Commons:Návrhy na kvalitní obrázky

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 41% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Přeskočit k návrhům
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska
float

Zde najdete obrázky navržené na zařazení mezi Kvalitní obrázky. Prosím povšimněte si, že jde o něco jiného než Nejlepší obrázky. Pokud chcete ke svým fotografiím nějaké obsáhlejší komentáře a kritiku, je vhodnějším místem stránka Photography critiques.

Cíl

Cílem projektu kvalitní obrázky je podpořit ty, kteří jsou skutečným základem Wikimedia Commons - jednotlivé uživatele, kteří přispívají k rozšíření Commons svými jedinečnými příspěvky. Zatímco Nejlepší obrázky shromažďují to absolutně nejlepší a nejpůsobivější z veškerého obsahu Commons, cílem Kvalitních obrázků je podpořit uživatele v tvorbě obrázků s definovanou úrovní kvality, a identifikovat obrázky ji splňující.
Kvalitní obrázky nejsou soutěž.

Pravidla

Všechny navržené obrázky musí být vytvořené přímo uživateli Commons.

Pro navrhovatele

Níže popsaná jsou přibližná kritéria pro Kvalitní obrázky, podrobný popis je v Quality images guidelines (zatím v angličtině).

Požadavky na stránku s popisem
  1. Autorská práva. Kvalitní obrázky musí být na Commons nahrané přímo držitelem autorským práv s přijatelnou licencí.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. Kvalitní obrázky nesmí obsahovat reklamu či podpis autora v samotném obrázku. Informace o autorovi a autorských právech by se měly nacházet na stránce s popisem, a mohou být v metadatech souboru (EXIF a pod. ), ale neměly by narušovat vlastní obrázek.


Creator

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technické požadavky

Přesnější specifikace je v textu Commons:Quality images guidelines.

Resolution

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media.

This does not apply to vector graphics (SVG).

Image quality

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the Image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.


Number of nominations

Carefully select your best images to nominate. Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is at least frowned upon or may even lead to immediate decline.

Hodnocení obrázků

Kterýkoli přihlášený uživatel může vyhodnotit nominace.
Při hodnocení se užijí stejná kritéria jako při nominace,

Jak provést hodnocení

How to update the status

Důkladně si prohlédněte obrázek. Otevřete si jej v plném rozlišení a zkontrolujte, jestli splňuje jednotlivá kritéria pro kvalitní obrázky

  • Pokud rozhodnete že obrázek kritéria splňuje, upravte příslušný řádek ze tvaru
Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Nomination| velmi krátký popis --~~~~ |}}

to

Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Promotion| velmi krátký popis --Podpis navrhovatele | Čím je obrázek obzvlášť dobrý. --~~~~}}

Jinak řečeno, šablonu změňte z /Nomination na /Promotion a přidejte popis, případně velmi krátké zdůvodnění.

  • Pokud rozhodnete že obrázek kritéria nesplňuje, upravte příslušný řádek ze tvaru
Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Nomination| velmi krátký popis --~~~~ |}}

to

Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Decline| velmi krátký popis --Podpis navrhovatele | velmi krátké zdůvodnění --~~~~}}

Jinak řečeno, šablonu změňte z /Nomination na /Decline přidejte podpis, případně kritéria na kvalitní obrázky, která navržený obrázek nesplňuje. (Používejte názvy sekcí z kritérií). Pokud obrázek nesplňuje větší množství požadavků, stačí uvést 2-3 nejvážnější chyby, zmínit "multiple problems". Když zamítáte nominaci, je přínosné na stránce navrhovatele vysvětlit důvody - ale vždy přívětivě, žádné kousavé poznámky.

Prosba: Hodnoťte nejdřív nejstarší nezhodnocené obrázky.

Zhodnocení a

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from review, the image becomes promoted or fails, according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives leden 2015 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

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.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you can not make a decision, add your comments, but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache


Contents

Nominations

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]] 19:18, 27 leden 2015 (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.
The new rule is effective now. Please nominate only a maximum of 5 images per day. [1]

January 27, 2015

January 26, 2015

January 25, 2015

January 24, 2015

January 23, 2015

January 22, 2015

January 21, 2015

January 20, 2015

January 19, 2015

January 18, 2015

January 17, 2015

January 16, 2015

January 15, 2015

January 14, 2015

January 13, 2015

January 10, 2015

January 9, 2015

January 8, 2015

Consensual review

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 Review

File:St-vincent sur jard , la côte (2).JPG

St-vincent sur jard , la côte (2).JPG

  • Nomination La côte vendéenne à Saint Vincent sur Jard, Vendée, France.PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 16:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    * Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted. Please correct this faults before you nominate pictures like this. As a matter of respect! I am not here to discuss such errors! --Hubertl 21:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2013-11-01_Triton_und_Nymphe-Volksgarten_Viktor_Tilgner_6018.jpg

2013-11-01 Triton und Nymphe-Volksgarten Viktor Tilgner 6018.jpg

  • Nomination Triton und Nymphe fountain by Viktor Tilgner at Volksgarten --Hubertl 22:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Steindy 23:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    Reddish WB. --Smial 15:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for review ✓ Done--Hubertl 10:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 10:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better. -- Smial 12:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2013-11-01_Triton_und_Nymphe-Volksgarten_Viktor_Tilgner_6040.jpg

2013-11-01 Triton und Nymphe-Volksgarten Viktor Tilgner 6040.jpg

  • Nomination Triton und Nymphe fountain by Viktor Tilgner at Volksgarten --Hubertl 22:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Steindy 23:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    Blueish WB. --Smial 15:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for review ✓ Done--Hubertl 10:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better. -- Smial 12:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Löwenzahn Entwicklungsstadium (Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia).JPG

Löwenzahn Entwicklungsstadium (Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia).JPG

  • Nomination Common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale)--NoRud 16:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion to evaluate please
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the quality is ok, try to crop it on the left side, the composition is getting much better. Will be QI for me then.--Hubertl 10:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Nilgänse (Alopochen aegyptiacus).JPG

