Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

< Commons:Quality images candidates

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]] 09:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

April 30, 2016Edit

April 29, 2016Edit

April 28, 2016Edit

April 27, 2016Edit

April 26, 2016Edit

April 25, 2016Edit

April 24, 2016Edit

April 23, 2016Edit

April 22, 2016Edit

April 21, 2016Edit

April 18, 2016Edit

April 17, 2016Edit

April 15, 2016Edit

Consensual reviewEdit

Rules

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

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


Consensual ReviewEdit

File:VC-10_Cockpit.jpgEdit

VC-10 Cockpit.jpg

  • Nomination flight deck of a Vickers VC-10 --Sturmjäger 20:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --KaiBorgeest 22:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree: Some chromatic aberrations. --Cccefalon 05:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 07:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Alfa_Romeo_MiTo_02.jpgEdit

Alfa Romeo MiTo 02.jpg

  • Nomination Alfa Romeo MiTo in Odessa, Ukraine. By User:Maksa --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 23:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The logo of Alfa Romeo and the left head light are very bright. Further I don't like such white license plates. -- Spurzem 18:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose white license plate no can be a QI --Ralf Roletschek 23:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree: It is only a courtesy to obscure the plate. As long as the car is in a public environment, there is no legal reason against publication. See also Regional Court Kassel (Ruling 10.05.2007 – Az.: 1 T 75/07) --Cccefalon 08:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Hubertl 08:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

File:MG_TD_1953_-_rear.jpgEdit

MG TD 1953 - rear.jpg

  • Nomination 1953 MG TD --DeFacto 20:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO, the another cars in the background are distrubing Ezarate 21:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Further the MG TD seems to be overexposed. -- Spurzem 18:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose license plate --Ralf Roletschek 23:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, can I have more views on how to hide number plates please. DeFacto 06:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is only a courtesy to obscure the plate. As long as the car is in a public environment, there is no legal reason against publication. See also Regional Court Kassel (Ruling 10.05.2007 – Az.: 1 T 75/07) --Cccefalon 08:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment only in german, sorry: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Ralf_Roletschek/Kennzeichen_verpixeln --Ralf Roletschek 11:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, Cccefalon, Ralf Roletschek you misunderstand the reason I make the plates obscure - it is not because I think there is any legal reason to obscure it. There are two very good reasons to obscure the plates: 1, to protect the owner's privacy - they may not want their location at the time of the photo to be known by someone else. 2, to remove an opportunity for vehicle crime - with law enforcement agencies using number plate recognition cameras to help locate criminals, more and more criminals are using fake plates which are copied from similar vehicles to avoid detection - I do not want to provide a free and easy source of valid registration numbers for them to use. DeFacto 20:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Hubertl 08:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

File:753 759+758 CZ-CDC Paskov - Biocel Paskov.jpgEdit

753 759+758 CZ-CDC Paskov - Biocel Paskov.jpg

  • Nomination Wood block train for Biocel Paskov pulp mill --Cmelak770 18:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 19:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. WB should be fixed and dustspots removed.--Ermell 22:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ermell --Cccefalon 04:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Green and blue colours are painfull for my eyes, it's quiet simple to correct this (see note Ermell), untill now a Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Michielverbeek 05:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 07:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:2016_Wrocław,_Rynek_44_01.jpgEdit

2016 Wrocław, Rynek 44 01.jpg

  • Nomination 44 Market Square in Wrocław 1 --Jacek Halicki 08:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It looks tilted. Can it be fixed before promotion? --Peulle 13:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support where is the tilt? It seems ok for me. If you mean the horizontal tilt, this is the fully correct perspective distortion. --Hubertl 18:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Photo is not tilted. Only person in right bottom corner disturb the image but that's no reason for a decline --Michielverbeek 05:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 07:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Chelydra-serpentina3.jpgEdit

