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]] 12:07, 25 August 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.

August 25, 2019Edit

August 24, 2019Edit

August 23, 2019Edit

August 22, 2019Edit

August 21, 2019Edit

August 20, 2019Edit

August 19, 2019Edit

August 18, 2019Edit

August 17, 2019Edit

August 16, 2019Edit

August 15, 2019Edit

August 14, 2019Edit

August 9, 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 Protective rhinoceros mother in Etosha, Namibia --Axel Tschentscher 19:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 21:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)*  Oppose overexposed in many areas.Seven Pandas 22:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Festung Hohensalzburg and Cathedral seen from the north (Kapuzinerberg) --Clemens Stockner 19:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    The roof should be cropped out. --Ermell 19:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
      Support Good quality for me. Due to the foreground it gains in perspective--Horst J. Meuter 21:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  Info The Roof is exactly what I was aiming for with this shot. It's what makes it special. --Clemens Stockner 08:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Pop up headlights turned approximately 135° along the lateral axis on a Chevrolet Corvette C2. Image taken at Austrian 500 US-CAR DAYS 2019. --Tobias ToMar Maier 11:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Very specific description ;-) --MB-one 13:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose ... but no exciting photo. The background is extremely disturbing and the reflection on the hood as well. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 10:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Spurzem. --GRDN711 10:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Hervé Yvars, entraîneur d'Ain Sud Foot, à la fin d'un entraînement le 23 août 2019 sur le Stade du Forum. --Benoît Prieur 19:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'd like to hear more opinions on this. It's not bad, but still suffers from noise / pixelation etc. like other phone pictures --Podzemnik 21:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Noise is mainly on the sweater, the main motif / portrait is OK IMO. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Maison Adolph at 16 place de la Cathédrale in Colmar, Haut-Rhin, France. --Tournasol7 16:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Please clean the spot, see note --Uoaei1 07:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose Not done within more than one week --Uoaei1 05:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry for late correction, but it's done now. --Tournasol7 02:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
      Support Good quality IMO --Llez 06:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Préparation des teintures au Guédelon en août 2019. --Benoît Prieur 12:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Nice composition but unfortunately strong posterization effects --MB-one 12:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
      Support Very good photo. It may be that a small technical issue can be determined, but that does not change the overall quality of the recording for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 13:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Per Spurzem. Some problems with noise resp. noise reduction, but great lighting, great composition, nice colours and overall good enough to be printed to letter size or even bigger. --Smial 08:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per Smial. (It’s a pity that espec. the hairs of the woman are affected by denosing/compression (?) issues; here the iPhone did not do well.) --Aristeas 09:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm on the other side; QIZ is all about the technical issues and here the image is simply not rendered well. --Peulle 06:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I just can not understand how many "photographic scrap" is praised here and on the other hand, excellent pictures like this are declared useless. -- Spurzem 22:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas 09:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Subsidiary church Saint Cunigunde in Reisberg, Wolfsberg, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 03:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
      Weak oppose Vertical lines not vertical. OK if straightened. --Vivo 08:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Perspective probably slightly overcorrected. The building seems to have some sloping or crooked walls or corners. They cannot all be displayed vertically at the same time. --Smial 08:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done @Smial: @Vivo: Hopefully the image will please your eyes after some corrections. —- Johann Jaritz 06:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I think you've found a very good compromise. The composition, lighting etc. were already good before. --Smial 07:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Man kann es mit den vertikalen Linien auch übertreiben. -- Spurzem 22:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ist mir zu stark verzerrt. --Ralf Roletschek 08:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 06:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Dassault Rafale at Paris Air Show 2019 --New York-air 19:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Insufficient quality. --Ermell 19:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Ermell: please give a specific reason for opposition. --MB-one 12:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    Nothing is in focus. --Ermell 20:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose null -- mistake Ermell 20:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing sharp. --Smial 09:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell and Smial. --Aristeas 09:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose They're right.--Peulle 06:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Aristeas 09:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Adliswil and Lake Zurich from the Planetenweg Uetliberg-Felsenegg --Domob 12:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion Focus is at foreground, too hazy, looks tilted. --Dirtsc 07:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
      Comment Thanks for the review! I've straightened the horizon. I think the background (e.g. the houses in the valley) is certainly sharp enough for QI. Let's discuss this, thanks. --Domob 17:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Suggest to clean the branches on the right --Moroder 17:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Moroder. Also IMO too dark and muddy in foreground. --GRDN711 10:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Seven Pandas 21:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Bachstelzen-Nestlinge (ca. eine Woche alt) um Futter bettelnd.--Fischer.H 15:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion   Support
