Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 06 2019

• 
  • Nomination Shop “The German Village Shop”, Hahndorf, South Australia, Australia --XRay 04:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Pink Lake, Ashville, South Australia, Australia --XRay 04:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hiking trail`s western stairs to Hohe Gloriette, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 04:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Vengolis 04:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Fingerposts and signs at the forest track of the High Gloriette, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 04:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Vengolis 04:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View of Pörtschach am Wörther See from the High Gloriette, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 04:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Vengolis 04:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Gazebo "High Gloriette" on Gloriettenweg, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 04:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Vengolis 04:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View of Wörther See and Pyramidenkogel from Gloriettenweg, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 04:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Vengolis 04:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Thomisus sp --Vengolis 04:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Neurothemis intermedia --Vengolis 04:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dichapetalum gelonioides --Vengolis 04:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sphingidae sp --Vengolis 04:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hamadruas sp --Vengolis 04:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Roof decorations in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico --Cvmontuy 01:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 04:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ammar Helac, goalkeeper of the Austria national U21-team. --Steindy 00:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 04:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Luca Meisl, player of the Austria national U21-team. --Steindy 00:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Vengolis 04:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dominik Fitz, player of the Austria national U21-team. --Steindy 00:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Vengolis 04:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Bernhard Neuhold, managing director of the Austrian football federation. --Steindy 00:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Vengolis 04:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination 25 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote of Deggendorf (1920). --Palauenc05 21:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality -- Spurzem 22:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Porsche 935 from 1978 at Oldtimer Grand Prix 2011 in the padock of Nürburgring -- Spurzem 21:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Tom Murphy's sculpture commemorating the Liverpool Blitz of 1940, in the churchyard of Our Lady and St Nicholas, Liverpool.-- Rodhullandemu 21:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good focus to main part of the photo --Michielverbeek 21:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Close view of the inscription over the door of Tower Building, Liverpool -- Rodhullandemu 21:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mother Church (Sé Catedral) of Coimbra, Portugal. View of the cloister -- Alvesgaspar 20:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality -- Spurzem 22:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mother Church (Sé Catedral) of Coimbra, Portugal. View of the alterpiece -- Alvesgaspar 20:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality -- Spurzem 21:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Chapel of St Micheal, University of Coimbra, Portugal. View of the altar -- Alvesgaspar 20:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Chapel of St Micheal, University of Coimbra, Portugal. View of the high choir-- Alvesgaspar 20:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Jaguar E-Type from 1962 at the patrol station in the padock of Nürburgring -- Spurzem 20:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination 6 cylinders engine of Jaguar E-Type from 1964 Spurzem 20:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Zyfflich-NRW, church: the Sankt Martinskirche --Michielverbeek 18:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Nijmegen-Lent NL, church: the Maria Geboortekerk --Michielverbeek 18:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination between Berg en Dal and Groesbeek NL, sculpture (the Rode Loper designed by Marijke van Balen --Michielverbeek 18:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination 80 Pfennig Notgeld banknote issued in 1920 by the Town of Jüterbog (Germany). --Palauenc05 18:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 18:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Indian sparrow (Passer domesticus indicus) female --Charlesjsharp 18:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Ok --Poco a poco 19:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Rose-ringed parakeet (Psittacula krameri borealis) male --Charlesjsharp 18:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Common hoopoe (Upupa epops epops) --Charlesjsharp 18:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 18:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Tree root with visible core in a forest in Zurich --Domob 18:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 18:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Nilachal, Bandarban. By User:Tutul Chowdhury --RockyMasum 16:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Sorry! Not sharp. --Steindy 18:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination White rice in Bangladesh. --RockyMasum 16:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Sorry, too noisy and unsharp for QI. --~~~~
     Oppose Sorry! Too noisy. I do not think that a cell phone is suitable for such photos. --Steindy 18:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View from the summit of the Platzer Kuppe --Milseburg 15:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 18:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Panoramic view (360°) on the summit of the Platzer Kuppe in the Rhön Mountains --Milseburg 15:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 18:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Buick Series 40 --Berthold Werner 14:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 18:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination BMW F11 fitted with a M5 engine at Tuning World Bodensee 2018 --MB-one 14:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Sorry! Insufficient quality. Overexposed, outblown in the background and too noisy. --Steindy 18:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Table Mountain cableway, Cape Town --MB-one 14:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 18:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Déversoir sur le Furans à Pugieu. --Benoît Prieur 14:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 18:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Chemin de fer de l'OCBN à Tori-Bossito dans le département de l'Atlantique au Bénin --Fawaz.tairou 12:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 18:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Éléphants dans le parc national de la Pendjari au Bénin. By User:Ji-Elle --Fawaz.tairou 12:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination St George's Drive. London, UK --Ввласенко 11:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination --Rodrigo.Argenton 11:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Cvmontuy 01:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Temple Mount buildings, Jerusalem --Poco a poco 09:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 09:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Holy Sepulchre - Dome exterior, Jerusalem --Poco a poco 09:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 09:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Wailing or Western Wall, Jerusalem --Poco a poco 09:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 09:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Passing Time sculpture, Christchurch --Podzemnik 09:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Imehling 09:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Passing Time sculpture, Christchurch --Podzemnik 09:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Imehling 11:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Bridge of Remembrance, Christchurch --Podzemnik 09:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Imehling 11:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Cashel St, Christchurch --Podzemnik 09:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Aristeas 09:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Dinkelsbühl, Germany: View along the Kapuzinerweg to a listed house, the Dreikönigstürmlein (left) and the Grüner Turm (right). --Aristeas 09:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion GQ --Palauenc05 09:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Beilstein (Württemberg), Germany: The timber-framed historical townhall. --Aristeas 09:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion GQ --Palauenc05 09:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Listed buildings in the Freilichtmuseum Beuren, Germany. --Aristeas 09:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion GQ --Palauenc05 09:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination eggs of northern goshawk - Oeufs de Autour des palombes --Ercé 09:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 09:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion {{{2}}}
• 
  • Nomination The Three Sisters peak trio near Canmore, Alberta, Canada --193.171.152.104 08:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ercé 09:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Leucocarbo verrucosus. By User:Sylvain JORIS --Andrew J.Kurbiko 07:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Interior of the catholic parish church St. Johannes Baptista in Isling --Ermell 07:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Aristeas 08:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Altar of the catholic parish church St. Johannes Baptista in Isling --Ermell 07:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Aristeas 12:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Epitaphs in the Abbey Church of Ebrach --Ermell 07:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Aristeas 12:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Portal in the abbey church in Ebrach made by Materno Bossi 1773-1791 --Ermell 07:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Aristeas 08:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Church of the former monastery Ebrach --Ermell 07:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Aristeas 08:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Bell tower of the church in Réquista, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 06:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 06:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination B10a road sign in Belcastel, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 06:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Stained-glass window of the St Martial Church of Marcillac-Vallon, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 06:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 06:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Lac de Pont-de-Salars, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 06:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 06:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mountain tour from Prasüras, through the Val Trupchun to Alp Purcher in the Swiss National Park. cabin on Alp Purcher. (Wooden door).
    --Famberhorst 06:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 06:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Bottom of one Mycena galericulata on a half-decayed tree stump. Only 24 millimeters in diameter.
    --Famberhorst 06:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mountain tour from Val Sinestra via Zuort to Griosch. New partially wooden bridge over the Brancla.
    --Famberhorst 06:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mountain tour from Prümaran Prui via Alp Laret to Ftan. View of the surrounding mountains.
    --Famberhorst 06:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 06:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mountain tour from Val Sinestra via Zuort to Griosch. View of the mountains around Griosch.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mountain tour from Val Sinestra via Zuort to Griosch. Pyramids above Zuort.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 06:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mountain tour from Prümaran Prui via Alp Laret to Ftan. View of the surrounding mountains.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 06:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mountain path to the tongue of the Morteratsch glacier Zijmorene and erosion fields of the Morteratsch glacier.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 06:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Kobus ellipsiprymnus defassa (Defassa Waterbuck), Réserve Africaine de Sigean --Llez 05:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Damaliscus pygargus (Bontebok), Réserve Africaine de Sigean, France --Llez 05:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 06:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Aepyceros melampus (Impala), Réserve Africaine de Sigean, France --Llez 05:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination South side of the Ötscher, nature park Ötscher-Tormäuer, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 05:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 05:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sculpture “Angel of Hahndorf” (Craig Medson, 2012), Hahndorf, South Australia, Australia --XRay 04:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 05:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Shop “The German Pantry”, Hahndorf, South Australia, Australia --XRay 04:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 05:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Stairs down from the Hohe Gloriette on Gloriettenweg, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 05:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Embrasure at the Hohe Gloriette on Gloriettenweg, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 05:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Gazebo "High Gloriette" on Gloriettenweg, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 05:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View of Pörtschach am Wörther See from the High Gloriette, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality, beautiful view. -- Ikan Kekek 05:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Lyophyllum at the forest track Glorietteweg, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 05:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ratargul Swamp Forest, Bangladesh. By User:Abdulmominbd --RockyMasum 03:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. Please improve the categories. --XRay 05:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Chestnut-tailed Starling. By User:Mosharaf hossain ce --RockyMasum 03:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose - I totally love this composition, but sadly, it's too unsharp for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 05:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Bay-headed bee-eater. By User:Evanahmed75 --RockyMasum 03:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose too noised --George Chernilevsky 06:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Timmendorf, Insel Poel. By User:Daniela Kloth --Ralf Roletschek 00:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Imehling 11:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Leonardo Lukacevic, player of the Austria national U21-team. --Steindy 00:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 06:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Kelvin Arase, player of the Austria national U21-team. --Steindy 00:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 07:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mäanderförmig verlegte Leiterbahnen auf einem DDR4-Speicherriegel. Die künstliche Verlängerung der Leiterbahnstrecke dient dem Ausgleich von Laufzeitunterschieden bei parallelen Bussen, aber auch bei differentiellen Einzelsignalen hoher Frequenz. --Smial 15:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. However, the board should be cleaned beforehand. --Steindy 00:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
