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:

česky | Deutsch | English | español | français | македонски | 日本語 | polski | português | +/−

Skip to nominations 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.

Contents

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, by mistake, an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the anomalous situation 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 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. Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is frowned upon.

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.

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 May 2013 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

Nominations [edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 14:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC). Thank you.


May 17, 2013 [edit]

May 16, 2013 [edit]

May 15, 2013 [edit]

May 14, 2013 [edit]

May 13, 2013 [edit]

May 12, 2013 [edit]

May 11, 2013 [edit]

May 10, 2013 [edit]

May 9, 2013 [edit]

May 7, 2013 [edit]

May 6, 2013 [edit]

May 5, 2013 [edit]

May 3, 2013 [edit]

May 1, 2013 [edit]

April 29, 2013 [edit]

April 28, 2013 [edit]

Consensual review [edit]

Rules [edit]

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 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".

Consensual Review [edit]

File:Cigogne_et_deux_poussins,_Tunisie_mai_2013.jpg [edit]

Cigogne et deux poussins, Tunisie mai 2013.jpg

  • Nomination Ciconia ciconia (nests) in Tunisia --Dyolf77 15:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, chromatic aberrations (see note), owerexposed areas, too tight at right and a bit blurry IMO--Lmbuga 17:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI tried to fix CA, the cropping and sharpness. Anyway thanks for reviewing! --Dyolf77 18:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    Better, but I'm not sure if it may be QI--Lmbuga 19:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Brilon,_Keffelker_Kapelle,_Barockaltar.JPG [edit]

Brilon, Keffelker Kapelle, Barockaltar.JPG

  • Nomination Keffelker Kapelle, Barockaltar, Brilon, Germany --Malchen53 08:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Ok --Poco a poco 13:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSry to disagree but the image is not crisp, has low contrast and suffers from harsh flashlight shadows --Manuela61 15:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Maria_Geisenheim.jpg [edit]

Maria Geisenheim.jpg

  • Nomination Virgin Mary on a house corner near the Dome in Geisenheim, Germany --Kreuzschnabel 19:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --Rjcastillo 20:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSry to disagree again but the subject is very small given the size of the entire image (6MP), and the background is very busy --Manuela61 15:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Background busy? Do you suggest to tear the sculpture off, place it before a nicer background, take the shot, then put it back on the house? Sorry, I really don’t understand that point. I find it much more interesting to show such a thing within its surrounding than isolated from it. --Kreuzschnabel 02:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I suggest a longer focal length or better image resolution+crop --Manuela61 06:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMHO this photo is very good esepcially regarding the level of detail. I think it is a good idea to show the sculpture in its original context. The framing with the two windows is also convincing. --Tuxyso 08:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Tuxyso -- Arcalino 08:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:ESC2013_-_Ireland_-_Dancers_2.jpg [edit]

ESC2013 - Ireland - Dancers 2.jpg

  • Nomination Dancers for Ireland's Eurovision song 2013: Ryan Dolan - Only Love Survives. Photo by Albin Olsson--ArildV 10:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    Too blurry for me, not so sharp as it could be. 2.8 is great but focus must be very precise due to the very shallow dof. --Kadellar 22:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Village_du_Barroux_3.jpg [edit]

Village du Barroux 3.jpg

  • Nomination Village of Le Barroux, Vaucluse, and Mont Ventoux --Marianne Casamance 08:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Tilted, CA, blurry,low cost camera? --Moroder 11:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    :what is the relationship with the cost of the camera? I use rhe same one for "Le_Barroux_-_Fontaine_3.jpg" --Marianne Casamance 11:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thats probably de reason for CA and blur. The tilt can be corrected. It's a pity because the composition, and lights are good --Moroder 12:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Wasserturm Biebrich.jpg [edit]

Wasserturm Biebrich.jpg

  • Nomination Water tower Wiesbaden-Biebrich, Germany --Arcalino 22:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Tilted? --Ikar.us 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    it is not tilted, the tower narrows to the top, the mast of the street lamp is upright --Arcalino 14:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    The left edge has 4° inclination, the right 3°. The Blitzableiter in the center 0,5°. This is enough deviation to be visible. The lamp post isn't a better vertical reference than the tower, because of reality, and perspective correction. --Ikar.us 17:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I am convinced! Rotated the tower. Better now?--Arcalino 09:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Looks good. Can't examine details here, setting back to nomination. --Ikar.us 12:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    I´d like further opinions and setting to discuss -- Arcalino 07:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Bruegge View from Rozenhoedkaai.jpg [edit]