Chelydra-serpentina3.jpg

  • Nomination Skull of a chelydra serpentina, lateral view. --Sven Volkens 23:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment CA on left side Ezarate 00:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment compared to what w:Purple fringing shows I am not that unhappy, but yeah. -Sven Volkens 13:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Maybe but I prefer another reviewer opinion Ezarate 19:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The image is well lit and has decent focus, which is hard to achieve on such a 3D object. Probably not a featured picture, but I think good enough for QI. Let's discuss. --Peulle 10:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chromatic aberrations. There are always worse examples but that is not a reason to bypass necessary enhancements. --Cccefalon 05:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We are talking about roughly a width of 10px in a 5000x3000px image. As far as I understand this is a physical issue resulting of a poor quality lense on my equipment. this is as good as it gets for me. Compared to the effort I put into this image I belive the quality-issue is rather small. especially after reading the "value" and "purpose" section again ;-) --Sven Volkens 14:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I still do not understand, why - instead of arguing and arguing - you just do not remove the CA. That is the simplest task in whole postprocessing. A 10px CA is absolutely not acceptable. Same goes for your other images of the skulls which I declined too. --Cccefalon 19:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cccefalon:lesson learned - I did use lightroom now (thank's to User:Raymond's teaching), removing CA really is a thing on open source tools (and as a bloody w:noob), thanks everyone! -Sven Volkens (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you --Cccefalon 15:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 05:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:20160416 AUTHUN 2770.jpgEdit

20160416 AUTHUN 2770.jpg

  • Nomination Ice hockey Coach Rich Chernomaz --Ailura 14:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not quite sharp enough. --Peulle 14:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment not my best picture, but i don't think sharpness is the crucial issue. --Ailura 06:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lets discuss, in my eyes sharp to QI --Ralf Roletschek 20:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC) --Ralf Roletschek 20:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurred person in the foreground too dominant. Also, contrast is not good. --Cccefalon 05:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad colors and not sharp enough, especially the man in the foreground. -- Spurzem 21:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 07:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Mumbai 03-2016 14 Haji Ali Dargah.jpgEdit

Mumbai 03-2016 14 Haji Ali Dargah.jpg

  • Nomination Mumbai: Gates of Haji Ali Dargah Mosque --A.Savin 16:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good but looks tilted cw Poco a poco 20:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For me, it is normal --A.Savin 23:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment And how do you explain that all verticals of the gate are leaning in cw direction?
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please sign your comments, I don't know you. Well, it may be leaning, but really very weak and it is negligible for me, especially given the fact that a further tilt would result in leaning buildings in the background. --A.Savin 20:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Sorry, it was me, I forgot to sign. I have added a note, I believe that there is indeed a slight tilt Poco a poco 20:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I also think it's tilted, there's too much shadow on the gate and I personally find the buildings in the background quite distracting, they are also disturbing the clear outline of the gate. -Knöre 14:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC) * ** {{Comment}} Try to check the lines as poco says, I will support it then. --Hubertl 05:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I made a second look, the construction itself is conical, therefore it is correct as it is! Pretty sophisticated! --Hubertl 05:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Old buildings are never straight, and if it's true that the modern buildings in background are maybe leaning about 1°, this is not enough to oppose and currently widely a QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 20:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think this building is tilted, it is a Q1photo --Michielverbeek 05:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose My eye always gets stuck on the roof in front of the gate, the right part is distracting with the other building in the back --Sven Volkens 14:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 05:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Gurudwara Bangla Sahib in New Delhi 03-2016 img4.jpgEdit

