Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Jump to: navigation, search
This project page in other languages:

Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Македонски | 日本語 | Polski | +/−
Skip to nominations Skip to nominations
Quality images logo.svg

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. Please note that this is not the same thing as featured pictures. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

Contents

[edit] Purpose

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users' efforts in providing quality images to Commons.
Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.

[edit] Guidelines

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

[edit] For nominators

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images, more detailed criteria is available at Image guidelines.

[edit] Image page requirements
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at COM:CT.
  2. Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms.
  3. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the Image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.
[edit] 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).

[edit] Technical requirements

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

[edit] Resolution

Graphics located on Commons may be used not only for viewing them on a screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices would be used in the future either, so it is important that pictures being nominated have a reasonably large resolution. 2 megapixels is normally the lower limit, but for 'easy to take' images, reviewers may demand more. (Not applicable for SVG images).

[edit] Image quality

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Value

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

[edit] 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|1=Very short description --~~~~ |2=}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries. Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is frowned upon.

[edit] Evaluating images

Any registered user can review a nomination.
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

[edit] How to review

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|1=Very short description --~~~~ |2=}}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|1=Very short description --Nominators signature |2=Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|1=Very short description --~~~~ |2=}}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|1=Very short description --Nominators signature |2=Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator's talk page - as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

[edit] Grace period and promotion

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.

[edit] 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.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)
  • 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

[edit] 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 December 2009 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Consensual review rules

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page cache

[edit] Nominations

Due to changes in 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 --''yourname'' (ctrl-click)">[[User:yourname|yourname]] 12:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 5,2009

  • Nomination Train of the Aqaba Railway Corporation at Rum Station --Berthold Werner 10:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Springbocks in Namibia --Ikiwaner 08:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Coat of Arms of Caravaggio. Fale 08:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Coat of Arms of Offagna. Fale 08:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Coat of Arms of Solofra. Fale 08:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Green sand in lava rocks --Mbz1 03:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very good. --Cayambe 11:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Fountain of Ciutadella Park, Barcelona --Bgag 02:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Ceramics on Castell dels Tres Dragons, Barcelona --Bgag 02:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed

[edit] December 4, 2009

  • Nomination Statue, Alésia (Côte-d'Or) --Siren-Com 23:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Streetlamp, Milan --Fale 22:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Sunset on Garda Lake, Italy --Fale 22:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Green flare. --99of9 04:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Path in Liguria, Italy --Fale 22:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Candies --Fale 22:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC). Nice composition, but I think there's a yellowish cast, can you try to adjust the white balance? --99of9 22:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
    ✓ DoneBetter now?Fale 22:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I had a go at it myself, picking the neutral colour from the egg white. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. Would someone else care to judge now? 99of9 02:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC).
    Thankyou to the fix :) Fale 08:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good now. --Cayambe 11:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Euthrix potatoria --Böhringer 20:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline I like the composition and colours but I cannot promote because of image noise and lack of sharpness. I know it is not an easy shot and ID, and I myself have not done much better on similar subjects but the quality is not there. --Korall 23:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Acronicta rumicis --Böhringer 20:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Its not razor sharp but its fairly large and I think It would be good in 2MP resolution so Im promoting.--Korall 23:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Honda Accord, the fourth generation --MattiPaavola 19:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Well composed. --99of9 03:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Gothic stained glass window in Tours cathedral. --Eusebius 18:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can IMHO be tighter cropped --Berthold Werner 18:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC) I wanted to keep a 3:2 ratio. --Eusebius 19:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
    What's the story with the blacked out faces? --99of9 22:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
    The three pictures I have taken of this window show this. Maybe it is a shadow from something outside, but I think the window is stained or damaged (it is about 700 years old). --Eusebius 22:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
    Intriguing, it seems almost deliberate! I'm with BW regarding the crop, I don't see any reason for 3:2 in this case. Users can extend with however much black they want. --99of9 02:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    Feel free to nominate a cropped DW instead, but for me I'll keep this format, I think it is more balanced than a tight crop. --Eusebius 07:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    Should be cropped IMO too. The black parts do not add anything. Otherwise good. Thanks for the helpful annotations. --Cayambe 11:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Evangelical Church, Prejmer --Pudelek 18:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Prejmer (Tartlau) - stone monument from evangelical church --Pudelek 18:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Prejmer (Tartlau) - WWI monument in evangelical church --Pudelek 18:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The perspective is assymmetrical, the left hand wing is taller than the right hand one. Also (hard to avoid) the pew intrudes. --99of9 03:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Evangelical Church, Prejmer --Pudelek 18:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Evangelical Church, Prejmer --Pudelek 18:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Indian Elephant. --MathKnight 17:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination African Elephant. --MathKnight 17:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Addax nasomaculatus. --MathKnight 17:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Composition - the foreground half-Addax is a bit distracting. --99of9 04:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Petunia - unproccessed version. --MathKnight 17:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Celestine, Italy--Archaeodontosaurus 16:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the crops would be better if they gave a consistent amount of black around all 4 sides. Also not sure about this level of noise. --99of9 04:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The light is placed on the Celestine, to differentiate it from aragonite --Archaeodontosaurus 11:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Medical thermometer --Berthold Werner 15:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good and useful. --Cayambe 11:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Radio mast near Aabey, Lebanon - Peripitus 09:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Mountains in Lebanon, near the middle east's highest peak - Peripitus 09:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Wadi Rum, race of Toyota Land Cruisers --Berthold Werner 08:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Perfect -- Archaeodontosaurus 16:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Dome of St. Peter's Basilica, Italy. --Myrabella 07:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Ok. --Berthold Werner 09:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Empire State Building and full moon at night --Loadmaster 03:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Portrait of a female Sypetrum vulgatum--Korall 01:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice composition and detail --99of9 05:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Portrait of a red male Sypetrum vulgatum--Korall 01:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice composition and detail --99of9 05:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination A dusky moorhen with water lilies. --99of9 01:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion I like it a lot. --Korall 01:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 3, 2009