Nilgänse (Alopochen aegyptiacus).JPG

  • Nomination Egyptian goose (Alopochen aegyptiacus)--NoRud 16:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Image should be in the proper category (or categories). There shouldn't be any red links in the categories. Also, when you use English language template, the names should be in English, not in German language. --Halavar 18:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Donesettled,to evaluate please
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment try to make a tighter crop to concentrate more on the subject. Its QI then for me.--Hubertl 10:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Blässhuhn (Fulica atra) young bird.JPG

Blässhuhn (Fulica atra) young bird.JPG

  • Nomination Eurasian coot (Fulica atra) young bird. --NoRud 16:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion to evaluate please

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (124).jpg

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (124).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station Neunkirchen railwaystation. – Fresh with thermite welded rail. Removal of the welding form. --Steindy 00:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion WB too purple IMO --Christian Ferrer 06:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done removed magenta and overexpose parts --Hubertl 10:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Here overexposition was not an issue and the saturation was ok however for the white balance, I prefer this kind more natural --Christian Ferrer 17:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done, yes, it was the WB! --Hubertl 14:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)The WB is ok now, but you also changed the exposition and saturation, the both are better in the original version --Christian Ferrer 05:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Rework by far overdone and image completely messed up. First version is best, though somewhat overexposed. --Smial 10:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Rather noisy. Mattbuck 23:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Good quality, interesting motive. Enough for QI --Hubertl 05:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI doubt it is allowed to promote own reworks. Please discuss. --Smial 11:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

In case of having reworked a nomination, I consider myself co-author and abstain from voting. --Kreuzschnabel 05:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I don´t know what the problem is: simple technical corrections are not co-authoring at all, we don´t promote people, we assess pictures. Or do you want to punish people, because they don´t have professional software? Or do you want to foil the idea of helping hands of Wikipedia? Or maybe, its simply personal because of me, @Smial:? --Hubertl 10:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • (writes the guy, who prohibits any changes to his own uploads: "Please do not upload an updated image here without consultation with the Author." - a limitation that does not really match common practices. --Smial 11:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC))
    • You name it: We assess pictures, we do (usually) not edit them but leave this to the author (sometimes edits go the wrong way as you see in the contributions here saying this image was better in the original state). And of course you’re making yourself co-author by performing optimizing measures to an image (at least by contributing your personal opinion of what the image should look like). In case the author wants his picture optimized and does not himself have the skills and/or tools to do so, there’s the photography workshop to consult. QIC is the wrong place for that. --Kreuzschnabel 14:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Calliptamus_barbarus_on_Opuntia_stricta,_Sète_04.jpg

Calliptamus barbarus on Opuntia stricta, Sète 04.jpg

  • Nomination Calliptamus barbarus (Occitan Grasshopper) on a Opuntia stricta (Erect Prickly Pear). Close view. --Christian Ferrer 09:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too shallow DoF IMO, not a QI to me. --Poco a poco 12:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For a 15mpx image of a subject about 5mm high, I'm not sure the DOF is so bad. --Christian Ferrer 18:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
About 1700×1600 could show only the grasshopper, clearer than 05. –Be..anyone 08:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed more you get closer, more the subject is big but more the DoF decreases. I did not nominate your exemple because the subject is a bit out of focus. But on this one the head is in focus and sharp enough, it's QI for me. --Christian Ferrer 11:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Clapton-in-Gordano MMB 14 M5.jpg

Clapton-in-Gordano MMB 14 M5.jpg

  • Nomination M5 at Clapton. Mattbuck 07:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The large dark area to the left and right of the road is only black and not marked. --Steindy 23:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't trying for a documentary photo of the trees. --Mattbuck 23:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think, its an interesting composition, the idea would get lost when removing the dark parts. --Hubertl 10:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Abbatiale_Saint-Gilles_08.jpg

Abbatiale Saint-Gilles 08.jpg

  • Nomination Abbey of Saint-Gilles, Saint-Gilles, Gard, France. --Christian Ferrer 15:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective distortion. --Steindy 00:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In my defense it's the wall that you can see here on the left and as you can see there is a fence so I could not back and the lens focal length is at its wider position (14mm). It was for me impossible to take an entire face view of this wall without a perspective distortion and unfortunately I do not know make photo assemblies. But of course it change nothing and maybe it is not a QI. --Christian Ferrer 12:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The distortion appears wavy and very difficult to correct. Otherwise it's of nice high quality. I may be in the minority regarding this type of distortion, but I think it's QI anyway. Ram-Man 13:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Wraxall 2013 MMB 77 Bonfire.jpg

Wraxall 2013 MMB 77 Bonfire.jpg

  • Nomination Bonfire in Wraxall. Mattbuck 09:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 15:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The photo is only suitable for artistic purposes, since the exposure time was too long and therefore the flames are out of focus. --Steindy 23:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    Nothing wrong with arty photos at QI. Mattbuck 23:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good shot with nice colors und nice composition. Steindy: The unsharpness of the flames results from motion, not from wrong focus. I hope, you know what 'focus' means? Your behaviour and arguments become more and more absurd. -- Smial 00:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As the wood is sharp it is QI to me, IMO an usefule image --DKrieger 22:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Suchum,_Pomnik_przy_nabrzeżu.jpg

2014 Suchum, Pomnik przy nabrzeżu.jpg

  • Nomination Monument on the waterfront. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 12:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Joydeep 13:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Many parts era overexposed. --Steindy 00:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Steindy. --Kreuzschnabel 12:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Suchum,_Pomnik_Efrema_Eszby_(01).jpg

2014 Suchum, Pomnik Efrema Eszby (01).jpg

  • Nomination Monument of Efrem Eshba. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 12:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me, even when the monument is not centered perfectly but the person on the right side gives an additional accent, which allows that. --Hubertl 13:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The head of the monument is overexposed. --Steindy 00:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DoF too shallow (inscription is the only thing in focus) --Kreuzschnabel 12:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Cambodge.- la cité lacustre de Saray, (1).jpg