     Comment Maybe I should have a serious word with the manufacturer? It came out of its original packaging. --Smial 17:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Eastern Orthodox Procession. New generation --Ввласенко 09:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Aristeas 08:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Royale Sabre --Berthold Werner 09:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support - Good quality to my mind. -- Ikan Kekek 11:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek: For my taste, hood, side panel, windshield and seats are too bright. In addition, the funny radiator figure bothers me a lot; it is certainly not original. And I do not like pictures of cars shot with such a short focal length from close range. -- Spurzem 16:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    You are right with the figure (shame on the owner) and the focal length. Unfortunally there was no space to get two or three steps backwards and the sun was shinning too bright. --Berthold Werner 18:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    Spurzem, do feel free to oppose if you like. I feel like it's good enough for QI, but that doesn't mean I don't see the points you're making. -- Ikan Kekek 05:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The South Tower in Plaza de España, Seville. -- Alvesgaspar 13:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    Can you sharpen it a little? --Steindy 14:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    A new version was uploaded. Please be careful because sometimes pictures are enlarge much beyond their natural resolution (it is happening with the present one) -- Alvesgaspar 14:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    I am careful. But if you do not want it, I will not rate your photo. Regards --Steindy 15:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 21:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose for now: Sorry, no offence! I really like this photo (the composition is great!), but there are white triangles at bottom left and right. Certainly just a little oversight, but we shouldn’t promote the photo in this state. --Aristeas 08:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
     Done Thank you Aristeas, you are quite right. A new version was uploaded -- Alvesgaspar 10:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you very much! As the problem is solved now, I think we can reset the state to “Promotion” (as selected by George Chernilevsky), without going into Consensual review. --Aristeas 13:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion {{{2}}}
• 
  • Nomination Castle Hohenwerfen, Werfen, Austria --Poco a poco 10:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
    The right part is not sharp. --Steindy 12:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
    True, I take this one back Poco a poco 19:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Tatra truck at Pfingsttreffen Pütnitz 2018 --MB-one 11:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Review
    Lots of noise in the dark areas -- possible to fix? --Rhododendrites 17:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Franziskanerkirche, Salzburg. By User:Arne mueseler --Tomer T 08:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Review
    Good, but the CAs at the windows should be fixed, and at the bottom right exposure should be dialed down (if possible, else it is just overexposed). In addition, a bit of rotation CCW/perspective correction would be good to fix the symmetry. --Aristeas 08:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: National Stadium Warsaw --Arne mueseler 05:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Review Perspective correction needed --Llez 05:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Volgograd Arena --Arne mueseler 05:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Review Perspective correction needed --Llez 05:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Demolished Highway A61 in preparation for Garzweiler surface mine --Arne mueseler 05:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Review Perspective correction needed --Llez 05:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: House for sale in Simon's Town, Cape Town --MB-one 12:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Review
    Very sharp and good! There is just a soft, but very big dust spot near to the top-left roof, please remove it. --Aristeas 09:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Panoramic view of the castle of Combret, commune of Nauviale, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 06:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Very nice, but there are some problems in the sky (some dust spots and, at the top left, strange artefacts). Could you please view over the sky again? --Aristeas 08:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
     Done, Tournasol7 09:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
     Support Thank you! I think it’s good now. --Aristeas 15:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Front view of a restaurant in the Zomatchi hotel in Abomey-Calavi (Benin) --Adoscam 16:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Sorry, too noisy and soft for me. --Domob 18:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Monuments aux dans la commune Allada au Bénin --Adoscam 13:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Perspective correction necessary. --Steindy 00:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, the crop is not QI for me (flag pole cut off and also near the bottom of the picture). Also the bright parts of the monument itself seem blown. --Domob 18:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Prinzessinnengruppe (Schadow) in the Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S. By User:Daderot --Another Believer 00:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)  Question Why don't you put the artist's name in the file description? --Moroder 15:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
     Done -Another Believer 00:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 18:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion {{{2}}}
• 
  • Nomination: Objekt in der Kellergasse „Neugebäude" in Absberg (Niederösterreich).. --Manfred Kuzel 05:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Review
     Comment Seems overexposed to me (and a bit soft). But I think it can be fixed - I'll support this if you lower the exposure a bit. --Domob 18:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sculpture in the Dallas Museum of Art, Texas, U.S. By User:Daderot --Another Believer 05:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Sharpness could be better. I will support when the description is improved (what the sculpture depicts, who and when made it) and the license fixed (the sculpture is a 3D object, so the creator of the photo is the photographer and thus he didn't die 100+ years ago). --C messier 17:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    @C messier: Not sure I want to change license info for an image uploaded by someone else, but I've updated the caption. -Another Believer 00:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 18:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Consensual review

