Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

NominationsEdit

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 12:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

October 29, 2020Edit

October 28, 2020Edit

October 27, 2020Edit

October 26, 2020Edit

October 25, 2020Edit

October 24, 2020Edit

October 23, 2020Edit

October 22, 2020Edit

October 21, 2020Edit

October 20, 2020Edit

October 19, 2020Edit

October 18, 2020Edit

October 17, 2020Edit

October 15, 2020Edit

October 12, 2020Edit

October 11, 2020Edit

October 8, 2020Edit

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 <tvar|promotion>/Promotion</>, <tvar|decline>/Decline</> to <tvar|discuss>/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   Oppose and   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:Kościelec_view_7.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Panoramic view towards Mały Kozi Wierch from Kościelec, Tatra National Park, Zakopane, Poland. --Kallerna 11:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 14:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
      Oppose The snow is overexposed in the middle and below. --A.Savin 15:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek 07:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Vista_de_Praia_da_Vitória_desde_miradouro_do_Facho,_isla_de_Terceira,_Azores,_Portugal,_2020-07-24,_DD_68-76_PAN.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination View of Praia da Vitória from miradouro do Facho, Terceira Island, Azores, Portugal --Poco a poco 07:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not yet. Curved downward on the very right side. The horizon goes well below the sea horizon there. --Milseburg 19:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Verruigd_biotoop._Locatie,_Stuttebosch_in_de_lendevallei._27-08-2020._(actm.)_06.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Overgrown fairly wet habitat. Location, Stuttebosch in the lime valley. Friesland province. --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality --Llez 06:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose wb off, tilted. --Kallerna 18:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for me. -- Johann Jaritz 05:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good and believable to me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support - but I recommend to adjust WB (too warm) (and a little bit sharpness). --XRay 09:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 11:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Weitensfeld_Wullross_Burgruine_Nord-Ansicht_17042016_1494.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Ruin of castle in Wullross, Weitensfeld, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 04:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose really distracting branches. --Kallerna 18:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment That castle ruin has been crumbling away in the middle of the forest in no man's land for many decades. -- Johann Jaritz 04:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Right, the branches are where they are. That's fine, but is there anything you can do to lessen the overexposure in the areas with sunlight? A lot of branches and leaves have disappeared into the whiteness. -- Ikan Kekek 08:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good image. Like in a fairy tale. -- Spurzem 08:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 11:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Tree_in_Plaines_d'Abraham.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Tree in Plaines d'AbrahamI --Wilfredor 23:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Pretty picture but overexposed --Trougnouf 09:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree.This is not overexposure, this is a cloudy sky --Wilfredor 10:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment The sky is pure white, any cloudy sky would have some variation at least detectable by a software. I think it's a pretty result and I was giving it the benefit of the doubt because I don't do B&W so I don't usually review B&W, but I based that on the many leaves that disappear into the white sky. --Trougnouf 14:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm seeing the same thing. Wilfredor, could you dial back the exposure of the sky just a bit and see if you can recover some leaves and small branches? I'd like to support. -- Ikan Kekek 08:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for me. -- Johann Jaritz 05:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Klosterstraße_30_(Sex-Shop)_Hof_20201027_DSC5220.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Sex shop in Hof (Saale) in HDR. --PantheraLeo1359531 22:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  Oppose Insufficient quality. Car distracting --Wilfredor 23:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  Support Looks like a QI to me, it's sharp enough, the perspective is right, the car is typical of a street scene (which is what's mentioned in the description, not specifically the sex shop it's partially blocking, though it would be better to categorize it and ideally identify it) and it's not even cropped. It doesn't seem to warrant the HDR processing but more work is never an issue as long as it doesn't result in artifacts. --Trougnouf 14:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  Done Cats concerning car added --PantheraLeo1359531 17:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks fine, except that the light is so dull. It was really so dark at 12:37? -- Ikan Kekek 08:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose underexposed. --Kallerna 09:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looking at the file history one can clearly see that it was shot with overexposure and than afterwards edited improperly. So now it is underexposed. But the goal should have been to only darken the sky and not the hole frame. --Augustgeyler 11:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Trougnouf 07:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Hamburg_Veddeler_Damm_Windhukkai_9.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Hamburg-Mitte, Veddeler Damm/Windhukkai 9, shed 59 --KaiBorgeest 22:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Light and weather conditions resulting on underexposed --Wilfredor 23:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this photo is OK as a depiction of this scene in fog. -- Ikan Kekek 21:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz 05:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose all days are not suitable for photography. --Kallerna 08:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Asmodea Oaktree 11:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Arthur's_Pass_Train_Station,_Arthur's_Pass_National_Park,_New_Zealand.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Arthur's Pass Train Station, Arthur's Pass National Park, --Podzemnik 05:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I am sorry, this is a wonderful composition with a very good lighting. But it is too soft. Shutter 1/50 might have been too long. --Augustgeyler 21:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me. -- Johann Jaritz 05:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose for now: A little soft, and looks undersaturated except for the red and yellow objects (not including the orange crane) and possibly the blue ones. -- Ikan Kekek 08:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Rote_Moschee_IMG_1371.