 21:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See above (paws are cropped, minor CAs IMO) and feathers are a bit overexposed--Lmbuga 17:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you so much for the helpful feedback. I really appreciate it. I reworked the image and uploaded a new version. Sorry for uploading a version with the bird's feet cut off. I should have been more careful. Thanks again, --Frank Schulenburg 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent picture, all the faults mentioned above are minor imo. Alvesgaspar 14:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hockei 08:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, nice pic.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 15:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2015-02-28_Electric_Avenue_Museumsquartier_Wien_Kunstmeile_9519.jpgEdit

2015-02-28 Electric Avenue Museumsquartier Wien Kunstmeile 9519.jpg

  • Nomination Electric Avenue, Museumsquartier, Vienna --Hubertl 07:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong reflection of the flashlight on the metal --Denkmalhelfer 15:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC). Yes, there is a flashlight. So what? Übrigens: In Deutschland herrscht Vermummungsverbot. Benötigen wir hier Abstimmsocken? --Hubertl 20:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The quality is ok, but your photobag and your own jacket flashlight is distracting. Sorry, You should take care of such details. --Denkmalhelfer (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What are you talking about? --Hubertl 13:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What's the problem? It's good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 13:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Nottingham railway station MMB 90 170519 222018.jpgEdit

Nottingham railway station MMB 90 170519 222018.jpg

  • Nomination Nottingham railway station. Mattbuck 07:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much contrast between roof and rest, hard shadows --Denkmalhelfer 15:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Discussion neccessary. --Hubertl 20:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck, please lighten the shadows a bit, it will be QI for me then.--Hubertl 22:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
     Not done --Hubertl 21:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    Mattbuck??? --Hubertl 13:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. --Kadellar 00:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine to me, as well. Alvesgaspar 14:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Κηφισιά Πλάτανος 7863.jpgEdit

Κηφισιά Πλάτανος 7863.jpg

  • Nomination The centre of Kifissia, Attica, Greece. --C messier 16:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are really many problems. its leaning in (on the right side more than left) that means, it tilted too, additionally the lack of contrast. I can´t imagine, that this is just haze. What shall we do, C.? --Hubertl 15:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I can fix the low contrast issue, but are you sure that it is leaning in? I checked them again and they were IMHO, fine. --C messier 11:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With PS, I would stretch the upper left corner a bit. There are so many lines, even the doors are not straight to others, and the lantern is skewed. Have a try. --Hubertl 12:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see comment from Hubertl --Denkmalhelfer 17:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thank you Hubertl for your review, I had overcorrected tilt. --C messier 12:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sufficient good work.--Hubertl 22:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Just barely acceptable --Σπάρτακος 18:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor light, building seems to be falling. Alvesgaspar 15:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support good shoot by a rainy day.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 00:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2015 04 08 014 35mm camera Fuji Fujica Compact S.jpgEdit

2015 04 08 014 35mm camera Fuji Fujica Compact S.jpg

  • Nomination Kleinbildkamera Fuji Fujica Compact S/35mm camera Fuji Fujica Compact S --F. Riedelio 06:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not very fond of these vertical lines specially on the left --Moroder 06:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
✓ New version Vertical lines corrected. --F. Riedelio 09:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Moroder 22:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO, It is distorted now, F. Riedelio is it possible to photograph it again from a more face-on position? --C messier 14:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Uploaded a new corrected version which I would like to Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Smial 10:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Left vertical lines are tilted, sorry (see note). It is a studio picture: The background color is not appropriate, it resembles too. Could you take a better picture with white background?--Lmbuga 17:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lmbuga,not accetable for this kind of works --Σπάρτακος 18:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support -- Good enough although the crop is too tight. Alvesgaspar 15:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support slightly tilted but QI.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tight crop. --Jebulon 14:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 14:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Viooltje (Viola cornuta), Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei 02.jpgEdit

Viooltje (Viola cornuta), Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei 02.jpg

  • Nomination Viola cornuta, Location, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei.
    Famberhorst 04:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF a tick too shallow. Besides. Please fix the description. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 10:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think, for a non studio work it is well done. The center is sharp. This is whats possible with f/13. --Hubertl 15:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dust spot (see note) is disturbing IMO. F/13, but the DOF is a bit sparse to be QI IMO. Personal opinion: I don't know if it has too much contrast or if it is oversaturated. I don't like the red halo of the yellow edge (see note)--Lmbuga 16:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Dust Spot and edge removed.--Famberhorst 17:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 10:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that Dof is too shallow. All petals should be sharp. I don't like the distracting backgroud either. Alvesgaspar 11:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Alvesgaspar.--Jebulon 14:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 14:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Geranium sylvaticum20140704 481.jpgEdit

