Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Jump to: navigation, search

Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский
Gtk-go-down.svg Skip to nominations
float

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.

Purpose[edit]

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.

Guidelines[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators[edit]

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

Image page requirements[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms.
  4. 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.
Creator[edit]

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.

Technical requirements[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

How to nominate[edit]

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[edit]

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.

Evaluating images[edit]

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

How to review[edit]

How to update the status

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|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |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|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |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 and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Grace period and promotion[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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 October 2014 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache


Contents

Nominations[edit]

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]] 01:20, 2 October 2014 (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.

October 2, 2014[edit]

October 1, 2014[edit]

September 30, 2014[edit]

September 29, 2014[edit]

September 28, 2014[edit]

September 27, 2014[edit]

September 26, 2014[edit]

September 25, 2014[edit]

September 24, 2014[edit]

September 23, 2014[edit]

September 22, 2014[edit]

September 21, 2014[edit]

September 20, 2014[edit]

September 19, 2014[edit]

September 18, 2014[edit]

September 16, 2014[edit]

September 13, 2014[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. 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[edit]

File:14-08-00-wlm-es-RalfR-06.jpg[edit]

14-08-00-wlm-es-RalfR-06.jpg

  • Nomination Aqueduct in Cerdanyola del Vallès, Catalonia --Ralf Roletschek 21:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 21:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy, unsharp/blurred, dustspots, CAs... --Christian Ferrer 08:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, oversharpened --Generic1139 16:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose on grounds of having a completely meaningless filename. Mattbuck 21:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-00-wlm-es-RalfR-07.jpg[edit]

14-08-00-wlm-es-RalfR-07.jpg

  • Nomination Aqueduct in Cerdanyola del Vallès, Catalonia --Ralf Roletschek 21:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 21:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy, unsharp/blurred, dustspots, CAs... --Christian Ferrer 08:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, oversharpened --Generic1139 16:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose on grounds of having a completely meaningless filename. Mattbuck 21:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

File:MK29840_Dotzheimer_Straße_68.jpg[edit]

MK29840 Dotzheimer Straße 68.jpg

  • Nomination Detail of the building Dotzheimer Straße 68 in Wiesbaden --Martin Kraft 21:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality but get the verticals rectilinear --Cccefalon 21:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until perspective is fixed --Christian Ferrer 13:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Forchtenstein - Pfarrkirche Maria Himmelfahrt (03).jpg[edit]

Forchtenstein - Pfarrkirche Maria Himmelfahrt (03).jpg

  • Nomination Parish church „Assumption of Mary“ in Forchtenstein, Burgenland, Austria --Steindy 20:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Some chromatic noise, easy to fix. see note. --Cccefalon 20:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you, but sorry, I don't see any chromatic noise. The color differences are also present original in the sandstone. They are in other photos of this object the same. Maybe there are metallic inclusions. --Steindy 21:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perhaps I have the wrong understanding of chromatic noise. We better let the experts add their opinions. --Cccefalon 09:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Dársena_del_Canal_de_Castilla_en_Palencia_-_01.jpg[edit]

Dársena del Canal de Castilla en Palencia - 01.jpg

  • Nomination Docks of the Channel of Castile in Palencia, Castile and León, Spain. --Kadellar 09:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Halavar 11:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree - there is strong CA around. I will take back my oppose after handling the issues. --Cccefalon 11:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    "Strong" CA? Slight I would say, I hadn't even seen it. --Kadellar 11:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sigh. --Cccefalon 12:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Oberes Belvedere Wien, Panorama.jpg[edit]

Oberes Belvedere Wien, Panorama.jpg

  • Nomination Oberes Belvedere Wien --Böhringer 06:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion You are aware, that you are doing flooding? --Cccefalon 06:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    See above (imho no flooding) --Tuxyso 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 06:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Burg Hohenbregenz, Gebhardsberg .jpg[edit]

Burg Hohenbregenz, Gebhardsberg .jpg

  • Nomination Burg Hohenbregenz --Böhringer 06:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Please read the QIC rules. Your mass nominations are considered flooding and this is leading to decline all your nomination. --Cccefalon 06:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    See above (imho no flooding) --Tuxyso 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Ansitz Mittelweiherburg, Hard.JPG[edit]

Ansitz Mittelweiherburg, Hard.JPG

  • Nomination Ansitz Mittelweiherburg --Böhringer 06:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Declined for reason of flooding --Cccefalon 06:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support. I don't understand the reason for decline. -- Spurzem 08:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    See above (imho no flooding) --Tuxyso 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:GH Löwen Gaststube, Au Rehmen, Böhringer 6.jpg[edit]