Cambodge.- la cité lacustre de Saray, (1).jpg

  • Nomination la cité lacustre de Saray, Tonlé Sap Cambodge.PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, the boat is unsharp. --Dnalor 01 10:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)< br >✓ Done Thanks for your note, I corrected sharpness on the boat --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Okay maybe, but the people on the boat are not sharp anyway, sorry. --Dnalor 01 11:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    OK! but people were moving on this boat--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Alstom_Citadis_302_n°840_Boulingrin_ASTUCE_-_Florian_Fèvre.JPG

Alstom Citadis 302 n°840 Boulingrin ASTUCE - Florian Fèvre.JPG

  • Nomination Tramway de Rouen --Billy69150 10:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    Left side leaining in Poco a poco 13:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Not done --Mattbuck 23:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done --Billy69150 12:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    Still leaning in, and I think the bottom crop is too tight. Mattbuck 17:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Chafariz_da_Rua_Escura,_Oporto,_Portugal,_2012-05-09,_DD_01.JPG

Chafariz da Rua Escura, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 01.JPG

  • Nomination Chafariz da Rua Escura, Porto, Portugal --Poco a poco 17:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overexposed sky. --Mattbuck 22:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ New version maybe, but very correctible and IMHO not relevant Poco a poco 19:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    No feedback, please, let me move it to CR. I think it meets QI --Poco a poco 18:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it OK for QI.--Hubertl 05:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Banteay_Kdei,_Angkor,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_16.JPG

Banteay Kdei, Angkor, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 16.JPG

  • Nomination Banteay Kdei, Angkor, Cambodia --Poco a poco 17:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good composition und very good handling of high contrast lighting, but disturbing unsharpness in left and top left area. Did you apply perspective correction? Then I'd suggest some downscaling to supress blurring by this process. -- Smial 18:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ New try without downsampling, though (rather new crop and aspect ratio) Poco a poco 15:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Smial's issue is still present. --Mattbuck 22:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Cropped Poco a poco 19:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Please keep a separate 2015-01-17 version with the interesting figures on the left. –Be..anyone 02:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    I think that this version deserves QI. Be..anyone: I've created a new version: File:Banteay_Kdei,_Angkor,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_16_uncropped.JPG --Poco a poco 19:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the last one is ok for me --Christian Ferrer 12:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Problem is still visible, but no more strong disturbing. As for Christian ok for me. -- Smial 11:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Le lac chambon (5).JPG

Le lac chambon (5).JPG

  • Nomination Le Lac_Chambon dans les Monts_Dore Puy-de-Dôme--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Poor contrast; too much clipping. --Daniel Case 06:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

    @Daniel Case:✓ DoneThanks for your note, I've uploaded a new version by cropping the image and contrast enhancement - Please care to take another look?--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 12:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Engels-Hof_12.jpg

Engels-Hof 12.jpg

  • Nomination Communal housing project buildings “Engelsplatzhof” (“Engels-Hof”) at Friedrich-Engels-Platz 1-10, Brigittenau, Vienna, Austria --Thomas Ledl 22:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 22:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dark, too tight a crop at the bottom. --Mattbuck 00:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I made the photo lighter. ok now? --Thomas Ledl 20:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Chata Ropička (by Pudelek).JPG

Chata Ropička (by Pudelek).JPG

  • Nomination Mountain hut Ropička, Moravian-Silesian Beskids --Pudelek 16:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To the right is overexposed. --C messier 18:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with C messier. Big part of the right side of the image is overexposed. --Halavar 22:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor WB. Snow is usually perceived as of white colour. --Kreuzschnabel 20:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    I uploaded a WB-corrected version. --Kreuzschnabel 20:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a photo against the sun can have blown-out areas. --Ralf Roletschek 18:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-088.jpg

13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-088.jpg

  • Nomination Hongkong, view from Kowloon to Hongkong Island --Ralf Roletschek 13:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting view, good quality. --Dnalor 01 14:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Sorry for asking but I still trying to find out the standards here. Great view. But shouldn´t be the buildings vertical? --Milseburg 15:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Everybody here knows that from the point of view the picture was made the surrounding buildings cannot be vertical - especially with a 11mm-lens (D300S 16,5mm). Because of its interesting angle this one is QI for me. --Dnalor 01 16:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course! But it´s also possible to remove such distortion subsequently. Imho this would be eligible here.--Milseburg 18:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Probably it's better to discuss the issue in the forum of the community. I don't want to decide alone. --Dnalor 01 08:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support by me, the perspective is corrected. But 4th opinion furthermore appreciated! --Hubertl 00:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Code 09:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No doubt, QI now. --Milseburg 09:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a good shot.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --C messier 14:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-090.jpg

13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-090.jpg

  • Nomination Hongkong, view from Kowloon to Hongkong Island --Ralf Roletschek 13:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Interesting view, QI for me. --Dnalor 01 14:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As the discussion about QI-promotion of the other Hongkong image Nr. 088 shows probably it's better to discuss the issue in the forum of the community. I don't want to decide alone. --Dnalor 01 08:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support by me, the perspective is corrected, as far it was possible with 11mm focal lenght. But 4th opinion furthermore appreciated! --Hubertl 00:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Now it's okay! --Dnalor 01 12:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good shot --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Die Riegersburg von Süden 1.JPG

Die Riegersburg von Süden 1.JPG

  • Nomination Riegersburg fortress as seen from the south, Riegersburg, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 07:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Bgag 15:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The trees show a fair amount of JPEG artifaction IMO. --Mattbuck 01:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me its ok and sufficient for QI --Hubertl 19:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor image quality. Artifacts all over the building, the rocks and the trees, blueish shadows, oversharpened. Maybe unfortunate camera settings. Looks as if been taken with a phone cam to me. --Kreuzschnabel 20:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Symbol support vote.svg Weak supportReset version acceptable IMHO, at least compared to the overprocessed one. --Kreuzschnabel 12:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I made a reset to the first uploaded version, please review again. --Dnalor 01 08:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Die Riegersburg von Süden 2.JPG

Die Riegersburg von Süden 2.JPG

  • Nomination Riegersburg fortress as seen from the south, Riegersburg, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 07:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose a bit too blurred IMO --Christian Ferrer 08:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice scene, but very poor image quality. JPEG and NR artifacts all over the frame, oversharpened (see white seam around the rock at the left), poor detail for an image of less than 10 mpix. Not a QI at all, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 20:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I made a reset to the first uploaded version, please review again. --Dnalor 01 08:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Overall better but still not sharp enough for its size, sorry --Kreuzschnabel 12:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Kreuzschnabel. --Bgag 20:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Lüdinghauser_Tor_--_2014_--_2881.jpg