  • Nomination Coat of Arms of Conegliano. --Fale 21:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion 99of9 23:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Empis opaca of Bistorta officinalis --Böhringer 21:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice flower with insect bonus--Korall 01:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Coat of Arms of Angrogna. --Fale 21:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion 99of9 23:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Village of Belazao, Madagascar --Bgag 21:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Coat of Arms of Angrogna. --Fale 21:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review Do we have to review any single variation over already promoted content? There is nothing significantly new in such a file from the other files you have submitted. Is it just a file count issue for you? I'd rather evaluate individual heraldic charges. --Eusebius 22:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    The ones that are all variations on a theme are very easy to evaluate though. However, in this particular case it would be worth checking the font of the A - where is the original? 99of9 23:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    I created it myself. --Fale 23:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    The original one is cmr10 --Fale 23:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    I don't understand your answer. What I'm hoping to check is the font of the letter A. Is there a recognized image that we can check against? --99of9 03:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    [Here] there is a png version (I think that is the only other one on the wiki world. Fale 08:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC))
    Thanks for linking that. There are significant differences (acorns, blue ribbon, narrow crown), are your choices based on an older original, or otherwise deliberate? --99of9 09:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Are deliberate based on the definition given by the municipality:"a green A on white field, insignia of municipality". I know that are a little bit different the two versions, this because the definition is not so strict. About the stuff out of the shield, they are the insignia of municipality. Fale 10:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Gallery of modern arts, Ljubljana, by night. Yerpo 19:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Petunia flowers in Weizmann Institute of Science. --MathKnight 16:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Looks really posterized to me. Did you post-process it? Sorry --Korall 16:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    * Yes, adjusted level in Photoshop. Do you think the unprocessed version has a chance? --MathKnight 18:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Cant tell if I havent seen it. I usually upload original images and overload or link to processed ones. In that way anyone has the possibility to modyfy my images in they way thay want. No processed file contains more information than the original one. --Korall 01:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Here is the unprocessed version: File:Petunia-Weizmann001pure.jpg. --MathKnight 17:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Detail of the Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II, Milan, Italy --Fale 14:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Strong blue CA at half top and too noised half bottom --George Chernilevsky 08:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Botanical Garden Hanbury at Ventimiglia, Italy --Fale 14:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Blown out highlights, sorry, else good --Mbdortmund 22:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree, sky are lost. Not QI, sorry --George Chernilevsky 08:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Port Authority, Barcelona, Spain --Fale 14:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline The forground is too dark for useful details and the sky lighting is too flat for this type of silhouette to work. - Peripitus 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Wadi Rum --Berthold Werner 07:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very nice - Peripitus 21:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 2, 2009