File:Stata_Center_(05753p).jpg

• Nomination Stata Center at MIT --Rhododendrites 15:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Axel Tschentscher 00:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Perspective correction necessary. --Steindy 00:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality. --Chenspec 21:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I disagree, per Steindy. --Tournasol7 11:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others.--Peulle 07:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Steindy 00:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Sossusvlei-01.jpg

• Nomination Sossusvlei, Namib desert, Namibia, after rain. By User:Hans Stieglitz --Tomer T 07:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Noise rediction necessary. --Ermell 07:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality. --Chenspec 21:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I disagree. Per Ermell, too noisy. --Tournasol7 11:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others. Way too noisy, probably not fixable but I could be wrong. -- Ikan Kekek 05:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too noisy for a daytime nature shot.--Peulle 07:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Steindy 00:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Floating_Fishing_Balls_on_a_beach_in_Ghent-Popo_(Benin).jpg

• Nomination Floating Fishing Balls on a beach in Ghent-Popo (Benin) --Adoscam 12:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Comment It's tilted, otherwise looks OK.--Peulle 13:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality. --Chenspec 21:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I disagree. Per Puelle, horizonthal line should be corrected. --Tournasol7 11:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Indeed. @Chenspec: You keep overruling reviews made by other reviewers; this is not the way to do it. Please change "Nomination" to "Discuss" so that the image is sent to CR instead. --Peulle 07:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Steindy 00:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

File:The_Making_of_Thatch,_Nigeria_Photo_4.jpg

• Nomination There are palm leaves all over, some tied up in a bunch, some lying underneath the sun, others thatched already and staked up in a pile. On his hands are two long thinly carved sticks that would function as the skeletal frame for a pair of thatch.This is an image of "African people at work" by User:Eric Atie --Kritzolina 06:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Ercé 08:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I disagree. Only a small part of the photo is sharp and generally the picture noise is far too strong. I do not understand why 3200 ISO and a shutter speed of 1 / 1.250 s were needed. For me, this is definitely not QI. --Steindy 14:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree. The artefacts and noise are too prominent.--Peulle 10:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I don't see a big problem with the picture noise with this motive, especially since the photo is unscaled in full resolution and thus all possibilities for post-processing are open to subsequent users. With the usual viewing sizes on the screen, the noise is not disturbing. --Smial 11:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per the others, too much noise. --Domob 19:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Steindy 00:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Tokyo_Tower,_Toilets.jpg

• Nomination Toilets in Tokyo Tower. By User:Otto Domes --Tomer T 09:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Promotion
   Support Good quality. --Aristeas 10:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
   Comment - Very good, but a bit underexposed, as most clearly seen when looking at the tiles on the wall, and there's green chromatic aberration in the shadow on the right, especially on the door, that must be fixed. Also, these are the urinals, not the toilets, so at least the description if not the filename should be changed, and a category of urinals should be added. I'll wait a day or two, but if no change is forthcoming, I will send this to CR, because the CA has to be changed for QI, in my opinion. If this file is improved sufficiently, it might possibly be featurable. -- Ikan Kekek 20:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  I can't find the CA, but anyway I don't have enough knowledge in photo editing to remove it, sorry. I did take care of the file description and category. Tomer T 23:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
   Oppose - Thank you, but I feel that unless the CA is removed, this picture, which I'd very much like to support, is not a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 06:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality for me (and indeed a very nice picture). --Domob 19:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Some minor chromatic aberration and noise but well composed. On the limit... Alvesgaspar 21:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Steindy 00:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Lake_Bunyonyi_Islands_06.jpg

• Nomination Lake Bunyonyi. By User:Shaayflix --Andrew J.Kurbiko 00:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Comment IMO not sharp enough. Please have a look. BTW: f/22 is really too much. Sharpness would be better for example at f/13. --XRay 05:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Support Good quality. --Chenspec 21:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose I disagree. Overruling a vote should result in a discussion. --XRay 08:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose per XRay, a little too unsharp even in the foreground. Chenspec, you seem to vote often to support photos when someone else has made a suggestion to the photographer for improvements to the photo. I wouldn't normally do that, because it seems disrespectful to me. I guess you don't feel that way, but when there's merely a discussion and no decline, at least as of yet, why is it that you choose not to wait for that discussion to play out before voting to support? Of course it's your right not to wait, but I'm curious why you're in a rush to support in such situations. -- Ikan Kekek 11:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Steindy 00:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Lune_croissante.jpg

• Nomination Waning gibbous --VisioTempus 20:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Decline  Oppose Not really sharp enough, noisy and CA at top. Sorry, it would have been a great picture. Rodhullandemu 20:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
   Support It's actually very difficult to capture a high resolution image of the moon, so I believe this is of sufficient quality.--Bobulous 21:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)  Comment and metadatas? it's really too noisy Ezarate 21:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
   Comment I'd really like to see a version before being processed by Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer so we can assess the technical details. Rodhullandemu 21:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
   CommentSorry for metadata I'm new here and don't know how can I add some. For the picture it is a composite (panorama) from 5 pictures that are the result of a 30 stacked pictures (30 pics for the top right hand corner, 30 for top left, 30 for the center, 30 for bottom right, 30 for bottom left) through a Schmidt-Cassegrain 8" telescopeVisioTempus 22:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Not sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 06:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not sharp and pixelated. Far from QI. --Steindy 18:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment @Rodhullandemu: , @Ikan Kekek: , and @Steindy: please see this article about moon photography to understand how hard it is to fill a full-frame sensor with moon, and consider whether this contribution is actually worse. I reckon that this nominated image is doing a fine job, and I'm not convinced that it would be easy to produce an image of higher quality. My only suggestion would be to make the bright parts of the moon brighter, as they're currently a long way from pure white. --Bobulous 18:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment - Who said it has to be easy to take a QI of every motif? Not I. We do have different standards based on difficulty, to some fair degree, but I think there is a point at which you reach an absolute limit of acceptable "good quality". -- Ikan Kekek 11:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose Lots of weird artifacts that look like screen lines on a CRT. -- Smial 20:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others.--Peulle 21:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per the others. I acknowledge that taking such a high resolution picture of the moon is hard (and I've done my own attempts at that, much worse), but the picture at 100% just looks very noisy, blurred and weird with those artifacts. --Domob 19:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined   --Steindy 00:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Altino_Arantes_and_Others_2.jpg