GH Löwen Gaststube, Au Rehmen, Böhringer 6.jpg

  • Nomination GH Löwen Gaststube --Böhringer 06:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Declined for reason of flooding --Cccefalon 06:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    See above (imho no flooding) --Tuxyso 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Waldfriedgasse 1 Feldkirch Villa Waldfried.JPG[edit]

Waldfriedgasse 1 Feldkirch Villa Waldfried.JPG

  • Nomination Feldkirch Villa Waldfried --Böhringer 05:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Declined for reason of flooding --Cccefalon 06:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    i vote photos and this ist good. --Ralf Roletschek 21:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC))
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective issues (lamp post and house leaning in) --Uoaei1 06:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Hl Bartholomäus (Übersaxen) 1.jpg[edit]

Hl Bartholomäus (Übersaxen) 1.jpg

  • Nomination Hl Bartholomäus (Übersaxen) --Böhringer 05:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion --Cccefalon 06:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    i vote photos and this ist good. --Ralf Roletschek 21:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp --Uoaei1 06:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Herz-Jesu-Kirche (Weiler) 2.jpg[edit]

Herz-Jesu-Kirche (Weiler) 2.jpg

  • Nomination Herz-Jesu-Kirche (Weiler) --Böhringer 05:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Declined for reason of flooding --Cccefalon 06:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    i vote photos and this ist good. --Ralf Roletschek 21:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp --Uoaei1 06:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Ponte_Sisto_Roma.jpg[edit]

Ponte Sisto Roma.jpg

File:2014-09-21_10-39-33_salle-mairie-belfort-PA00101139.jpg[edit]

2014-09-21 10-39-33 salle-mairie-belfort-PA00101139.jpg

  • Nomination Inside the town hall of Belfort, France. --ComputerHotline 17:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. --Florstein 08:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    Significant CA around the... thing... in the window on the left. --Mattbuck 21:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_barokowa_brama_09.jpg[edit]

2014 Kłodzko, barokowa brama 09.jpg

  • Nomination Baroque Gate on Kościelny Square in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 19:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. QI -- Spurzem 13:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeWhere is the gate? Who is that man ? Not accurate description.--Jebulon 20:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good photo,here isn't the competition of quality descriptions. --Ralf Roletschek 07:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Jebulon is right for all images with this issue now on CR, it's on the guidelines: "Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms." --Kadellar 09:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. Es ist unglaublich, mit welchen Argumenten einwandfreie Fotos neuerdings abgeschmettert werden. Bewerten wir denn hier die Dateinamen oder die Bilder? -- Spurzem 12:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Außerdem steht im dateinamen, was es ist. Es muß nicht zwingend englisch sein. --Ralf Roletschek 14:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
We judge a whole, please read the guidelines. In "Commons", ein "Bild" ist nicht nur ein Bild.--Jebulon 22:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Jebulon. A detailed description is important for QI. Yann 16:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It is not only important, it is the rule !!--Jebulon 22:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Rules can be absurd. And than common sense is asked. -- Spurzem 09:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I completed the descriptions. --Jacek Halicki 10:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_barokowa_brama_10.jpg[edit]

2014 Kłodzko, barokowa brama 10.jpg

  • Nomination Baroque Gate on Kościelny Square in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 19:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI -- Spurzem 13:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeWhere is the gate? Who is that man ? Not accurate description.--Jebulon 20:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC))
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good photo, here isn't the competition of quality descriptions. --Ralf Roletschek 07:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Please read the guidelines. And here is not a competition at all.--Jebulon 22:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed area on the right --Christian Ferrer 18:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. Dass ein winziger Bereich das Sonnenlicht reflektiert, sollte kein Grund sein, das Bild insgesamt abzulehnen. -- Spurzem 18:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    The area overexposed is clearly in focus and thus is a part of the subject and also clearly burned out with no details, for me a reason to oppose, sorry Christian Ferrer 21:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. The small overexposed areas could have been better handled, but are not really disturbing. Average, but acceptable sharpness. -- Smial 08:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Ps: I'm very happy, Jacek has switched his camera (resp. post processing methods) to less saturated and much more natural colours than before.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I completed the descriptions. --Jacek Halicki 10:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_barokowa_brama_11.jpg[edit]

2014 Kłodzko, barokowa brama 11.jpg

  • Nomination Baroque Gate on Kościelny Square in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 19:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. QI -- Spurzem 13:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeWhere is the gate? Who is that man ? Not accurate description.--Jebulon 20:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good photo, here isn't the competition of quality descriptions. --Ralf Roletschek 07:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes yes, and you don't distort your photos, we know...--Jebulon 22:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in despite of the little overexposition at bottom --Christian Ferrer 18:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I completed the descriptions. --Jacek Halicki 10:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good with new, proper description. QI for me --Halavar 01:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_barokowa_brama_12.jpg[edit]