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Rote Moschee im Schloßgarten von Schwetzingen, ehemalige Sommerresidenz der Kurfürsten von der Pfalz, Baden-Würtemberg, Deutschland. --Fischer.H 17:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Some noise reduction necessary at the top. --Ermell 21:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Good quality. --Moroder 08:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (provisional) per Ermell. --MB-one 22:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like this better than another one of this motif that you recently nominated, but is the green oversaturated? -- Ikan Kekek 08:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Is this downsized? --Augustgeyler (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Downsized.--Peulle 12:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 10:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Mille_Miglia_2020_partenza_N_14_Lancia_Lambda_spider_Casaro_in_Viale_Venezia_a_Brescia.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Ready for departure at the Mille Miglia 93th edition 2020 number 14. --Moroder 04:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose main parts of the car are not in focus. --Augustgeyler 06:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It does look a bit soft. Is the focus on the man in the background rather than the car?--Peulle 07:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes. The man is way sharper than the middle of the car. --Augustgeyler 10:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose That's what I thought as well. Missed shot, then.--Peulle 13:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Focus not perfectly on the car, but regarding the high resolution still acceptable and useable sharpness. --Smial 09:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The car should actually be a bit sharper. But what bothers me a lot more is the older man with the mask hanging down behind the car. The photographer would only have had to wait seconds for it to pass. -- Spurzem 16:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Castillo_de_Bratislava,_Eslovaquia,_2020-02-01,_DD_59.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Bratislava Castle, Slovakia --Poco a poco 07:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • needs persp corr --Tesla Delacroix 13:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Not done--Peulle 13:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, the request came one day before you declined it. What perspective correction is being asked here? verticals look vertical to me --Poco a poco 22:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Apologies, there was a different image I meant to decline as having not been corrected in a week.--Peulle 07:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • So let's wait here for coming improvements. --Augustgeyler (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • As long as I don't know what should be improve, there will be no improvements...Tesla Delacroix, can you help with that? Poco a poco 20:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I personally see two problems: 1st, it's not exacly centered and 2nd the roof looks curved. Not sure if it's fixable, the angle was quite wideTesla Delacroix 00:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Cape_May_Lighthouse_September_2020_001.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Cape May Lighthouse. --King of Hearts 19:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment Lighthouse not really focused and distracting crop --Virtual-Pano 10:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment How exactly is it not in focus? I was about a mile away so it could be a bit of atmospheric turbulence. And what's wrong with the crop? In any case this is not FPC and I don't see any clear mistakes in the composition. --King of Hearts 04:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have placed notes to highlight the focus topic - You labeled the frame 'Cape May lighthouse' but it covers less than 5% of the frame - sorry for the late reply --Virtual-Pano 21:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have gone for an artistic composition; photos don't always have to be plain representations of the subject. And I believe the DOF is very much sufficient for QI, especially on a 24 MP image. Anyways, I will seek another opinion. --King of Hearts 02:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per nominator. Looks like atmospheric turbulence. Nice composition. --Smial 10:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I like the idea of a short DOF. The tower is in focus, or close to be. --Augustgeyler 10:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose DOF field and label/crop issues as above - If the tire tracks and lighthouse (which is one mile away) would be in focus how could the scrubs and bushes to the left of the lighthouse be out of focus? --Virtual-Pano (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Pano --Palauenc05 21:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too dark, unnecessary b&w. --Kallerna 09:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Kallerna 09:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Billings_Estate,_Ottawa_(20170819_100819).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Bilingual description board at Billings Estate, Ottawa --MB-one 12:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Mobile-phone shot of a description board? Please select the photos you nominate more carefully. The photo is also tilted and framing in unfortunate. --Kallerna 12:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done fixed tilt and new crop --MB-one 23:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I am wondering about the subject as well. If this can be QI, we could start taking pictures of every single page of a public book, or of a computer display in a museum showing text, etc. ... . --Augustgeyler 06:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question Are you wondering about copyright status, Augustgeyler? --Peulle 07:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment no, about sense... --Augustgeyler 15:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, you can take such pictures, and they might even be useful. Remember, Wikipedia uses Commons photos quite extensively. -- Ikan Kekek 10:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality - a contemporary image of an historic plaque (which could one day be destroyed or removed) imho possibly has more relevance here than other photos that have passed QI but have little apparent historic, information or artistic value --SM1 (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Thank you, SM1. That's the reason I was looking for. So I understand the value of that image. But I have to oppose. The lower background is much sharper than the main object. The level of detail is low. This here is not a quality reproduction of that plaque. --Augustgeyler 10:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The plaque is very distorted and the color seems not true. -- Spurzem 20:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It may be useful to take such a picture of an information board, especialy in connection with the object it describes. But is this one a quality image? Definitely not! It's just a poor mobile phone shot. IMO it's quite daring to nominate such a picture as QI. --Palauenc05 07:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Palauenc05 21:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Patrulla_Aguila,_ILA_2018,_Schönefeld_(1X7A6633).