Open main menu



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]] 15:36, 24 May 2019 (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.
If there are terms you are unfamiliar with, please see explanations at Photography terms.

Thank you.

May 24, 2019Edit

May 23, 2019Edit

May 22, 2019Edit

May 21, 2019Edit

May 20, 2019Edit

May 19, 2019Edit

May 18, 2019Edit

May 17, 2019Edit

May 16, 2019Edit

May 15, 2019Edit

May 11, 2019Edit

May 10, 2019Edit

May 8, 2019Edit

May 7, 2019Edit

May 6, 2019Edit

Consensual reviewEdit


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   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



  • Nomination Aston Martin Vantage by Startech at Geneva International Motor Show 2019, Le Grand-Saconnex --MB-one 07:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Stoxastikos 09:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    I disagree. Only front wheel and one headlight are sharp, nothing else. Also disturbing background and agein unsufficiant lighting. I will never understand why all these exhibition and museum photos with creepy spotlight illumination should be quality images. Isn't "VI" enough for an award? --Smial 10:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose per Smial. The gesticulating man behind the car is really distracting, and not in a good way, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 04:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Continental Mark IV at Classic Days Berlin 2019, Kurfürstendamm, Berlin-Charlottenburg --MB-one 07:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    So shiny and chrome! But wouldn't it be even better, if you try to use a polarizer on it? The reflections on the bonnet look interesting, but on the glass they seem to a bit too distracting in my opinion. --Stoxastikos 09:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
      Support - I'm not sure why this was headed toward CR without even a single vote on it, but I like the reflections on the glass, too. -- Ikan Kekek 04:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Very unfortunate lighting. I would not present such a photo as QI. -- Spurzem 10:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Juvenile of Columba livia domestica (pigeon) in La Virgen del Camino (municipality of Valverde de la Virgen, León, Spain).--Drow male 06:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion }
      Support Although I'm not super happy with the camera's post processing, it's good enough overall. --MB-one 07:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose I disagree. Strong posterization --George Chernilevsky 14:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
      Comment I'm also concern about how these images were taken. The pidgeon must have been frightened by dozens of your flashes directly in its nest. --Podzemnik 23:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
      Comment - I like pigeons, but you're even more of a softy toward them than I am. I think pigeons are pretty unflappable in dealing with human beings and doubt some sessions with a photographer with a flash will severely scar them for life. They do have excellent eyesight, but I don't know how flash affects them, and Drow male may have unusually good rapport with pigeons and get them to relax. He was certainly able to photograph right into a pigeon nest, which is not a common occurrence. -- Ikan Kekek 04:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
      Comment - This pigeon came out of the egg under a window of the apartment where I lived in La Virgen del Camino (León, Spain). My idea was to take at least 2 photos of each day during its development while I was in the apartment. For personal reasons I had to return to live in A Coruña, and I suppose that when I return to the apartment for my things and to return the keys to the landlord within more than a month, the pigeon has already flown from the nest. I hope so, because I think the landlord does not want pigeons right under the apartment window. --Drow male 05:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)