Bruegge View from Rozenhoedkaai.jpg

  • Nomination Bruegge View from Rozenhoedkaai, FP but not a QI --Arcalino 11:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too soft and in need of perspective correction (reflections do not match). Biopics 11:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    its ok for QI. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 11:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg SupportI see no reason for any perspective correction. This could damage more than it would improve. Maybe a bit soft but QI.--Hic et nunc 14:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. --Christian Ferrer 04:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dirtsc 18:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    GA candidate.svg Weak support Great shot but a bit blurry. Don’t see any noticeable CA. --Kreuzschnabel 02:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:13-04-21-dagebuell-by-RalfR-028.jpg [edit]

13-04-21-dagebuell-by-RalfR-028.jpg

  • Nomination Dagebüll, Germany, Ferry "Schleswig-Holstein" --Ralf Roletschek 10:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Malchen53 08:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeToo soft (e.g. lettering on the ferry). Biopics 18:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support There is absolutely no problem with the sharpness. Overall sharpness is very good (especially with regard to the high res) --Tuxyso 21:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is definitely a problem with sharpness here. You may want to check your monitor. Biopics 07:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI fo me --Moroder 08:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for mee too --Hic et nunc 10:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI fo me too --Christian Ferrer 18:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:13-04-13-st-poelten-landhausviertel-505.jpg [edit]

13-04-13-st-poelten-landhausviertel-505.jpg

  • Nomination St. Pölten, Austria, Landhausviertel --Ralf Roletschek 15:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment remove dust spot. See note. --Rjcastillo 19:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)✓OK corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 17:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rjcastillo 18:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNeeds perspective adjustment. Biopics 18:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see a real possibility to adjust perspective distorsion without corrupting the rest. For me QI.--Hic et nunc 14:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Hic et nunc -- Arcalino 08:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Drayton Park railway station MMB 11.jpg [edit]

Drayton Park railway station MMB 11.jpg

  • Nomination 3rd rail electrification at Drayton Park railway station. Mattbuck 22:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too much sharpened? The track looks like a saw. --Steindy 20:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    I understand what you mean, but I don't see it in that image. Mattbuck 19:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    You may want to wait a bit longer till the image has fully loaded. I can't see any jagging here. Biopics 07:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Bristol MMB «P0 Cabot Circus.jpg [edit]

Bristol MMB «P0 Cabot Circus.jpg

  • Nomination Cabot Circus, Bristol. Mattbuck 22:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Missing sharpness. --Steindy 20:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    I should probably have used a wider aperture, the focus is correct on the umbrella which is perfectly sharp. Mattbuck 19:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Ovella._Galiza.jpg [edit]

Ovella. Galiza.jpg

  • Nomination White sheep (ovis aries aries), Oroso --Lmbuga 11:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Species needed, sorry. --Kadellar 19:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I thought that all the sheeps was Ovis aries, but this sheep is a domestic one and it's ovis aries aries--Lmbuga 23:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
      • OK now, thanks for the research. --Kadellar 19:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rjcastillo 14:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Sortie_Soupapes_dégrippées_07-04-2013_-_Peugeot_203_-_clignotant.jpg [edit]

Sortie Soupapes dégrippées 07-04-2013 - Peugeot 203 - clignotant.jpg

  • Nomination Sortie Soupapes dégrippées 07-04-2013 - Peugeot 203 --Pleclown 11:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Missing proper description/categorization. Biopics 13:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC) This isn`t a reason for a contra. Good Picture --> Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 13:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yes it is:Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Image_page_requirements. Biopics 23:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    Have you seen that the description have been updatged since your first vote ? Pleclown 12:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC) and the title of the picture is enouth description. --Ralf Roletschek 13:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Grondin 12:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Sortie_Soupapes_dégrippées_07-04-2013_-_Peugeot_203_-_feux_arrières_et_pot_d'échappement.jpg [edit]

Sortie Soupapes dégrippées 07-04-2013 - Peugeot 203 - feux arrières et pot d'échappement.jpg

  • Nomination Sortie Soupapes dégrippées 07-04-2013 - Peugeot 203 --Pleclown 11:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Missing proper description/categorization. Biopics 13:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC) This isn`t a reason for a contra. Good Picture --> Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 13:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yes it is:Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Image_page_requirements. Biopics 23:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    Have you seen that the description have been updated since your first vote ? Pleclown 12:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Grondin 12:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Bristol MMB B7 SS Great Britain.jpg [edit]

Bristol MMB B7 SS Great Britain.jpg

  • Nomination The SS Great Britain. Mattbuck 01:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Picture is not sharp, the title is misleading --Manuela 10:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    In what way is the title misleading? Mattbuck 11:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    title does not matter, for me its QI Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 14:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me --Rjcastillo 18:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness is not breathtaking, but ok -- Smial 03:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Azure Window 2009.JPG [edit]