    Very nice and good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 15:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose I disagree about the quality. Please discuss --Podzemnik 01:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Nice colours, great composition and appealing lighting. Rather noisy and somewhat low DOF, but I believe, this is not an "easy to take" image, so weak   Support. --Smial 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Auch von mir ein „Pro“ für ein ebenso nettes wie eindrucksvolles Foto, obwohl man spitzfindig sein und Kleinigkeiten bemängeln könnte. -- Spurzem 15:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Smial. --Aristeas 09:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Image could be stronger if white area at top and a little on the left were cropped. --GRDN711 10:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Aircraft tug at EBACE 2018, Le Grand-Saconnex --MB-one 09:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Sorry, too high ISO and the front of the tug (facing away from the photographer) is already too much out of focus for me. --Domob 12:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    I disagree, noise levels and DoF are well within reason. --MB-one 20:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Noise seems Ok for me. Charlesjsharp 17:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --MB-one (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination APR modified VW Up! GTI at Tuning World Bodensee 2018 --MB-one 08:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support The front part of the car is quite soft (with the part towards the photographer in focus), but it is good for QI. --Domob 12:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
      OpposeThe image is very sharp. But the car looks a bit too dark and distorted. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 20:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC) – O. K. now -- Spurzem 22:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@Spurzem: Adressed both issues. Thanks for the review. --MB-one 11:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  Support looks fine to me now. --Cayambe 14:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose Understand that the lighting situation is poor but IMO still too dark and tones are muddy. --GRDN711 10:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Cayambe 11:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Plains zebra with calf in the Etosha National Park --Domob 10:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Nice to see such a photo, but unfortunately too blurry (ISO320 is really too much). Also the bottom crop is not well done --Michielverbeek 15:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      Comment @Michielverbeek: Should this be counted as “oppose”, or is it just a comment? --Aristeas (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't think ISO320 is the problem (my camera considers ISO200 the default, so this isn't really that high), but I agree that the crop is unfortunate and the zebras are rather soft. IMHO it might still be borderline QI, but that's up to you. --Domob 10:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral IMHO Domob himself put it completely right. The ISO setting is fine, problems are (a) the unfortunate bottom crop and (b) the rather soft zebras. It’s a pity, because the light is really lovely. Even after looking 3 times at the image I cannot decide, therefore I vote “neutral” here. What do others think? --Aristeas (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. It's a pity, the calf is out of DOF, and the bokeh of the lens is... erm... not nice. But I can not see issues with noise and general sharpness. Composition and lighting are great, and quality is good enogh to be printed to letter size or more. --Smial 10:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support I consider the quality as good enough. But it would have been a quite better image, if it was not taken with 1/200 s and f/4.5 but with 1/100 s and f/5.6. Greetings --Dirtsc 07:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Dirtsc! I fully agree; on reviewing lots of pictures later, I just liked this one very much due to light and composition, so I decided to give it a try. --Domob 17:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ISO320 is fine, but the picture just isn't in focus. Charlesjsharp 17:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too soft, I think.--Peulle 06:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bottom crop, sorry --Moroder 17:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support gut genug für QI --Ralf Roletschek 18:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Aristeas 08:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Schmuckkörbchen oder Kosmee, aus der Familie der Korbblütler.--Fischer.H 09:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion   Support Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 10:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose I disagree. Oversaturated / overprocessed --Podzemnik 02:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Weak   Support. I agree that the image is oversaturated, but I know that many people out there would regard this high saturation as quite nice. @Fischer.H: Could you try to upload a version with a bit less saturated, more realistic colours? This could be the best compromise. --Aristeas 09:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose If it's oversaturated, it must be corrected. Charlesjsharp 17:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Podzemnik and Charles. --GRDN711 10:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Harald Krüger (left) at Geneva International Motor Show 2018 --MB-one 11:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose unnatural complexion --Sandro Halank 18:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok for me --Uoaei1 19:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Which one is Mr. Krüger?--Peulle 07:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No reply, so I'm going to   Oppose as we can't see both people's faces.--Peulle 07:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment sorry for the delay. Mr Krüger is facing the camera. --MB-one 20:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support OK, since the main subject is well captured and photos like these are common in interview/round table settings. Were it otherwise, both people's faces should be seen.--Peulle 07:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks fine to me Poco a poco 09:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Also fine to me. --Cayambe 14:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 14:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)