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Aerobatic display of Patrulla Águila at ILA 2018 --MB-one 12:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Random crop. --Kallerna 12:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support technically well done, the crop stresses the dynamic situation imho --Virtual-Pano 21:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 11:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Some motion blur, but regarding the resolution still acceptable. -- Smial 13:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Palauenc05 15:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Goéland_argenté_(Larus_argentatus)_(33).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Herring gull (Larus argentatus) in Île-de-Sein (Finistère, France). --Gzen92 08:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Peulle 08:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tighter crop needed. --Kallerna 12:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Crop fine for me. I don't see a good reason why the environment of the bird should be removed --PantheraLeo1359531 16:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 10:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Sharp bird. But the composition is poor. I'd suggest to crop 30 % of the right part of that image. --Augustgeyler 10:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Johann Jaritz 04:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 10:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Goéland_argenté_(Larus_argentatus)_(36).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Herring gull (Larus argentatus) in Île-de-Sein (Finistère, France). --Gzen92 08:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very similar to 37 (!), but with distracting crop on top. Why promote both? --Kallerna 11:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment firstly, similars are allowed by the rules, QI is not a FP. Secondly, images 36 and 37 have several differences (see leg position and head rotation). But agreed, a little cropping on top (without dark areas) would be better --George Chernilevsky 11:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Then we should change the rules, definitely there is no point promoting duplicates. --Kallerna 12:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support From taxonomic point of view, its important to show differents aspects of the animal. This picture show leg and foot structures differents from the other picture. --Jani Pereira 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Per every supporting vote --Trougnouf 22:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment With George Chernilevsky, it should be cropped a little on top. --Augustgeyler (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments, I cut top of picture. Gzen92 07:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per others, and Kallerna, a nomination response thread is not a place to propose new guidelines. Start a thread in the appropriate talk page. -- Ikan Kekek 10:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Augustgeyler 15:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 10:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Mille_Miglia_2020_partenza_N_126_Fiat_Aladoro_in_Viale_Venezia_a_Brescia.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Ready for departure at the Mille Miglia 93th edition 2020 of the number 126. --Moroder 05:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 08:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It looks distorted to me. Did you apply strong perspective correction? --MB-one 12:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Of course it’s distorted: a closeup with a wide angle lens (45 mm. medium format). Every photo bears distortions, it’s up to anyone to accept it or not, unless you don’t accept photography --Moroder 14:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question It looks good to me. MB-one, are you seeing stretching in front, or is there something else that's bothering you? I'm not familiar with the appearance of this model. -- Ikan Kekek 10:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Yes, it seems to me, as if the right side if the vehicle is reaching further forward, than the left side. --MB-one 20:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for explaining. It's reaching further forward because it's closer to the viewer than the left side and we're looking at it at a slant. It looks like normal photographic perspective to me. -- Ikan Kekek 10:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I also think that this image is too distorted. -- Spurzem 11:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. I really don't like the wide angle perspective, but technically the image is without faults. --Smial 14:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The wide angle effect is used properly to exaggerate the existing long front proportions of this special car. The not centered view is not optimal for that effect but OK. --Augustgeyler (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Distortion. --Palauenc05 21:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Palauenc05 21:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)--Ikan Kekek 10:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Iphofen_St.Veit_Altar-20201018-RM-155051.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Side altar in the catholic city parish church St.Veit in Iphofen --Ermell 06:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Clear composition. But the image is cropped too tight at the top and over all not sharp enough. --Augustgeyler 09:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 10:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support The crop at the top indeed is very tight. But the main part of the image is good. -- Spurzem 11:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 11:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Praha_Mala_Strana_U_Sovovych_mlynu_4_Lichtenstejnsky_palac_a.