2014 Kłodzko, barokowa brama 12.jpg

  • Nomination Baroque Gate on Kościelny Square in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 19:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. QI -- Spurzem 13:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeWhere is the gate? Who is that man ? Not accurate description.--Jebulon 20:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good photo, here isn't the competition of quality descriptions. --Ralf Roletschek 07:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed at left --Christian Ferrer 18:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. Ich kann die Ablehnung nicht verstehen. Wo Schatten ist, ist nun manchmal auch Licht, das hier das Bild nicht stört. -- Spurzem 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I completed the descriptions. --Jacek Halicki 10:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_barokowa_brama_13.jpg[edit]

2014 Kłodzko, barokowa brama 13.jpg

  • Nomination Baroque Gate on Kościelny Square in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 19:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Very good -- Spurzem 19:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeWhere is the gate? Who is that man ? Not accurate description.--Jebulon 20:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good photo, here isn't the competition of quality descriptions. --Ralf Roletschek 07:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Falsch. --Jebulon 22:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Jebulon. A detailed description is important for QI. Yann 16:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It is not only important, it is just the rule !--Jebulon 21:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I completed the descriptions. --Jacek Halicki 10:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good with new, proper description. QI for me --Halavar 01:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Lüdinghauser_Tor_--_2014_--_3336.jpg[edit]

Dülmen, Lüdinghauser Tor -- 2014 -- 3336.jpg

  • Nomination Detail of the Lüdinghauser Tor, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 18:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    For me the DOF isn't good enough. Mattbuck 14:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Nearly fixed It's sharper now. May be it's good enough. What do you think?--XRay 15:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    The thing is, the face is great, but the background to me is too blurry. It's not a decline, so Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. Mattbuck 21:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for your review. So I set this review to discussion.--XRay 09:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DOF is OK. It is quite normal to have a blurry background to make the subject stand out. Yann 16:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Somewhat low DOF, but main parts look acceptable. -- Smial (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Cambio_de_la_Guardia_del_Castillo_de_Windsor,_Inglaterra,_2014-08-12,_DD_10.JPG[edit]

Cambio de la Guardia del Castillo de Windsor, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 10.JPG

  • Nomination Changing of the Guard of the Windsor Castle, England --Poco a poco 08:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Nice composition (on a dreary day), but there's a fair amount of blur on the left. --Mattbuck 14:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Poco a poco 18:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I don't think this is QI. Mattbuck 21:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    Please, let's discuss this one, I see no big issues here --Poco a poco 09:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Radków,_kościoł_św._Andrzeja_Boboli_04.JPG[edit]

2014 Radków, kościoł św. Andrzeja Boboli 04.JPG

  • Nomination Saint Andrew Bobola church in Radków --Jacek Halicki 10:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentIMO there CAs (soee note).--XRay 11:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 22:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 11:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Main subject in shadow. Too strong distortion of the bell tower.--Jebulon 20:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

File:12-01-20-yog-510.jpg[edit]

12-01-20-yog-510.jpg

  • Nomination Martin Sesaker (NOR), Curling --Ralf Roletschek 14:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI -- Spurzem 19:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose meaningless name.--Jebulon 11:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    * Sure, this photos are wrong here in this competition of quality filenames. I see no reason to change anything. It ma be: Мартин Sesaker из Норвегии, когда Corling на юношеских Олимпийских играх 2012.jpg. --Ralf Roleček 12:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Jebulon: I don't understand the problem. -- Spurzem 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@Spurzem: just read once, only once, the guidelines.--Jebulon 22:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"meaningless" is undefined. Is russian or chinese meaningless? I can take at all my photos long czech, russian, finish or catalá names, is this better? No, its nonsense. So as your view of guidelines. --Ralf Roletschek 12:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Russian? Chinese? Czech? Finish? Catalá ? Fine for me, and useful for users ! 12-01-20-yog-510 is meaningless, this is the nonsense, sorry.--Jebulon 21:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Nobody needs a second description in the filename. In this filename are the date, the theme (youth olympic game) and a number, more is no needed. --Ralf Roletschek 14:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

File:12-01-20-yog-523.jpg[edit]

12-01-20-yog-523.jpg

  • Nomination Robert-Kent Päll (EST), Curling --Ralf Roletschek 14:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI -- Spurzem 19:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose meaningless name.--Jebulon 11:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:12-01-20-yog-567.jpg[edit]