Dülmen, Lüdinghauser Tor -- 2014 -- 2881.jpg

  • Nomination Lüdinghauser Tor, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fine picture but the right tower is leaning out. Fixable IMO. --Dnalor 01 08:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, spent days for this POV? –Be..anyone 15:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I had to send it too discuss, unless Dnalors suggestion is answered. Anyhow, spent days for this POV is not a valid appraisal --Hubertl 23:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Long form: Nobody else in the category tried this point of view, and the one who did it apparently worked on it for three days. –Be..anyone 06:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Some images show that the old building building itself is leaning out.--XRay 04:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice light, acceptable quality though not perfect. I think the perspective is a bit over-corrected. --Kreuzschnabel 20:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (165).jpg

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (165).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – A ÖBB-Railjet passes the station on the new track 1. The tracks 2 and 4 are removed. --Steindy 00:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support One of the most beautiful trains on our planet. Gorgeous! --Johann Jaritz 04:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA throughout image, pylons which I'd assume should be vertical appear to be leaning. --Mattbuck 00:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 01:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 23:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am quite aware of that, but unless the gantries and signals are made of some material which oxidises to purple on one side and green on the other, there's chromatic aberration. Mattbuck 08:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until CAs is fixed --Christian Ferrer 08:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (166).jpg

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (166).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – A ÖBB-Railjet passes the station. --Steindy 00:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. CA everywhere. But, stop, may be all new copper pylons? Jetzt weiß ich auch nicht. --Smial 10:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes Smail, you're absolutely right. These are not new catenary mooring, therefore, are also CAs to see; The photos and description of the image are only randomly labeled „total reconstruction“ of the station. You know, the ÖBB are so stupid and backward to the old catenary system down cut at a total reconstruction of a railway station in a meter lengths to then stitch it back together and hang again. In a contact wire cross-section of 120 mm2 one is quite simple. And as the contact wire rope depends on the support, this course must also have the appropriate section. So it is important to have no idea, but still give its „qualified comment“. For this to be able to read as many users, I do not put the photo on Withdrawn so that others can delight in it. That's what happens when you want another user to bash. --Steindy 23:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Kleine Englisch-Nachhilfe: Du meintest „when you want to bash another user“. Das, was du geschrieben hast, heißt auf Deutsch „wenn du willst, daß ein anderer User [wen auch immer] basht“.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA everywhere, even the insulators are green on one side and purple on the other. And I think the ÖBB are wise enough not to use insulators made of copper. --Kreuzschnabel 19:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry Kreuzschnabel, dass ich nicht so perfekt Englich kann wie du. Bei mir ist es immerhin schon mehr als 45 Jahre her, dass ich Englischunterricht hatte. And yes, you did also correctly detect: "ÖBB are wise enough not to use insulators made of copper". They are made of brown porcelain, but the switches are also made of copper. --Steindy 02:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
      • So, the CA on the insulators can hardly be explained the usual way. --Kreuzschnabel 11:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Das mit dem Englisch war kein Angriff, das war ein freundlich gemeinter Hinweis, du brauchst dich nicht gleich zu verteidigen und dich schon gar nicht bei mir zu entschuldigen. Ich entschuldige mich meinerseits dafür, dich auf einen Punkt hingewiesen zu haben, an dem man dich mißverstehen könnte. Soll nicht wieder vorkommen. --Kreuzschnabel 12:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (154).jpg

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (154).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – Removal of the old platform 3/4. --Steindy 00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me --Hubertl 01:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    Noticable CA. --Mattbuck 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Copper is reddish. It then oxidises to green. It does not however turn blue or purple. Mattbuck 08:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (160).jpg

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (160).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – Removal of the old platform 3/4. --Steindy 00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    Noticable CA, lacking sharpness. --Mattbuck 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that new catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is a lots of magenta & green CA on the left side of the image (see the notes). Also the image is tilted to the right and needs a perspective correction. All these flaws can be fixed. --Halavar 01:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until CAs is fixed --Christian Ferrer 08:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (156).jpg

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (156).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – Auger and sheet piling are ready to build. --Steindy 00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 01:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor composition IMO. --Mattbuck 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not withdrawn. Not poor composition IMHO, only poor comment by Mattbuck. It's his problem, when he don't know what's to do with the equipment. --Steindy 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would you please keep your comments related to the photo rather than the editor? Mattbuck 08:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (157).jpg

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (157).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – The new tracks 1 and 3 are in operation, the old tracks 2 and 4 are already removed. --Steindy 00:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me. --Dnalor 01 15:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Noticable CA throughout, bad inclusion top right. --Mattbuck 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Some magenta CA on the right. I left a note. --Halavar 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until CAs is fixed --Christian Ferrer 08:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (152).jpg

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (152).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – A ÖBB Railjet is passing on the new track 1. The tracks 2 and 4 are removed. --Steindy 00:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 16:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Quite noisy, some CA. --Mattbuck 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Problem with the magenta CA. I left a notes. Also, sky is little bit overexposed. All these problems can be fixed. --Halavar 01:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until CAs is fixed --Christian Ferrer 08:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (155).jpg

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (155).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – The new switching scaffold for the catenary system. --Steindy 00:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 16:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Noticable CA top right. --Mattbuck 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose On the top left there is a magenta CA. I left a note. That can be fixed. --Halavar 00:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until CAs is fixed --Christian Ferrer 08:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Irisbus_Crealis_Neo_18_n°6206_Théâtre_des_Arts_ASTUCE_-_Florian_Fèvre.JPG

Irisbus Crealis Neo 18 n°6206 Théâtre des Arts ASTUCE - Florian Fèvre.JPG

  • Nomination Bus articulé de Rouen --Billy69150 10:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Again Rouen, impressive bus. –Be..anyone 15:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    Needs tilt/perspective correction, CA removal on the badge. --Mattbuck 00:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done --Billy 13:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:ExCeL Centre MMB 26 Thameslink Desiro City Mockup.jpg