  • Nomination Purple Swamphen in Canberra, Australia --99of9 00:44, 3 December 32009 (UTC)
  • Promotion QI for me - Darius Baužys 17:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Amphitheatre of Tarragona, Spain --Bgag 22:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Ok. --Berthold Werner 18:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination The cargo Global Helena. --Eusebius 21:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion good --George Chernilevsky 14:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Germany 'Regionalbahn' -- Der Wolf im Wald 16:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Some kind of train category too? The image is good. --Korall 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment train category added ;) -- Der Wolf im Wald 19:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Thank you, I promote now.--Korall 17:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination BMW on IAA 2007 -- Der Wolf im Wald 16:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Mercedes Benz on IAA 2007 -- Der Wolf im Wald 16:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Campfire -- Der Wolf im Wald 16:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Skyline of Frankfurt am Main -- Der Wolf im Wald 16:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination 'Internationale Automobil Ausstellung' 2007 -- Der Wolf im Wald 16:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Frankfurt city hall -- Der Wolf im Wald 16:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination christmas tree in Frankfurt am Main -- Der Wolf im Wald 16:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Hohenzollernbridge and the Rhine in Cologne -- Der Wolf im Wald 16:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion I would promote this, but I only comment because this would be my first promotion and I'd like someone else more experienced to comment it too.Fale 17:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination market hall in Stuttgart, Germany -- Der Wolf im Wald 16:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Mito Art Tower. I added some blue sky for the composition not to be too tight and want to know if its OK. I nominated for deletiobn cause I was unsure of panaroma freedom in Japan but it looks like its staying so I think i can nominate for QI.--Korall 16:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Tidepools at Pillar Point at low tide --Mbz1 15:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Toyota Land Cruiser for excursions to Wadi Rum --Berthold Werner 07:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Cumulus humilis clouds. --99of9 02:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good. Yerpo 21:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 1, 2009

  • Nomination Panoramic view of Trento --Fale 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed

[edit] November 30, 2009

  • Nomination Celestine on septarias - France (6.5x6.2cm) --Archaeodontosaurus 17:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Sorry not sharp enough and looks posterized. --Korall 16:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination A small fall in Golden Gate Park. --Mbz1 15:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Maison Alphonse Desjardins, Lévis, Quebec --Bgag 14:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Barrington Levy singing in Stockholm --Korall 14:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentPlease look in full format, the thumbnails are broken.
  • Review needed
  • Nomination twilight --Böhringer 13:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Old mural - exterior of St. Nocholas church in Braşov (Kronstadt, Brassó) --Pudelek 12:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Braşov (Kronstadt, Brassó) - Şchei. Entrance to cemetery --Pudelek 12:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Petra, view on Al Khazneh from the siq --Berthold Werner 10:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Tree bark with embedded barbed wire --Loadmaster 04:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed

[edit] November 29, 2009

  • Nomination Oil storage tanks of the Lippendorf power station --High Contrast 21:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Unfortunate lighting: subject shadowed but sky blown. --99of9 05:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Bridge in Le Bono. --Eusebius 10:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed

[edit] November 28, 2009

  • Nomination brandenburg gate in Berlin. -- Wolf im Wald 23:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Review Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would promote when in full resolution --Berthold Werner 09:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC) *Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it is over the the recommended resolution (2MP) -- Wolf im Wald 20:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Apache Trail, Arizona --Bgag 21:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Frozen Tansy (Tanacetum vulgare). --kallerna 10:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline The stem seems a bit unneccessary & blurry. It would be nice if the head itself were better resolved by zooming in. --99of9 05:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Frozen Filipendula-bush. --kallerna 10:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion I'd love a little deeper DOF, but it's good otherwise. --99of9 05:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Namsan Tower in Seoul. -- Elmor 17:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed

[edit] November 27, 2009

  • Nomination Kagura Tai float description, Takayama, Japan --Bgag 20:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Birch (Betula pubescens) forest in Finland. --Estormiz 20:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Review Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Great subject and composition, but the CA is very strong. Can you fix that? -- H005 23:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info: I tried with Gimp and Fix-CA -plugin but only made the picture worse --Estormiz 09:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination Sport complex „Olimpia“ in Braşov (Kronstadt, Brassó) --Pudelek 12:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed
  • Nomination Braşov (Kronstadt, Brassó) - city wall --Pudelek 12:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Review needed

[edit] November 25, 2009

  • Nomination Tonto National Monument, Arizona --Bgag 13:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Review Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not very sharp towards the top of the images and some fringing/ca on the left side I think. --Herbythyme 16:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Consensual review

[edit] 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. Or 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 - Promoted or Not promoted - will be registered at the end of the text 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 image will stay in Consensual Review for a maximum period of 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".

[edit] Consensual Review

[edit] File:BrushtailPossum.jpg

BrushtailPossum.jpg

  • Nomination Another brushtail possum in Australia --99of9 06:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    *Symbol support vote.svg Support Some noise, but I love this image.--Mbz1 15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    *Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough for me. --Eusebius 11:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Should I revert the edit where I denoised? Did I lose too much sharpness? --99of9 13:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the original lacks sharpness anyway, but other reviewers might disagree. --Eusebius 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support night work in vivo. Good for me - Archaeodontosaurus 18:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 20:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CoA_Comune_di_Borgiallo_2.svg