Gurudwara Bangla Sahib in New Delhi 03-2016 img4.jpg

  • Nomination New Delhi: Sikh temple, interior --A.Savin 14:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Borders are distorted and blurred. --Peulle 14:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Peulle: Could you please specify what you find wrong here? If you mean that "borders" are the areas on edges, then it is absolutely no dramatic blur, just some blur at the very top, but it is inevitable (many wide-angle QI images have similar issue!) and negligible. I also fail to see any significant distortion. --A.Savin 14:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are several areas in this image that are not in focus. The head and foot of the man in front, the top of the lamp, the man behind the golden drape, etc. It is especially noticable near the edges, but even if as you say that can't be helped. the image is just not sharp enough for QI, in my opinion. If others disagree, feel free to comment and take the image to discussion. Best regards, --Peulle 14:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can't see problems with the borders beyond the typical caused by wide angle lenses. However, there are some CA that should be fixed. Changing the status to discussion. --ElBute 18:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
        • The "support" vote here - was that made by you, @ElBute:? Since there is also a "comment" tag in front of your comment, I got confused. --Peulle 09:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, the support vote is mine. Sorry I could have messed things up. It is reorganised now. --ElBute 09:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done: Removed some flares on lights (≠ CA), slight perspective correction at the left. I don't think that all the people can (and should) be in focus. The photo is about the interior of the temple, which is sufficiently sharp at bigger part. Thanks --A.Savin 14:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok now for me too. --Hubertl 17:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sorry for german.. - Ich wollte eigentlich Kontra stimmen, weil die beiden größten Personen mitten im Bild mit dem Rücken zur Kamera stehen. Aber je öfter ich das Bild ansehe, umso eher paßt es. Das ist zwar "technisch" nicht optimal aber irgendwie stimmt es trotzdem. Das Bild ist nichts für kurzes Hinsehen und Gut oder Schlecht finden, man muß das länger ansehen. Und je länger, umso eher stimmt es. Sorry, ich kann es nicht ausdrücken, warum - aber das stimmt einfach. Und das hat wirklich nichts mit dem Fotografen zu tun! Gut gemacht. --Ralf Roleček 20:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 08:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_Francisco,_Lima,_Perú,_2015-07-28,_DD_74.jpgEdit

Iglesia de San Francisco, Lima, Perú, 2015-07-28, DD 74.jpg

  • Nomination Church of St Franciscus, Lima, Peru --Poco a poco 08:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much noise (grainy). --Peulle 14:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not sure about that, looks good enough for QI to me, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 17:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sure thing - I looked particularly at the "temple" bits (not the people), and the Jesus statue and flat golden panels all look quite grainy to me.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support weak pro, but Pro. The demanded issues are acceptable. --Hubertl 10:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 10:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Owls_Head_Light_Vertical_Center.JPGEdit

Owls Head Light Vertical Center.JPG

  • Nomination Owls Head Light --Ram-Man 19:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please have a look at the difference between the the horiozon on the left and right side. --Milseburg 12:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Image is tilted. --Peulle 14:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tilt is fixable. Usually, such images will be given a week's time. --Milseburg 16:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very well. Standing by... --Peulle 21:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Week is over. Still tilted. --Milseburg 15:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Ram-Man 01:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me now. --Hubertl 05:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agreed. Image is good enough for QI.--Peulle 10:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately tilted --Michielverbeek 05:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 05:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 08:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Ferrari-Monaco-4071013.jpgEdit

Ferrari-Monaco-4071013.jpg

  • Nomination Ferrari 488 GTB --Ermell 12:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Image contains only a small portion of the car; title insufficient. --Peulle 14:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC) **@Peulle:
    ✓ DoneI hope it´s better now. Thanks for the review--Ermell 09:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question I just noticed something - should the VIN number be censored? --Peulle 21:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I admit and removed the number althoug it was hardly readable.--Ermell 07:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks better now; the image itself is good and now the title stuff is OK. QI for me, unless someone disagrees? --Peulle 09:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not working out: for a side-view the perspective is wrong, unfortunatly there is another car in the back, logo is blurry. -Sven Volkens (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Monaco-Rolls-Royce-4071034PS.jpgEdit

Monaco-Rolls-Royce-4071034PS.jpg

  • Nomination Rolls Royce Ghost --Ermell 12:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fairly good quality, albeit some blur on the car's left side. --Peulle 14:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC) ** @Peulle:
    Could you please mark the part for better understanding--Ermell 09:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mirror. Also not sure about the perspective; let's move to consensual review. --Peulle 21:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, I don´t understand what you mean with your complaints, Peulle. --Hubertl 05:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, I'll try to be more clear: The car is in focus (except for a small area on the left side-mirror), and I think probably QI. A thing that makes me unsure is whether this perspective of the car (you don't see the whole car, just the front) makes it good enough for a QI nomination. That's why I moved it to consensual review, so that other people could weigh in. So far, though, nobody have. Hmm.--Peulle 10:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do. --Hubertl 17:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose manipulated license plate and too strong wide-angle. --Ralf Roletschek 20:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background messy. Use of wide angle lens without sense. -- Smial 10:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 17:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Marine_Drive_Cherry_Blossoms_02.JPGEdit