• Nomination Edifício Altino Arantes. By User:Donatas Dabravolskas --Andrew J.Kurbiko 12:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Promotion
   Support Great perspective, sharp, and well exposed. --Bobulous 13:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I disagree. CAs at top and not enough sharp --Ezarate 21:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment Ezarate, I didn't see a vote next to your comment, but I have to assume you meant to oppose, because otherwise, I can't see how this would have gotten to CR. Remove the opposing vote if I'm wrong. -- Ikan Kekek 12:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Nice and original with minor shortcomings. Alvesgaspar 21:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per Alvesgaspar. --Aristeas 08:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Steindy 00:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Absberg_Kellergasse_14.jpg

• Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse in Absberg (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 10:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I disagree. Patterns in the shadows. --Ermell 13:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose It may be a lost crusade but I much dislike this kind of crop in a QI -- Alvesgaspar 21:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Steindy 00:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

File:OLD_JAFFA_PORT.jpg

• Nomination Port of Jaffa in Jaffa, Israel, with Tel Aviv in the background. By User:Noam.armonn --Tomer T 09:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose - Too blue/purple, the same objection I and some others have at COM:FPC. -- Ikan Kekek 10:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I disagree. Good enough for QI --Andrew J.Kurbiko 12:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Ikan. But even if this is good enough for QI, why not just fix the white balance? The photographer has already edited this image with Photoshop, so I assume he has got that program, knows it and it should be easy to do this additional improvement. It’s a matter of minutes (especially with a raw image file) and would make the image definitely even better ;–). Sorry for being so verbose, but I don’t understand why people don’t like to improve photos. --Aristeas 10:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Aristeas, the photographer isn't very active on Commons... Tomer T (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment And personally I would also fix the perspective – the buildings are leaning. --Aristeas 10:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overprocessed, ill WB, oversharpened, needs CCW rotation and/or perspective correction. This looks like massive photo shopping to force an effectful image impression instead of sensitive image enhancement. --Smial 15:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Steindy 00:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Hasiči Klášterec nad Ohří, CAS 30, Man TGS 26.jpg

• Nomination Fire truck with a pump capacity of 3200 liters per minute on a MAN chassis with Ziegler superstructure, Hasiči Klášterec nad Ohří. --janbery 20:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  
• Promotion  Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
   Oppose I'm not impressed by this badly distorted truck in the different light. Let us hear what others say. -- Spurzem 14:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Question - What distortion are you seeing, other than a normal foreshortening? -- Ikan Kekek 17:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I mostly see the distortion caused by the very short focal length of the cell phone lens. Besides, I do not like the wrong color at the front of the vehicle. Correct would be red and not orange. Also, the light reflection in the windscreen disturbs a lot. I have the impression that more and more images are presented, which were made without any thinking in passing and should then be praised here as a quality image. But let's here others please. -- Spurzem 13:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Spurzem: The color is RAL 3024, so it's orange (bright red, by law), not red. --janbery 14:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

And the truck isn't flat, please see video. --Janbery 15:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Good enough imo. Alvesgaspar 21:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - I'm satisfied after looking at the video. Spurzem, I think you have higher standards than some of us on just how good a composition has to be for something to be a Quality Image, at least in the case of certain subjects and motifs. I respect that, and maybe you're right, but it seems like more wiggle room is usually given here. -- Ikan Kekek 05:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Steindy 00:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Sonnenuntergang_P1260456.jpg

• Nomination Sonnenuntergang in der Südpfalz bei Herxheim/Pfalz, Mitte November, 19 Uhr 30 --Fischer.H 18:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Decline
   Support Good quality. Geotags missing. --Steindy 00:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
   Oppose This is surely too dark? And the elements which can be made out look very blurred. --Bobulous 12:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I guess the dark exposure was chosen to avoid clipping the highlights and losing colour, but in this case perhaps some kind of HDR would have been better to avoid the completely black lower half (or maybe a different crop). Also per Bobulous the objects near the horizon are not sharp. --Domob 19:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Steindy 00:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Krakow_-_St.Mary_Basilica_-_top_of_towers.jpg

• Nomination Krakow - St.Mary Basilica - top of towers --Imehling 11:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Decline
  