ExCeL Centre MMB 26 Thameslink Desiro City Mockup.jpg

  • Nomination Thameslink "Desiro City" mockup. Mattbuck 07:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion The left is side leaning. --Steindy 02:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    It's a reflection in a non-vertical window - of course it's going to be leaning. --Mattbuck 19:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC) After a look at the category see note --Christian Ferrer 20:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    No, they lean in a bit. I took the perspective correction from the right hand side - interior furnishings are more likely to be vertical. Mattbuck 23:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok --Christian Ferrer 08:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Tenmile Run in its lower reaches 2.JPG

Tenmile Run in its lower reaches 2.JPG

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (109).jpg

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (109).jpg

  • Nomination A ÖBB-Railjet passes Neunkirchen railwaystation. --Steindy 00:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    Noticable CA. Mattbuck 22:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please take care of CA first. Mattbuck 19:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that new catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am quite aware that catenaries are made of copper (albeit I work for London Underground and we don't have much use for overhead electrification). However given that copper oxidises green, it doesn't explain the numerous purple areas. Mattbuck 23:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Mattbuck for the CAs, but also the DOF is too small for this composition and more than the half of the image is blurred and unsharp --Christian Ferrer 09:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Suchum,_Ogród_botaniczny_(27).jpg

2014 Suchum, Ogród botaniczny (27).jpg

  • Nomination Bamboo (Bambuseae) walkway. Botanical garden. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 17:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO very bright and tilted CCW.--XRay 18:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New, fixed version uploaded. Please take a look again. --Halavar 20:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposure remapped to grey. Mattbuck 22:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not agree. We need other opinions. --Halavar 00:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed and not really sharp --Christian Ferrer 08:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Simiane_La_Rotande.jpg

Simiane La Rotande.jpg

  • Nomination Simiane-La-Rotonde - The castle tower (La Rotande) --Imehling 20:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Coyau 09:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bit unsharp, some overexposure. --Mattbuck 00:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Suchum,_Ogród_botaniczny_(12).jpg

2014 Suchum, Ogród botaniczny (12).jpg

  • Nomination Chinese Tea (Camellia sinensis var. sinensis). Botanical garden. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 12:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed --Pleclown 11:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not agree. I checked it in 2 software edit programs. Maybe others should decide. --Halavar 20:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. The wires are somewhat disturbing, but I think this is acceptable. The exposure is good. --Code 06:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed. Ram-Man 12:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I agree, the picture is overexposed. Mattbuck 23:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose OE --Christian Ferrer 08:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Suchum,_Siedziba_rządu_i_prezydenta_Republiki_Abchazji_(01).jpg

2014 Suchum, Siedziba rządu i prezydenta Republiki Abchazji (01).jpg

  • Nomination The seat of government and the President of the Republic of Abkhazia. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 16:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think this building is as horizontally crooked in reality as it seems on this picture. --Dnalor 01 16:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not agree. Both walls are straight. Also - please do not use decline when there is something that I can fix with the photo. --Halavar 17:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Needs perspective correction - fixable? --Dnalor 01 18:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    *
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the verticals are ok, not need for a perspective correction IMO --Christian Ferrer 21:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per C. Ferrer --DKrieger 21:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's okay for me too after Halavar has corrected the problem I meant (look at the version history!) --Dnalor 01 00:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 16:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per C. Ferrer --Johann Jaritz 03:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Left side is leaning out. Mattbuck 23:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Außenansicht der Abtei Seckau 2.JPG

Außenansicht der Abtei Seckau 2.JPG

  • Nomination Exterior view of Seckau Abbey, Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 15:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the left side of the image (with grass and trees) are blurred and that can't be fixed. --Halavar 16:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I cannot detect unsharpness, at 24mm the aperture of the lens was 3,5 at this pic while maximum relative aperture of that lens is 1,4 - so why the rest of the pic is sharp? --Dnalor 01 16:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The grass and the trees is not the mainsubject of the photo. This part could be cut off, if you want. It is the Abbey and this is shown excellent. --Steindy 17:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I tried a crop, but its not getting better. Ok for me as it is.--Hubertl 22:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Steindy --Johann Jaritz 03:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - significant JPEG artifaction per Halavar. Mattbuck 23:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would not have opposed if the left part of the building was not also affected by the issues mentioned by Halavar, certainly the result of a too small DOF --Christian Ferrer 09:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I made a reset to the second uploaded, only shift corrected version, please review again. --Dnalor 01 09:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a real improvment IMO, I support this --Christian Ferrer 12:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Fiat_Ducato_Michelet_TUDIP_-_Florian_Fèvre.jpg

Fiat Ducato Michelet TUDIP - Florian Fèvre.jpg

  • Nomination Navette au Puy-en-Velay --Billy69150 14:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too low resolution. --Bgag 15:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ✓ Done --Billy69150 21:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Dnalor 01 08:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed and a lot of artefacts --Christian Ferrer 20:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Christian. Mattbuck 23:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Pseudocoladenia dan by Nayikayam Thattu.jpg

Pseudocoladenia dan by Nayikayam Thattu.jpg

  • Nomination Pseudocoladenia dan (Fulvous Pied Flat) Jkadavoor 10:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The upper edges of both wings are unsharp, sorry. --Dnalor 01 18:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality and enough depth of field for a macro photo.--ArildV 07:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ram-Man 18:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not fully sharp. Mattbuck 23:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I confess I've to rise the ISO (400 ?) and use a big f number (like f/16). This was my first day with a DSLR which was gifted by a fellow Wikimedian. Still has only a kit lens; so trying to make some results with my friendly Raynox DCR 250. Not nominating the remaining shots I have taken in the same day; they all have similar problems. Thanks all; hope I will improve soon. :) Jkadavoor 12:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2013-08-17_Lago_di_Fusine_superiore_-hu-_B_4599.jpg