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Column capital at Liechtenstein Palace, Prague, Czechia --JiriMatejicek 10:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Too soft, level of detail too low. --Augustgeyler 08:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Info It may look soft because it's an old capital that has endured a lot of weathering, cleaning, possibly repair. I don't think it lacks sharpness/detail - just look at the crack on the right; on top and bottom you can almost see single grains of the sandstone. --JiriMatejicek 16:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I double checked it. Keeping the object in mind I still think, there is too less detail captured. Did you engage noise reduction? --Augustgeyler (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Not experienced enough with post-processing and didn't see a need. --JiriMatejicek 15:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment So you did not take it as a raw but as jpeg? Than your camera applied a too visible noise reduction, which reduced the level of detail. --Augustgeyler 10:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp enough for QI. --Palauenc05 22:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support +1. --Peulle 07:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support +2. :-) -- Ikan Kekek 10:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 11:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support +4.5. ;-P --Smial 13:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Palauenc05 15:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Mayan_skull_front_p2.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Real size resin skull, Chiapas Mexico, Image produced by combining 3 pictures: --Cvmontuy 14:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Nice --Wilfredor 14:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Compared to the other nominated image, I think the white balance is off. Look at the non white / gray background. --Augustgeyler 10:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have reprocesed the image please review again --Cvmontuy 19:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done! --Augustgeyler 21:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 11:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Brussels_Central_station_world_wars_memorial_(DSC_0318).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Brussels Central station world wars memorial --Trougnouf 06:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose You'd improve your picture substantially cropping the bottom of the lower level --Poco a poco 18:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like it. To me it shows life and people are moving places after we've gone through these attrocities. Hopefully in the right direction, even though the artwork is largely ignored. Is that crop a factor for QI ? --Trougnouf 19:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment To me that area is just disturbing and not adding anything to the image, as it is jus to small to me to consider it a essential element in the composition. Other opinions? --Poco a poco 18:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I am with Poco. The lower part might make sense, if there would have been more of the sub-scenery shown. But in that case it is so small that I'd cropp it out, too. --Augustgeyler 19:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support It's true that could have been a little wider, but that small background area makes makes it easier to understand the context in which the artwork is placed. I have tried to crop it on my pc and it looks good, of course, but the uncropped version makes more sense to me. Generally speaking, it's well composed and the quality is good for me. --Lion-hearted85 10:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. I agree with the others, but I respect the artist's motivations and artistic license. -- Ikan Kekek 07:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support with or without (the crop) - excellent focus and exposure --Virtual-Pano 20:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose It is not an easy decision. But I think the suffering composition weighs more than the idea of showing the context. Therefore we should see more of the other floor. --Augustgeyler 06:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 11:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Maison_à_Locronan.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination House in Locronan (Finistère, France). --Gzen92 07:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose blown sky --Kallerna 17:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like the sky of a cloudy day to me. Please discuss. --Lion-hearted85 09:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support ok for me.--Ermell 10:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 07:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Rainy day, see other photos. Gzen92 07:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support OK. --Aristeas 09:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 11:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Maison_de_marchand.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Merchant's house in Locronan (Finistère, France). --Gzen92 07:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose blown sky --Kallerna 17:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like the sky of a cloudy day to me. Please discuss. --Lion-hearted85 09:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support The sky is ok.--Ermell 10:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sky is perhaps just slightly overexposed, and it looks like there's a bit of magenta CA on the left side of the chimney. -- Ikan Kekek 07:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Rainy day, see other photos. Gzen92 07:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support OK. --Aristeas 09:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 11:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Scheepswrak_van_de_Queen_Anne._31-08-2020._(actm.)_03.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Digging part of the frames of the Queen Anne in the Schoterveld nature reserve near Bant in Flevoland. --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 04:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose wb off --Kallerna 17:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 10:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment there is also very similar photo already QI. Why promote both? --Kallerna 08:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Because QI is not VI or FP. ;-) --XRay 08:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there a need for several so similar QIs? We should not encourage nominating duplicates. --Kallerna 11:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose A very good composition showing a dramatic scenery. But the level of detail is a little low and I am missing sharpness, especially in the foreground. --Augustgeyler 08:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   CommentAgnes, I'm very clearly seeing magenta CA on the upper reaches of the two pieces of wood furthest to the left. Please fix that. After that's fixed, this will be a QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 10:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done. Ca’s removed. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek 10:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Johann Jaritz 04:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 10:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)