•  Oppose Lacks sharpness. Sorry. --Ermell 13:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  
•  Support At full screen (rather than 100%) I reckon this is sufficiently detailed, so I'm opening this for discussion. --Bobulous 17:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - Sharp enough at 60% of full size, which is fairly large, considering that the picture is a closeup of just the towers. -- Ikan Kekek 06:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose There is no need for 60% QIs. Unsharp. No QI for me. --Milseburg 10:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Well, I could downsample it to 60%, but that would be unsportsmanlike ;-)--Imehling 14:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Bobulous, had you meant to vote? -- Ikan Kekek 17:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, sorry. I use the QICVote gadget, and I opted for the "Discussion" option, forgetting that doing so would not actually indicate a formal opinion either way. I've now added the support marker to my original comment. --Bobulous 18:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Definitely not very sharp. --Steindy 19:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not sharp enough for a 2019 QI taken in daylight.--Peulle 21:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Steindy 10:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

File:T._A._Moulton_Barn_339.jpg

• Nomination Sunrise over the T. A. Moulton Barn and Grand Teton Range, Wyoming, USA. in the United States of America. By User:Gillfoto --Tomer T 14:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Looks very good, but also heavily downscaled. Regarding the camera used I expect a higher resolution for a QI --Milseburg 16:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I'm OK with this. The resolution still OK to me. --Podzemnik 20:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Somewhat high colour saturation, so we see a little bit more chroma noise than unavoidable. More than six Mpixels: acceptable. Very nice composition and lighting. --Smial 09:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment - Dust spots in the sky on the right must be eliminated before I could vote to support, so please take care of that. -- Ikan Kekek 09:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ooops, overlooked the spots. Vote revoked until fixed. -- Smial 15:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment 7 MP instead of 24? If this goes through we should really pervade consistently and ultimately to abolish the downsampling rule out of the guidelines. --Milseburg 12:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Question A great picture, but the question is: Do we still require for QIs that photographs should not be downsampled, or do we not require this? --Aristeas 16:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• We need that for eternal discussions. I would support an abolition and increase the minimum size to 6 MP, as Smial already does for himself. Besides the spots, today the guidline is valid, and in this case of a simple landscape view I see no reason for reducing the image size so much. --Milseburg (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment If I understand this idea of a new rule right (downsampling is allowed, but for most subjects, e.g. for landscape and architectural shots, the new minimum size is 6 MP), that would be a practical and easy-to-use guideline. Where can we vote for this new rule? ;–)
  But you are also right that at the moment, the rule that photographs should not be downsampled is still in effect, and you are definitely right about the dust spots ;-). --Aristeas 11:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• You can use the discussion page for a new thread and browse the archive for former discussions about that. (If you have nothing better to do.) --Milseburg 11:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

 Comment I do not demand six Mpixels as a hard limit, I'm fine with the common hard limit of 2 Mpixels, so we still can judge images as QI, which are made under special difficult circumstances. I also do not reject downscaling in principle as long as it is done in a meaningful and justifiable way. If a photo in original resolution is not quite pixel sharp, it can still be QI. I can understand that some photographers downscale pictures from their high-resolution cameras, because with the 35mm format with 36 Mpixels and more the possibilities of many high-quality lenses are already exceeded, especially with open aperture, if you need short exposure times with little light. If a large depth of field is required, each lens is poor due to light diffraction: the resolution is simply no longer sufficient for five µm or even smaller sensor pixels. Compulsive insistence on full resolution is completely pointless in this case. However, a moderately scaled-down image should not have disturbing blur. --Smial 14:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• Very very regretful  Oppose for now: Please remove these dust spots from your wonderful photo! --Aristeas (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very nice photo, unfortunately with some dust spots. --Steindy 18:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Steindy 10:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Chimneys_in_Rodez_01.jpg

• Nomination Chimneys of the building at Rue du Général Viala in Rodez, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 14:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Promotion
   Oppose Sorry! In such a simple motive, care should be taken that the antennas are completely imaged. --Steindy 14:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
   Support I think it's about chimneys, not antennas. Please discuss --Podzemnik 20:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per Podzemnik. --Smial 09:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per Podzemnik. Artist's prerogative and good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 09:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per Podzemnik and Ikan. --Aristeas 16:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support A good image of chimneys --GRDN711 02:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Steindy 10:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC))