  • Nomination This beautiful landscape lies in the Rara national park of mugu district. By User:Sardil74 --Biplab Anand 02:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Posterized sky with bands, blown areas, big dust spots. -- Ikan Kekek 05:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. Also oversaturated.--Smial 08:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose large blown area, far from QI --Milseburg 16:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 16:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination It is one of the popular ponds of the Eastern Nepal. Guphapokhari is located in Sankhuwsabha and is away from the crowd. By User:Aleena Rayamajhi --Biplab Anand 02:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now - Please fix the dust spots in the sky and the water and de-noise. The sky is pretty noisy. -- Ikan Kekek 05:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Agnes. --Manfred Kuzel 05:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   ----Palauenc05 05:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Parish and pilgrimage church Saints Primus and Felician, Maria Wörth, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 00:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Seven Pandas 00:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Overprocessed with visible halos around the church. --Zinnmann 14:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 16:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Zinnmann. --Smial 08:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Zinnmann: @Smial: I reduced the visible halos around the church by reducing the overprocesses. —- Johann Jaritz 13:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It may be due to my monitor that I do not recognize the halos around the church. I think the picture is atmospheric and technically fine. -- Spurzem 13:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support QI in my eyes. --Milseburg 16:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me. --Stepro 23:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 07:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Eiffel Tower in 2017, in Paris.--Drow male 19:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. IMHO too noisy --Podzemnik 20:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for me. However, the tower tilts a bit to the left. But that can easily be corrected. Please do it before we further discuss. -- Spurzem 20:16, 19 May 2019(UTC)
  •   Support good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - It's a little too noisy for my taste at full size, and considering the size of the tower, I think it's legitimate to look at this photo at full size. Please denoise a bit. -- Ikan Kekek 15:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose loss of quality towards the top. --Milseburg 15:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Tobias ToMar Maier 14:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, since no edit has been done. -- Ikan Kekek 08:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. Also perspective correction needed. --Smial (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Smial --Stepro 23:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --Palauenc05 16:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination The fascinating and beautiful village of Kagbeni (2840m) on sea level. By User:Nrik kiran --Biplab Anand 09:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   SupportGood quality. --Manfred Kuzel 10:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice view, but I disagree about the quality. --A.Savin 16:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for me, perhaps no FP. -- Spurzem 11:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Details are washed out, there is some chroma noise and blotches in the sky.--Peulle 14:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Details are washed out.--Tobias ToMar Maier 14:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit overprocessed (someone would say "weichgelutscht" but nice --Moroder 09:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   ----Tobias ToMar Maier 14:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Great cormorant in Nepal. --Nirmal Dulal 07:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Not perfect, but a great photo and decent quality. --ArildV 09:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but insufficient quality. --A.Savin 17:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for me. May be that it were still better if it had been taken with a camera for 10.000 Euro or more. -- Spurzem 11:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Overall not perfect and below QI level, even with a low budget camera. --Milseburg 15:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support No excellent quality, but QI for me. --Manfred Kuzel 05:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose looks upscaled --Tsungam 14:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Is upscaled and that in a bad way.--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Low quality, but an excellent composition --Michielverbeek 16:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    QI is not about composition, but about quality, which is -- yes, low. --A.Savin 22:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@A.Savin: The composition is a criterion here, see guidlines above. --Milseburg 17:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Decent quality -Nabin K. Sapkota 08:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great shot. I guess if it would have been uploaded in half resolution nobody would oppose. --Stepro 23:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
So we condemn downscaling but support upscaling? --Tsungam 06:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Abbey Church Maria Laach -- Spurzem 19:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 04:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Red CA's on corners, missing sharpness, not QI for me. --A.Savin 16:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Sharpness is OK to my eyes. Where are you seeing red CA? Corners of what? -- Ikan Kekek 07:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    Building and the towers. --A.Savin 09:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see that, too. I guess I should   Oppose for the time being. Spurzem, once you fix that, I will change to supporting. -- Ikan Kekek 13:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: For some people, pictures that I present here are bad from the outset. There is no point in trying to change or improve anything. -- Spurzem 22:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: The only at extreme magnification visible color fringes are now reduced. However, I do not expect satisfaction from some jurors. -- Spurzem 11:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't be silly. You know very well that I don't automatically oppose your photos. There is a question of accuracy with this kind of chromatic aberration that doesn't apply to a bit of unsharpness or grain, particularly as a red line below a tower is a plausible decoration. -- Ikan Kekek 15:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Is it not surprising that yesterday first you did not see any CAs, but soon after suddenly found them very disturbing? -- Spurzem 17:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The truth is, I saw the red lines just below the tops of some of the towers but thought they might have been real architectural elements. As I said, it's a plausible decoration. However, it wasn't really there. You think it's OK to mislead viewers; I don't. But because I'll gladly support the photo after you fix the inaccuracy, there's no point in trying to change or improve anything and I can't be satisfied. Do you understand how illogical that is? No, you don't. -- Ikan Kekek 07:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moroder 07:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Roxedl 12:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 14:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sharpness is fine, but the CAs should be removed completly. Until then   Oppose --MB-one 14:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC) – Retourkutsche? -- Spurzem 15:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Some small remains of CA are existent, but not visible up to A4 or letter size. Sharpness not really great, but acceptable. Very nice lighting, colours and composition. --Smial 09:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Palauenc05 11:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Hamrafjället. --ArildV 04:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Lacks sharpness. Sorry. --Ermell 06:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, but I disagree. Focus is deliberately on the foreground. --ArildV 15:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not very sharp.--Fischer.H 17:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm not sure why the focus is on the foreground but it's OK for me. --Podzemnik 20:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Never thought about it until now, but facus on the foreground makes sense, as there's the stuff up close.--Tobias ToMar Maier 14:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support A somewhat difficult case. I would have preferred either continuous sharpness from the foreground to the background or stronger blur in the background. But that's a question of composition, imho all other QI criteria are met. --Smial 09:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support as Smial. --Ralf Roletschek 10:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unfavorable DOF --Milseburg 17:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moroder 09:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Smial. --Aristeas 07:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas 07:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)