12-01-20-yog-567.jpg

  • Nomination Rachel Hannen (GBR), Curling --Ralf Roletschek 14:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good -- Spurzem 19:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Meaninless name.--Jebulon 11:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:JasperCountyCourthouse_retouched.jpg[edit]

JasperCountyCourthouse retouched.jpg

  • Nomination Jasper County courthouse in Carthage, Missouri. --Kbh3rd 03:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 15:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad time of the day, wrong light direction, IMO. One side is in full shadow, the other in half shadow.--Jebulon 11:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:La_Fornarina_di_Raffaello_Sanzio.jpg[edit]

La Fornarina di Raffaello Sanzio.jpg

  • Nomination The Portrait of a Young Woman (also known as La fornarina) is a painting by the Italian High Renaissance master Raphael, made between 1518 and 1520. --Livioandronico2013 20:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Wrong white balance. --Yann 13:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    Ok,now? Thanks--Livioandronico2013 16:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
No. See [1] as an example. Yann 15:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes but is too dark,it's impossible see the datails --Livioandronico2013 16:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Church_tower_of_uggiano_montefusco_2.jpg[edit]

Church tower of uggiano montefusco 2.jpg

  • Nomination church tower of uggiano montefusco --Livioandronico2013 22:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not nearly sharp enough. --Mattbuck 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    Other opinions thanks --Livioandronico2013 22:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Not the best composition but sharp enough. -- Spurzem 10:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Lion_of_Viterbo.jpg[edit]

Lion of Viterbo.jpg

  • Nomination Lion of Viterbo --Livioandronico2013 18:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Bottom oversharpened, top out of focus. --Mattbuck 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    Other opinions thanks --Livioandronico2013 22:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me. I see no lack. -- Spurzem 10:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-250.jpg[edit]

14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-250.jpg

  • Nomination Dyna Fyr, Oslo, Norway --Ralf Roletschek 15:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 11:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    I am not opposing as such, but I think this needs brightening. --Mattbuck 21:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 16:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Lüdinghausen,_Burg_Lüdinghausen_--_2014_--_5496.jpg[edit]

Lüdinghausen, Burg Lüdinghausen -- 2014 -- 5496.jpg

  • Nomination Burg Lüdinghausen, Lüdinghausen, Germany --XRay 03:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Poor masking in tree limbs on the left. --Kbh3rd 14:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hmm. I do not see as a big problem as it is in the dark.--XRay 16:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentNo, it's definitely a problem. I saw it right away even at less than full resolution. Along the rooftop, too. (Is your monitor properly calibrated?) It's not in the original, so it can be salvaged. Otherwise a fine photo. Kbh3rd 02:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
✓ Fixed You're right. I haven't seen the problems at the rooftop. Now I adjusted the CA correction.--XRay 11:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Much better. I can't be sure it's all fixed, but I like this image enough to offer my support and see if others concur.

File:Blumauerhaus Steyr DSC 2743w.jpg[edit]

Blumauerhaus Steyr DSC 2743w.jpg

  • Nomination Middle class house, Blumauerhaus, Upper Austria --P e z i 20:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --ArildV 06:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The contre-jour lighting is unfortunate, I oppose because I would like to read some other opinions.--Jebulon 19:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Contre-jour lighting very well handled. Weak sharpness in the upper part of the image, probably due to perspective correction. To avoid such unsharpness it is essential to scale down an image after such correction. Does not need as low as 2 MPixels, down to about 80% of the original resolution is in most cases sufficiant. -- Smial 09:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of sharpness in the upper part of the photo. --Steindy 18:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Jebulon--Lmbuga 03:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Krameramtshaus_(Haus_der_Niederlande)_--_2014_--_6867.jpg[edit]

Münster, Krameramtshaus (Haus der Niederlande) -- 2014 -- 6867.jpg

  • Nomination Krameramtshaus (House of the Netherlands), Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Slight cyan ca at rooftop, Otherwise good. --Johanning 06:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Thanks. It's fixed.--XRay 17:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, I have made a mess of it. When I had another look at the image I saw, that the ca was gone, thank you. But I saw also, that it had distracted me from the more relevant issue. At the very top the image is getting quite blurry. Now I have to eat my words ... --Johanning 21:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed No problem. I improved the sharpness. Hopefully it's good enough.--XRay 11:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI don't think so. But you had a similar debate about the town hall in Münster, that produced pros and cons. Thus, I send it to CR to give it a chance. --Johanning 17:36, 24September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp. Also possibly somewhat distorted, all those bicycles seem to have oval wheels. -- Smial 09:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

File:20140707_Radkersburg_-_household_items_(Gombocz_collection)_-_H3616.jpg[edit]