CoA Comune di Borgiallo 2.svg

  • Nomination Coat of Arms of Borgiallo. --Fale 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment too simple for QI --George Chernilevsky 19:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with George. --99of9 06:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If the picture is correct I think it can be QI. I dont mind simplicity.Korall 14:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too simple for me too, I don't think it is in the spirit of the project (although the guidelines were designed for photographs) to promote such trivial designs (which does not mean it is not well executed). --Eusebius 17:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC))
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is fully possible to promote a picture of an everyday object taken with fully automatic settings of the camera if the result is fine. And hard-to-take shots like flying insects and rare birds get declined if the result is not of good quality. Its the result, not the effort that matters in photography. I cant see why SVG:s should be judged by a different standard. So here we have an image that describes the subject correctly, in the right file format and is properly described. Why not promote?--Korall 18:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • We have no good rules about .svg as QI. Therefore I have abstained from vote, only comment. However it is too trivial drawing from a few lines. --George Chernilevsky 13:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose George is imo right --Mbdortmund 17:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 17:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:P1160243 Calopteryx splendens.jpg

P1160243 Calopteryx splendens.jpg

  • Nomination Banded Demoiselle (Calopteryx splendens). Male. - Darius Baužys 13:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent photo --George Chernilevsky 13:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Posterized & noisy. --kallerna 11:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very very good! -- Der Wolf im Wald 16:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund 17:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus 18:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 17:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Puebla - Museo Amparo - Tampon lapin Mexica 1500dC.JPG

Puebla - Museo Amparo - Tampon lapin Mexica 1500dC.JPG

  • Nomination Aztec stamp of a rabbit, 1500 CE --Éclusette 14:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion Very noisy and strong compression artefacts. As it is a very interesting object, could you upload a version as it came out of the camera (full resolution etc.), so someone could try to enhance quality? -- Smial 12:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It actually comes out of the camera I used, an Olympus Camedia C-2500L from the Ancient Ages of Digital Photography (1999). Maybe it would better suit another category of promoted images such as the valued images ? - Éclusette 14:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, I did'nt look at the camera model. If this is the full resolution, I'll try to enhance it a bit. Maybe this evening. -- Smial 15:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thanks! - Éclusette (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:TomatenRot Böhringer 5.JPG

TomatenRot Böhringer 5.JPG

  • Nomination Tomate --Böhringer 12:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good.--Mbz1 15:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice picture, but too much noise. --Eusebius 11:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Eusebius. --kallerna 11:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 20:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Rapana_Black_Sea_2009_G4.jpg

Rapana Black Sea 2009 G4.jpg

  • Nomination Veined rapa whelk Rapana venosa. A Black Sea beach at sunset --George Chernilevsky 08:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportuseful topic, good picture, lack the size of the subject --Archaeodontosaurus 10:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed parts on the main subject. --Eusebius 11:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Darius Baužys 17:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 20:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Petra Jordan BW 26.JPG

Petra Jordan BW 26.JPG

  • Nomination Jordan, Petra, a bedouin girl --Berthold Werner 13:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice image, could you please remove dust spots from the sky?--Mbz1 21:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    Done ;-) --Berthold Werner 13:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it --Mbdortmund 15:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is ok, but I find the second person distracting in the composition. --Eusebius 11:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now good -- Smial 12:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine with me.--Mbz1 01:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   Eusebius (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas_Bresson_-_cables_(by).JPG

Thomas Bresson - cables (by).JPG

  • Nomination Wires in an old NATO station --ComputerHotline 17:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unusual but a quality image to me --Herbythyme 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO the light is too harsh. --kallerna 10:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support by Herbythyme.--Mbz1 21:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mbdortmund 20:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Boojum Tree.jpg

Boojum Tree.jpg

  • Nomination Boojum tree (Fouquieria columnaris) --Bgag 15:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. With a slight regret for the small file size. --Cayambe 12:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Main subject not so sharp, signal processing issues in the sky, not corrected by the downsampling. --Eusebius 22:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Eusebius + CA. --kallerna 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --kallerna 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:TexasIndianPaintbrush-0820.jpg

TexasIndianPaintbrush-0820.jpg

  • Nomination Texas Indian Paintbrush (Castilleja indivisa) flower. --Loadmaster 23:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment should imo be cropped on the left side and on the top --Mbdortmund 12:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Done. --Loadmaster 23:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --Mbdortmund 20:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, overexposed red channel, it is an issue for a red flower. --Eusebius 22:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, unsharp, overexposed red channel, composition doesn't convince me. --kallerna 16:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --kallerna 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

Fri 27 Nov → Sat 05 Dec
Sat 28 Nov → Sun 06 Dec
Sun 29 Nov → Mon 07 Dec
Mon 30 Nov → Tue 08 Dec
Tue 01 Dec → Wed 09 Dec
Wed 02 Dec → Thu 10 Dec
Thu 03 Dec → Fri 11 Dec
Fri 04 Dec → Sat 12 Dec
Sat 05 Dec → Sun 13 Dec
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Quality_images_candidates"