2013-08-17 Lago di Fusine superiore -hu- B 4599.jpg

  • Nomination The dryed alp in Summer at the upper Fusine lake, Fusine di Valromana, View to the north. --Hubertl 20:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeUnsharp --Livioandronico2013 21:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I cannot detect unsharpness. --Dnalor 01 16:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, it could be a little sharper. But that is no reason for a counterpoint, as all the details are clearly visible. Anyway, enough for QI! --Steindy 18:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Steindy! QI for me. --Dnalor 01 06:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - That is not in any way sharp enough for QI. That wouldn't have passed the first round of photo culling for me. Mattbuck 23:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose a bit too unsharp --Christian Ferrer 08:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice lighting and compostion, center sharpness not overwhelming, but acceptable. But rather unsharp at the corners and left and right margins. The small part of the building's roof at the left side should be cropped. -- Smial 14:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis) in flight in Venice at sunrise.jpg

Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis) in flight in Venice at sunrise.jpg

  • Nomination Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis) in flight in Venice at sunrise, 2003-08-17. --Dnalor 01 10:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Arty, but not QI --Pleclown 11:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree, the composition and the light situation makes it QI for me. --Hubertl 12:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Hubertl:, your {{s}}, svp –Be..anyone 19:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's not a QI for you, Pleclown, but without a statement of reason(s)? That's curious. --Dnalor 01 15:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced it's QI either, though hard to work out quite why. Mattbuck 23:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Horse_head_in_Baths_of_Diocletian_(Rome).JPG

Horse head in Baths of Diocletian (Rome).JPG

  • Nomination Horse head in Baths of Diocletian (Rome) --Livioandronico2013 20:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion The picture don´t meet the guidline principles: a) The filenam does not describe the subject exactly, b) the description is wrong, it is not just a horse head, this is undoubtedly the head of a unicorn c) insufficient categorization therefore. --Hubertl 01:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    IMHO, this at the top of the head looks more like hair than a horn. --C messier 11:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC) These figures, in the patio, are part of a collection from different sources and periods, but mostly mythical figures. See other pictures you can find in the web. --Hubertl 12:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks C messier, but never mind, it's just a decoration on a horse but I do not want to waste time with those who do not understand --Livioandronico2013 13:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    All this in wikipedia would be considered original research, we should try to find a reliable source of what it's. Here it mentions that it is a "Horse Head, originally from inside the Temple of Divine Trajan" (but been a tourist guide isn't and the most reliable). --C messier 14:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    C messier you can see better Thanks[Here] --Livioandronico2013 20:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • C messier Have a look at any cattle heads, you see, that at the top of the head you almost always will find a group of curly hairs. Pretty typical, especially from bull heads. This is in fact the inspiration for this artistic expression you find at this horse-head. When you take a look at the other figures, you will see, that mostly they all are mythical figures, except a elefant and a ram. But these figures are not from the cloister like today, they have different origins. Can we read anything of this in the descriptions? No! The figure beneath does have a horse head, but extraordinary small with a goat beard. Ever seen a horse with an goat beard and ridge of hairs on the front from the lower jam down to the breast? It could be a camel head, but I don´t believe it, but this is not the question here. Camels don´t have beards. But check a goat! And we all know (I hope so), goats are always mythical figures, until today! Another figure shows a horse head (from the side) with an rhino horn and a rhino muzzle, but the silhouette of a horse. None of them have man made decorations like panaches as you can find on quadrille figures, in this case you even can´t see a head-collar to keep a panache fixed (which you see in fact at all horse statues with panaches). On the other hand, what kind of decoration should that be, unfixed? Just a word to the term "decoration": The first thing you learn as an historian is, that there is no decoration without further meaning. A decoration never stands for itself. Livioandronice was running through this museum without any system, he just wanted to make pictures, but did´nt realize until now, that Commons isn´t panoramio or flickr, were nobody will ask you for details. Commons stands in close relation to Wikipedia and is part of an encyclopedian projekt and not a children's birthday party. After his visit to the museum, he is just as clueless, related to the exhibits of this museum, as before. He didn´t even made pictures of signs, which is essential, he did´t try to get a catalog, if this catalog is too expensive, he is able to picture some pages. He hasn´t shoot the sign of the brutus figure (after then he then wrote, that this is a bust of a brute (sic!), I had to tell him, that he has pictured Lucius Junius Brutus. I made then the categorization, renamed the file, drafted the correct description then, after he refused to do this, probably because of aggrieved vanity. This is not the way we have to work in Wikimedia projects. And I spent my private time within this spirit since more than 10 years! If Livioandronico wants to get pictures properly assessed, he has to do more than just to do some simple photo shoots alike typical japanese tourists.
    This QI-project here is not a contest, who will have more Quality Images at the very end (though some of the guys here act like this). Nobody ever will give you a shit for this! Primarely, Commons is just a supporter for Wikipedia. But pictures without proper description and correct categorization or wrong file names are simply useless. Nothing else! --Hubertl (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I know that descriptions must be accurate and with correct spelling, but in case of disputed accuracy, both sides must present resiable sources to support their opinion. The sources I have found support in this one Livioandronico's opinion. PS. I thought goats were real animals. --C messier 13:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The source, you presented, is a blogger, not an historian at all, blogging about his and his friends travel to Rome. This is not a content source at all. And I if you wanna kidden me (goats), send me a mail! :-( We can change the complete system of QI, of course, so everyone will nominate by himself, no matter whether it satisfies any guidelines or not. Is this what you want? C messier??
    I asked an historian yesterday evening (not a roman history specialist), I hope she will help me to get in contact to a specialist of roman art history soon. Whoever habe visited italian museums (exept the new parts of the Vatican museums and some others, also some new part of the Museum of the Diocletian therme) knows, that very often there is a lack of descriptions, and if there are some, they are sometimes difficult to understand and pretty often wrong or not accurate. Or there are descriptions, but you can´t find it. Those are often enough souverirs for Tourists. As overall in the world, cultural institutions ran out of money. --Hubertl 14:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • user:Hubertl, I don't want to kid you, nor to offend. I said it isn't and the most reliable (if you click the file there is a caution), but I found nothing saying its a unicorn, so I will wait for more reliable sources. --C messier 14:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this is more reliable [2] (it's in italian), The text begins with the description of the statues in the cloister of Michelangelo, saying they depict "un dromedario, un cavallo, una coppia di tori, un rinoceronte un elefante e un ariete". --C messier 14:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • More over the book Giuseppe Lugli (1975) Itinerario di Roma antica in page 364 mentions (as I can see in google books quotes) "Dal Foro di Traiano provengono rilievi ornamentali che si trovano in varie collezioni, le protomi colossali di cavalli, rinoceronti, elefanti ed altri animali che adornano il chiostro di Michelangelo nelle Terme di Diocleziano e il noto rilievo con". --C messier 15:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you, a great moment to get in contact with Luigi Sperti! You mentioned a book of Giuseppe Lugli from 1975 (he died 1967!), which I didn´t find. Can you give me a link? Today I have spoken with an very reputable, wellknown historian (Since 2012 I am Wikipedian in residence at the National heritage office in Vienna), he asked me to send him all the informations I (we) have until now. Not just for this case, even for clearing the other questions too. All in all its going to become a quite interesting dispute. I will try to get in contact with Rosanna Friggeri, director of the National Roman Museum - Baths of Diocletian, too. --Hubertl 00:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes Hubertl today I talk with the minister of cultural heritage, but please this story is getting ridiculous! The sources must be shown and not requested. To err is human but to persevere is diabolical.--Livioandronico2013 09:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