File:Wuhlheide_berlin_2019.jpg

• Nomination Liveshow at Wuhlheide Berlin --Arne mueseler 06:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Promotion I really like the composition, and this is a large file, but I still think it's too grainy. At full size (granted, very big), it looks a lot like a photo as printed in a newspaper. Could you do something about that? I feel like if the photo were sharper, its composition might make it a Featured Picture candidate, but right now, I'm unsure it's a Quality Image and would probably vote to decline it. -- Ikan Kekek 07:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
   Support Grainy, yes, but the grain texture looks fine to me even at 100%. And look at the Exif data: this shot would not be possible with a lower sensitivity, so I think we must accept that this is a photo pushed to current technical limits. --Bobulous 17:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
   Question - Bobulous, maybe the raw shot had to be grainy, but are you saying it's impossible to decrease the grain through editing? -- Ikan Kekek 05:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  I'll  Oppose for the sake of a discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 09:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  Thanks for your feedback, I uploaded a new version --Arne mueseler 21:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Arne, thank you. I'll vote to  Support, but I greatly regret that you decreased the grain by darkening the photo so much, getting rid of much of its excitement. Is it possible to decrease the grain while keeping the previous level of contrast and highlights, or at least something much closer to that? -- Ikan Kekek 06:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Ikan Kekek Thanks again for your feedback - the original file is darker than the first version. I uploaded now another, a bit brighter version. I hope this one is better. --Arne mueseler 22:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you. I'm OK with this. -- Ikan Kekek 02:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas 14:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not enough mitigating reasons for the lack of quality. Yes, light and composition are fine but not the extensive (and unnecessary) blown whites or the geometric distortion, which could have been corrected. Alvesgaspar 21:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Steindy 00:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

File:East_façade_of_the_Hungarian_Parliament_Building_(Országház)_during_the_changing_of_the_guards.jpg

• Nomination Changing of the guards at the Hungarian Parliament Building --Julesvernex2 11:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose A good quality photo, but the mast in the middle is too annoying because it hides the portal. --Steindy 00:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak  Support - This seems worth a discussion. The pole being centered in front of the entrance is obviously an intentional compositional element, and to me, definitely acceptable in that context. However, the photo - and particularly the sky - should be denoised. -- Ikan Kekek 05:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Done. Thanks guys, I've reduced noise, with an emphasis on the sky. Perhaps I can also add some context on the mast: it is a flagpole with the Hungarian national flag, which the changing guards slowly circle. Arguably a better composition would include the entire flagpole although, given its height, that seems challenging even for a very wide angle lens --Julesvernex2 10:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Very good improvement. Unreserved support now. -- Ikan Kekek 20:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Quality is even better now. IMHO it is hard to avoid the mast completely, and it has been integrated as good as possible into the composition here. --Aristeas 08:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per above.--Ermell 08:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose The composition does not meet the QI standards. It is possible that no QI is possible exactly from this perspective. --Milseburg 14:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Steindy 10:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Absberg_Kellergasse_43.jpg

• Nomination: Objekt in der Kellergasse in Absberg (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 06:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Review
   Oppose Insufficient quality. Patterns. Sorry. --Ermell 07:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  
•  Support I disagree. It's not the photo, that is wrong, it is the software. I think it could be repaired. --Steindy 15:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Steindy 10:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC))

File:St_Anne_Chapel_at_Fort_St._Angelo_11.jpg

• Nomination St Anne Chapel at Fort St. Angelo --Kritzolina 18:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support ok so, die stürzenden Linien gehören dazu. --Ralf Roletschek 22:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Regretful  Oppose for now. Sorry, I really like this photo and would be happy to support it. But IMHO we just need a perspective correction here, like with similar photos (and it should be quite easy here). This is not an extreme perspective, where the falling lines are unavoidable and add to the photo. No offence, but please let’s discuss this and hear other voices. --Aristeas 10:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• OK now. --Aristeas 16:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Support --Ermell 17:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - That's really good. -- Ikan Kekek 06:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Spurzem 10:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Steindy 00:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Absberg_Kellergasse_33.jpg

• Nomination: Objekt in der Kellergasse in Absberg (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 06:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Review
   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
   Oppose Patterns in the shadows. Sorry. --Ermell 07:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Steindy 10:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Absberg_Kellergasse_50.jpg

• Nomination: Objekt in der Kellergasse in Absberg (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 06:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Review  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 07:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
   Oppose I disagree. Patterns in the shadow areas at the door. Sorry. --Ermell 07:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Steindy 10:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Collegiata_dei_Santi_Nazaro_e_Celso_fustigazione_Caylina_il_Giovane_Brescia.jpg

• Nomination: Painting of the flagellation of Saints Nazarius and Celsus by Paolo Caylina the Younger. --Moroder 13:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
• Review Good quality, but I don't understand why the left half is so much darker than the right half --Michielverbeek 15:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Comment Thanks for the review. It was the sun and shadow from a window but I could not wait for it to desappear --Moroder 16:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
   Oppose There are situations in which no quality picture is possible. And here we had such a situation. In addition, the paintings seem squeezed. Please let's here others. -- Spurzem 18:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
   Question I don't understand "squeezed", I don't think it is a photographic term, but please @Spurzem: be more specific --Moroder 20:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
   Support IMHO it’s OK. The shadow is not too dark, and it is not a technical problem of camera/lens/photographer, but just a shadow. Wir wollen nicht päpstlicher sein als der Papst, this is QIC, not FPC ;-). --Aristeas 19:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per Aristeas. Very good quality and high resolution. So what that half of it is in shadow? -- Ikan Kekek 06:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: I can't imagine that the image is a nearly real impression of this painting: at the left above rather dark and at the right below too bright. -- Spurzem 12:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You don't think that because of lighting conditions, it looked like that? It doesn't seem unbelievable to me. -- Ikan Kekek 22:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: I'm looking forward what you will say when I present a photo of the black cat without any light in the dark cellar. -- Spurzem 10:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