Geranium sylvaticum20140704 481.jpg

  • Nomination Flower of Wood cranesbill (Geranium sylvaticum). --Bff 14:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • {{o}} 2,048 × 1,536 pixels. The minimum resolution for submissions is 4 megapixels. Too tight at top IMO--Lmbuga 15:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Please don't apply this ominous rule before there is a real consensus about it which isn't found during a ad-hoc-eastern-holiday-pseudo-vote. --LC-de 22:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't apply the rule. Flowers of Geranium sylvaticum have 2-3 cm. With 3 cm is 4 megapixels too? This is QIC! The picture don't has good composition IMO, but it's a good picture--Lmbuga 16:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lmbuga. --Code 18:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for me, the new rule is not in force. Alvesgaspar 11:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Ok Alvesgaspar. Composition, see below --Lmbuga 13:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Probably downsampled, but good--Jebulon 14:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 14:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

File: Bad Wörishofen, Klosterkirche, Fresko - Geißelung.JPGEdit

Bad Wörishofen, Klosterkirche, Fresko - Geißelung.JPG

  • Nomination Fresco Flagellation of Christ in the monastery church of Bad Wörishofen -- Spurzem 09:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeToo blurred. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 20:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Where? Perhaps you should get new glasses? ;-) I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 21:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ah, I see. The fresco painter used a resolution not sufficient for QI. Additionally his brush strokes were a bit uneven and blurred -> too much alcohol? No, taking a look at the edges I dont think its blurred, even if its starting to loose contours due to ISO noise. But this is IMHO still tolerable in this case. --LC-de 11:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me --Rjcastillo 15:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 20:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In my opinion the image lacks contrast, probably as a result of the poor lighting conditions. It is possible to fix though. Alvesgaspar 22:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 22:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alvesgaspar --MB-one 12:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chroma noise. Why ISO800? Object is not jumping around. -- Smial 10:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good 4 me. --Palauenc05 05:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dark, unsharp, noisy. --PereslavlFoto 10:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp, sorry.--Jebulon 14:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. Unsharp? Perhaps you should clean your glasses. But OK: If you think it is too bad, please decline. We have so much promoted images which are not better that we don't need this one. -- Spurzem 22:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 14:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Ξυλόσκαλο 3751.jpgEdit

Ξυλόσκαλο 3751.jpg

  • Nomination Fog on Lefka Ori, Crete. --C messier 13:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but: no meaningful file naming, stains, uncalibrated Colorspace. --F. Riedelio 15:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Name is in greek (i think this acceptable) and is the name of the place (+ image number from the camera). Uncalibrated Colorspace maybe due to RawTherapee, I think I can fix it. Can you note the stains on the picture? --C messier 18:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I note some stains on the picture. --F. Riedelio 15:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose fog blow out half of the picture --Denkmalhelfer (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @F. Riedelio, thank you for your review. Cloned out the noted features, although I think it is more possible that these were real world objects, propably garbage. I cannot fix the color space in EXIF data, but sRGB was selected when saving from RawTherapee. --C messier 18:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Denkmalhelfer, I can't understand your comment. There is visible structure in the fog (which is also the subject of the image) and as is a thick fog it covers the top of the hills/mountains. I don't see a technical shortcoming there. --C messier 18:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment here we are not talking about creative or idea behin the picture, it is pure quality of the pciture. And this is not good due too half of the picture flooded in white fog. --Denkmalhelfer 12:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support with less of the half of the picture flooded in white fog. --Ralf Roletschek 11:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Ralf.. It was the fog that makes you capture this moment. --Hubertl 15:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Even the front of the image, which is not affected by the fog is unsharp and undetailed. Alvesgaspar 22:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not bad, just foggy. --Hockei 13:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Contrast and sharpness in foreground could be better, but ok for QI. --MB-one 11:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alve --Livioandronico2013 20:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I see no issues neither quality nor visual --Christian Ferrer 06:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As said above. --Palauenc05 05:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 22:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Tue 28 Apr → Wed 06 May
Wed 29 Apr → Thu 07 May
Thu 30 Apr → Fri 08 May
Fri 01 May → Sat 09 May
Sat 02 May → Sun 10 May
Sun 03 May → Mon 11 May
Mon 04 May → Tue 12 May
Tue 05 May → Wed 13 May
Wed 06 May → Thu 14 May