[Itinerario di Roma antica in google books], [the national library of Australia] and [worldcat]. Apparently, it was published post-morten. --C messier 12:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This whole discussion is confusing and I don't understand what the argument is even about. As for the image itself, it meets quality standards. If someone cares to explain in a sentence or two why I shouldn't support, I'll consider changing my vote. Ram-Man 18:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No sources for unicorn, only for a horse. Good technical quality. --C messier 11:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Eastern terminus of Pennsylvania Route 254.JPG

Eastern terminus of Pennsylvania Route 254.JPG

  • Nomination Pennsylvania Route 254. Jakec 13:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Under the premise that the road is really leaning to the left. --Code 14:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While the road may be banked, it is unlikely the poles are consistently leaning to the left (as pictured).--Wsiegmund 17:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Wsiegmund: Fixed now. Jakec 02:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • While it is better now, I still see four utility poles and two road sign supports that all lean to the left. What am I missing? --Wsiegmund 20:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposePer Wsiegmund --Livioandronico2013 22:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - seems ok to me. Mattbuck 23:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Dome_of_Saint_Peter's_Basilica_(exterior)_at_night1.jpg

Dome of Saint Peter's Basilica (exterior) at night1.jpg

  • Nomination Dome of Saint Peter's Basilica (exterior) at night --Livioandronico2013 21:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this view the best of the three. --Ram-Man 17:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Major part of this picture is just black, I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 21:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose simply too black. --Alchemist-hp 06:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Needs sharpening. Mattbuck 22:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Hořejší_Kařezský_rybník,_neznámé_rostliny.jpg

Hořejší Kařezský rybník, neznámé rostliny.jpg

  • Nomination Unidentified plants at Hořejší Kařezský rybník, Kařezské rybníky natural monument, Rokycany District, Czech Republic. --Juandev 16:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. May be good for a better crop. --XRay 08:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, on composition ground, IMHO unclear-non-existent subject and I think a more accurate description from unidentified plants is needed. Sorry. --C messier 10:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This picture easily meets technical quality standards, but does it meet the value standards? The only thing notable is that it was taken at an identified natural monument and it does adequately show that subject, even if the plants themselves are unidentified. It's primarily a nature scene, not a plant photo. A wide angle version of the subject might be more useful, but such photos exist in the category on the location. This is just another view of the subject and that's OK. -- Ram-Man 18:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • IMO, it's too tight for a general view and too wide for a plant view. And the sky reflection to the right is IMHO quite disturbing. --C messier 22:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:P%C3%A9rou_les_uros_du_lac_Titicaca_(4).jpg

Pérou les uros du lac Titicaca (4).jpg

  • Nomination Sur le Lac Titicaca les Uros (Aymara) du Pérou.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • QI -- Spurzem 09:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing sharp, general low JPEG quality. --Mattbuck 22:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Donesharpening in the image. Please care to take another look?--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality isn't ok: unsharp, noisy, unbalanced bad crop. --Alchemist-hp 06:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Though sharpening sharpness is not okay, not a QI for me. --Dnalor 01 09:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    @Dnalor 01, Mattbuck, Alchemist-hp:✓ Done cropping and sharpening in the image. Please care to take another look?--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too many jpeg artifacts after sharpening. I'm afraid it cannot be fixed. --C messier 11:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I made a reset to the first uploaded version (cropping and sharpening), please review again. -- Pierre André (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Vestalis gracilis 06840.jpg

Vestalis gracilis 06840.jpg

  • Nomination Vestalis gracilis --Vengolis 17:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very good quality. --Dnalor 01 17:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed area, not very sharp, small DoF --Christian Ferrer 18:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The main interest of this picture is the insect, and this one is sharp enough IMO. --Dnalor 01 18:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's good enough. Ram-Man 12:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support GQ IMHO --Palauenc05 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, I love the wings. But left eye and legs are parts of the insect. –Be..anyone 16:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I agree with Be-..anyone. Mattbuck 22:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Brisbane_ANZAC_Day_Parade_2012_(IMG06363).jpg

Brisbane ANZAC Day Parade 2012 (IMG06363).jpg

  • Nomination Women from Australian Vietnamese community. ANZAC Day Parade, Brisbane, Australia --Bald white guy 10:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--ArildV 22:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image was clearly downsampled. Ram-Man 18:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What about the license? It’s CC-BY-SA 4.0 but then the uploader restricted to non-commercial use. This does not comply with Commons licensing guidelines IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 07:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good quality, but bad license. --Steindy 01:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, nothing in these images was changed for months; the templates are also stable, I see no NC. Was that some glitch, do you still see NC? –Be..anyone 17:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Bald white guy, Be..anyone: CC BY-SA 4.0 is fine, but above is written Licensing for this image is NON-COMMERCIAL. I didn't see it when I reviewed the image.--ArildV (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Face-palm, the permissions, sorry. That's a mass DR, unless the author changes it. –Be..anyone 17:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Such „licenses“ are remarkable (sometimes) used to admonish the user with the lawyer, if they do not do so accurately. We do not need such licenses here. I would prefer to delete such images. --Steindy 18:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Luton Airport Parkway railway station MMB 12 222006.jpg