Marine Drive Cherry Blossoms 02.JPG

  • Nomination Cherry Blossoms at Marine Drive Residence, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada --Xicotencatl 09:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Decent composition, but lacks focus on quite a lot of the image (right side). --Peulle 14:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 20:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Palauenc. --Hubertl 05:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Quality high enough for a Q1photo Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michielverbeek 05:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 08:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Chiesa_Santa_Giustina_Longhena_ex_Venezia_notte.jpgEdit

Chiesa Santa Giustina Longhena ex Venezia notte.jpg

  • Nomination Night view of the Santa Giustina church in Venice. --Moroder 08:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Perspektive völlig zerstört. --Steschke 08:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Das Bild wurde von einem erhöhten Standpunkt (ich nehme an, von der Fußgängerbrücke) gemacht. Deshalb kann ich das Perspektivenproblem nicht nachvollziehen. Ich sehe andere Probleme, aber so ist das halt mit Langzeitbelichtungen ohne AEB und dumm herumstehenden Laternen. Deshalb auch der (kleine) lens flare. --Hubertl 08:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As for Steschke. Trying to correct perspective issues both in vertical and horizontal direction to make a photo of a building compulsively rectangular leads to, sorry, funny results. -- Smial 13:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support "Völlig zerstört"? Weitweinkelaufnahmen wirken oft unrealistisch nach dem Versuch alle Linien so gerade wie möglich zu bekommen. Bei Rundungen ist nicht viel zu retten. Für dieses Motiv ist ME die Lösung sehr gut.--Ermell 07:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The lighting is the biggest thing for me; the sharp light on the left. I am not sure if that warrants an "oppose" vote though, so for now I'm on the fence. What do you other guys think? --Peulle 12:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Archi38 10:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Rimberg (Knuell).JPGEdit

Rimberg (Knuell).JPG

  • Nomination Rimberg in the Knüll Mountains --Milseburg 10:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality; not quite sharp enough. --Peulle 12:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think, light, colors and composition are good. I can´t see, that this image is less sharp than most other promoted QI of landscapes, be they mine or those of other photographers. More opinions Further opinions welcome.--Milseburg 16:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak It´s not your usual sharpness you present, but enough for QI. --Hubertl 13:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Also a Symbol support vote.svg Support with same arguments as Hubertl --Michielverbeek 05:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 08:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Protea_coronata_1-9818.jpgEdit

Protea coronata 1-9818.jpg

  • Nomination Protea coronata, flowerhead --SAplants 17:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DoF too small. --Peulle 17:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment User:Peulle, can you explain your double standard of assessing the DoF between the two Protea flowerheads? Obviously, the DoF is the same, but one image is supported and the other declined. --Cccefalon 20:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hello, yes, I find the DoF in this makes the centre out of focus, whereas the other has a different angle so that the centre of the flower remains in focus. Others may disagree, if so, feel free to weigh in. --Peulle 20:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 08:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DoF is fine. OK for me. --XRay 12:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nothing against DoF but disturbing overexposition (not fixable) --Christian Ferrer 17:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --XRay 12:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

File:2014_Prowincja_Tawusz,_Widok_z_klasztoru_Hagarcin_(01).jpgEdit

2014 Prowincja Tawusz, Widok z klasztoru Hagarcin (01).jpg

  • Nomination View from Haghartsin Monastery. Dilijan National Park, Tavush Province, Armenia. --Halavar 16:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much noise. --Peulle 16:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me it´s ok. --Hubertl 02:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too unsharp --Michielverbeek 07:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Hubertl. --Milseburg 17:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky is too pale & noisy. You should fiddle around with the gradiation curves & depress the brightness of the blue channel a bit. --Jacek79 17:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough. --Palauenc05 15:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 20:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 08:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

File:643 044 RB51 Glanerbrug.JPGEdit

643 044 RB51 Glanerbrug.JPG

  • Nomination Bombardier TALENT of DB Regio NRW on a cross-border service in Glanerbrug, Netherlands. --Jacek79 13:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment burnt sky? --Ezarate 14:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Peulle 15:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree: Obviously, parts of the sky are blown out. Please pay attention to the histogram. It is also bad behaviour in QIC to just override the concerns of the primary reviewer. --Cccefalon 20:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK, shall I retry with the gradiation curves? --Jacek79 15:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Done.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 19:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the sky is still blown out Ezarate 12:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 20:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 08:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)