Azure Window 2009.JPG

  • Nomination The Azure Window in the west of Gozo island. -- Felix Koenig 17:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Very nice. -- Christian Ferrer 17:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown highlights and sharpening haloes. Biopics 20:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Pour. -- Christian Ferrer 04:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support 1/2 f-stop darker would be better. -- Smial 03:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Please don't use these templates, it is confusing for the bot. (corrected)--Jebulon 10:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Grondin 12:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Franzensburg_Schlosspark_Laxenburg.jpg [edit]

Franzensburg Schlosspark Laxenburg.jpg

  • Nomination The Franzensburg castle in Laxenburg, Lower Austria. -- Hendric Stattmann 13:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion WOW! Good quality. --Steinsplitter 14:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It needs a slight perspective correction. There's minor CA too. --Kadellar 15:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Cloud in the center overexposed. Needs perspective corrections. See notes.--Grondin 14:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK thank you for the proposed corrections. I will work on this, please allow a little time, as I am quite busy in my job right now. --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have now corrected perspective, tried to fix the remaining CA (as good as I could, I know it's not 100% perfect). The overexposed cloud was not possible to fix, it's blown out. IMHO a cloud has the right to be white... :-) -- Hendric Stattmann 08:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the rework. Perspective is now ok, CA is better but not so much. I don't oppose to QI but I don't support. --Kadellar 22:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with the cloud, but I'd retouch them (retouching has been done since the invention of photography) and noone can go there to check it ;-) --Moroder 09:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --High Contrast 14:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:13-04-21-dagebuell-by-RalfR-062.jpg [edit]

13-04-21-dagebuell-by-RalfR-062.jpg

  • Nomination port of dagebüll, Germany --Ralf Roletschek 12:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is frowned upon.(see guidelines). Biopics 12:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    No need to withdraw. Just some advice to spread you next nomination batch a bit more... Biopics 15:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    QI --Taxiarchos228 21:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, but file description unsufficient. -- Smial 02:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Stoke-on-Trent railway station MMB 18 221139.jpg [edit]

Stoke-on-Trent railway station MMB 18 221139.jpg

  • Nomination 221139 at Stoke-on-Trent. Mattbuck 10:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lacking sharpness; magenta CA --A.Savin 12:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    It doesn't appear to be unsharp to me. I can fix the CA if you give me a week or so - moving house so everything's a bit hectic. Mattbuck 10:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    My help is snoring in bed, so here you go. CA removed, sharpened. Mattbuck 22:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThere is a clearly visible scratches on the windshield, and the wiper. --Steindy 18:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    Scratches? What do you mean? Mattbuck 19:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    OK, so there's a scratch on the windscreen... what do you expect me to do about it? Reality is at fault, not the photo. Mattbuck 19:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    Is he seeing the jalousie holder? But it's not on the wiper. Or the shadow of the powerline? That's on the wiper of course. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ikar.us 18:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportThe thing marked as a "scratch" is clearly a part of the train (its partly covered by the wiper). --Dirtsc 18:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ikar.us 18:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Battersea Park railway station MMB 06 377145.jpg [edit]

Battersea Park railway station MMB 06 377145.jpg

  • Nomination 377145 at Battersea Park. Mattbuck 01:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Picture is not sharp --Manuela 10:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    The subject is in focus. Mattbuck 11:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMHO the dark areas are too much dark, (maybe too much contrast, I don't know), otherwise I support --Christian Ferrer 13:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose blurry. --High Contrast 00:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe whole picture lacks sharpness probably due to shaking, there are CAs eg at the edges of the handbag --Manuela61 06:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Covent Garden tube station MMB 01 1973-Stock.jpg [edit]

Covent Garden tube station MMB 01 1973-Stock.jpg

  • Nomination Covent Garden tube station. Mattbuck 01:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Picture is not sharp --Manuela 10:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    You're unlikely to get a better photo given the conditions. Mattbuck 11:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg SupportTaking into account the prevailing light conditions a very good picture. --Steindy 18:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeUse a tripod or a camera with better ISO capabilities, the image is very noisy too --Manuela61 06:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination) [edit]

Thu 09 May → Fri 17 May
Fri 10 May → Sat 18 May
Sat 11 May → Sun 19 May
Sun 12 May → Mon 20 May
Mon 13 May → Tue 21 May
Tue 14 May → Wed 22 May
Wed 15 May → Thu 23 May
Thu 16 May → Fri 24 May
Fri 17 May → Sat 25 May