Luton Airport Parkway railway station MMB 12 222006.jpg

  • Nomination 222006 at Luton Airport Parkway. Mattbuck 07:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion One third of the picture is extremely unsharp. --Palauenc05 22:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    Unless you're referring to the right hand side, in which case it's called composition, I have no idea what you're referring to. --Mattbuck 08:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition or not, the train on the right is unsharp, as well as the front bumper of the left train. Sorry, but IMO there is not enough quality in this image. --Palauenc05 23:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support because of the unsharpness partially, not all of a photo must be sharp. --Ralf Roletschek 12:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This blurry photos from the train window may be artistically; valuable QI they are certainly not IMHO. --Steindy 02:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp 06:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

File:AndrewMercerIMG_3053_Eastern_Bearded_Dragon.jpg

AndrewMercerIMG 3053 Eastern Bearded Dragon.jpg

  • Nomination Head-on detail of an Eastern Bearded Dragon (Pogona barbata) basking in Brisbane's Victoria Park. Brisbane, Australia --Bald white guy 03:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me--Holleday 19:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image was clearly downsampled. See the rules. Ram-Man 18:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Downsampling can't be the sole reason for opposing. Good quality. Yann 14:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Why not? It's one of the rules, along side any of the various other quality reasons. Downsampling to this extreme is destructive to quality. Ram-Man 03:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support GQ --Palauenc05 00:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The rules require 2 MP and the picture therefore complies with the rules. Good quality. --Steindy 01:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, like it. It's a surprisingly small JPEG for such a good photo. No idea how that could be caused, the only JPG rule I know is "don't, it gets worse". –Be..anyone 17:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

File:AndrewMercerIMG 5585 Australian Water Dragon.jpg

AndrewMercerIMG 5585 Australian Water Dragon.jpg

  • Nomination Eastern Water Dragon enjoying a warm pond in the late afternoon --Bald_white_guy 10:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion GQ. --Palauenc05 11:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. This image was clearly downsampled and is thus disqualified from QI as per the rules. Ram-Man 18:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Downsampling can't be the sole reason for opposing. Good quality. Yann 14:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp details anyway. GQ --Palauenc05 15:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The rules require 2 MP and the picture therefore complies with the rules. Good quality. --Steindy 01:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The resolution and downsampling rules are two different rules. Compliance with one does not mean you comply with the other. Ram-Man 03:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Prove the downsampling, please.--Jebulon 21:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Really? I should waste time proving the obvious? Ram-Man 13:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Tell me how I could waste my time, I'm here to learn (well, actually for some fun first.) –Be..anyone 17:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Alright, I'll bite, but I'm only spending a few minutes on this:
            1. Photographer shoots with Canon EOS 7D 18MP (See this). Photographer admitted he uses this camera and downsamples to hide quality defects (like noise).
            2. The smallest downsampled image it outputs is 2592x1728, but these are 1800x1200.
            3. The ratios are identical (3:2). A number of other cameras output at 4:3.
            4. It's nearly impossible to output 1800x1200 natively with this level of sharpness, so this must be either a crop or a downsample. One of my sharpest out of camera images was shot with a tripod, but there is no way all his images use a tripod.
            5. Mathematically, downsampling increases the Signal-to-Noise Ratio and decreases the Signal in the absolute. This is why it looks super sharp and beautiful on a monitor, but when printed at 300dpi on a A3 size print the details start to look undersampled.
            6. This kind of shallow depth of field cannot be achieved small sensor camera and there are no SLR that can take pictures like this without downsampling.
          • Ram-Man 13:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks, so "surprisingly small" (< 1MB) wasn't too far off. Admittedly I only look at 200% zoom when I try something. I wouldn't know who uses which camera with what features, and there's no "photos by" category in this case. –Be..anyone 19:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
          • After reviewing hundreds or thousands of photos, you can often tell which camera or brand was used to take a picture just by looking at it. When I nominated this picture taken with an Olympus E-M5 for a FP, I was looking through Category:Corallus caninus when I saw this picture. I thought to myself "It looks like it was taken with an Olympus camera too. And lo and behold I looked at the EXIF and it was taken with an Olympus E-500. Both cameras were released 7 years apart. Was it a lucky guess? I don't know. Back in the mid 2000's, I could visually tell Panasonic, Fuji, Canon, and Nikon point-and-shoot cameras from each other by their characteristic grain/noise patterns. -- Ram-Man 03:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Just to prove it was no fluke, I went through another dozen images in that category to see if I could find any others taken with an Olympus. I only spotted one that I thought was from an Olympus camera: this one. This time an Olympus PEN E-PL1. Ram-Man 03:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a well composed picture.-- Pierre André (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:AndrewMercerIMG 9825 Scaly Breasted Lorikeet.jpg

AndrewMercerIMG 9825 Scaly Breasted Lorikeet.jpg

  • Nomination Scaly-breasted lorikeet --Bald_white_guy 10:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me--Holleday 19:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image was clearly downsampled. See the rules. Ram-Man 18:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The rules require 2 MP and the picture therefore complies with the rules. Good quality. --Steindy 01:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Our rules also say, For “easy to take” images, reviewers may choose to demand more if the image would benefit from it. So, the 2 mpix lower limit does not say that, for any image barely exceeding that limit, size is no more a factor at all. This one is definitely easy to take; if this image needed downsampling to achieve appropriate sharpness, this is a point against QI. --Kreuzschnabel 20:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Overexposure on red channel. Mattbuck 22:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Časový rozvrh (kdy uplyne 15 dní od nominace)

po 19 1. → út 27 1.
út 20 1. → st 28 1.
st 21 1. → čt 29 1.
čt 22 1. → pá 30 1.
pá 23 1. → so 31 1.
so 24 1. → ne 01 2.
ne 25 1. → po 02 2.
po 26 1. → út 03 2.
út 27 1. → st 04 2.