If a photo is entirely pitch black, you think that's exactly the same as one that's completely visible and partly in shadow? Drop the hyperbole. And why are you going after me, when I'm not the only person who disagrees with you? -- Ikan Kekek 20:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per Spurzem -- Alvesgaspar 21:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Steindy 00:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Миколаївська_церква_Тарасівка_3.jpg

• Nomination Saint Nicholas church, Tarasivka, Troitske Raion, Luhansk Oblast, Ukraine. By User:Олександр Олександрович Павленко --Antanana 14:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Promotion
  
•  Support Good quality. --Chenspec 22:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  
•  Comment Please fix categories. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 23:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  
•  Support here ist QIC, no quality categorisation images. --Ralf Roletschek 22:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Question Andrew, what's missing in the categories, something specifically for the church? As for the photo, part of it is blown. That might be acceptable. There are also, what are they, raindrops on the lens? That might be OK, too, unless they're dust spots or something. On the whole, I like the photo a lot. -- Ikan Kekek 06:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • At least that village. Adding only the name of its county is too broad. People wont be able to find simmilar photos or see it in all details. But im not voting at all, just making a suggestion here. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 23:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• If there's a category for the village, I agree that it should be added in place of the category for the county. -- Ikan Kekek 06:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose Composition failed here. The powerlines are disturbing. --Milseburg 11:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Steindy 10:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Johanneskirken,_Bergen,_Noruega,_2019-09-08,_DD_71.jpg

• Nomination Johanneskirken, Bergen, Norway --Poco a poco 18:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Decline
  
•  Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I disagree Several blown highlights, and something went wrong per perspective correction. All people and the circular ornament above the entry and the iron door hinges are stretched vertically. --Smial 17:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC
•  Oppose Blown sky, human figures distorted. Alvesgaspar 20:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment  New version uploaded with all I could do... Poco a poco 11:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Poco a poco: I've just run your original version through Darktable (my new favourite toy for when a reviewer on Commons complains about perspective) and it's done what looks like an impressive job of making the verticals parallel while getting the aspect ratio correct. The only downside is that the crop (necessary to make the image rectangular again) is quite severe. If you want me to upload this version with parallel verticals then let me know. Or if you want to have a go yourself then download Darktable and see this article about its "perspective correction" module (and make sure to deactivate all blue and green lines which are not pure horizontals or verticals of the rectangular face of the church, and also change the "lens model" setting from "generic" to "specific" because the generic mode gives a squashed aspect ratio). And, for what it's worth: I like the perspective in the original, but you'll probably find that the majority of reviewers here cannot abide converging verticals. --Bobulous (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
    •  Comment I love to see ShiftN by Marcus Hebel, which I recommend and use since about 2006, more or less integrated in Darktable. ;-) --Smial 14:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your comment, Bobulous, I'll give it a try this weekend Poco a poco 08:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Steindy 00:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Absberg_Kellergasse_59.jpg

• Nomination: Objekt in der Kellergasse in Absberg (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 06:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Review
   Oppose Patterns in the dark areas --Ermell 07:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  I disagree. It's not the photo, that is wrong, it is the software. I think it could be repaired. --Steindy 22:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too tight crop. Framing is an important component of image quality. Alvesgaspar 20:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Done: Thanks for the review, with other software post-processed. --Manfred Kuzel 11:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Okay now. Good quality. --Steindy 00:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per above --Andrew J.Kurbiko 23:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Steindy 10:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Seville_April_2019-15a.jpg

• Nomination Plaza de España, Seville. -- Alvesgaspar 17:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose Bottom crop is not well done --Michielverbeek 20:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I agree that the bottom crop is unlucky, but is it really so terrible that we should decline the image just for that? I don’t think so, this is QIC, not FPC, and everything else seems fine in this image. No offence, but please let’s discuss this and hear more voices. --Aristeas 21:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
   Support per Aristeas. Easily a QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree that the composition doesn't work. The canal disappears into the middle of the bottom of the image, and the tops of lampposts emerge on the left from unseen bases. --Bobulous (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support But the building is well shown. --Milseburg 14:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Slightly oversharpened. I don't understand the composition thing. The building is completely shown, although the top of the tower is a little narrowly cropped, the bridge is completely on it, as is the central fountain. How can you compose an overview picture of such a large square much better? The image might not have a chance at FPC (no "WOW"), but is a rocksolid QI. --Smial 08:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Ps: Unfortunately I found a small flaw afterwards and annotated it in the picture. -- Smial 08:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Much of this image is technically fine but the unnecessary clipping at the top and bottom detracts from the image. --GRDN711 19:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Unfortunately, the crop at the top is too tight, but it's crisp sharp and nicely composed, all in all a QI. (I like that dancing couple below the bridge, although their feet are off.) --Palauenc05 10:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• @Steindy: : When you execute a decision here at CR, please remember to not only set "QICresult" but also change "Discuss" to "Promotion" (if promoted), "Decline" (if declined) or "Nomination" (if the vote is tied). Otherwise the bot won't actually execute it. --Peulle 08:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Steindy 10:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)