Commons:Quality images candidates

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

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский
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 shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. 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]] 10:30, 31 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 31, 2014[edit]

October 30, 2014[edit]

October 29, 2014[edit]

October 28, 2014[edit]

October 27, 2014[edit]

October 26, 2014[edit]

October 25, 2014[edit]

October 24, 2014[edit]

October 23, 2014[edit]

October 22, 2014[edit]

October 21, 2014[edit]

October 20, 2014[edit]

October 19, 2014[edit]

October 18, 2014[edit]

October 17, 2014[edit]

October 16, 2014[edit]

October 11, 2014[edit]

October 10, 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:Knock_Out_IMG_3830.jpg[edit]

Knock Out IMG 3830.jpg

  • Nomination Rosa 'Knock Out' in the Volksgarten in Vienna. Identified by sign. --Hubertl 15:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Very good. --Livioandronico2013 16:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The leaf colour looks really strange to me. Anna reg 18:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment this is now the original, not processed file.--Hubertl 21:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, underexposed. Not QI IMO--Lmbuga 13:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Hubertl 08:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Lahore Fort view from Baradari.jpg[edit]

Lahore Fort view from Baradari.jpg

  • Nomination Lahore Fort in Lahore — top-10 finalists of WLM Pakistan 2014. (by User:Rohaan Bhatti) --Saqib 00:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Perspective correction needed. Can be corrected. Yann 14:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    I think this works as is. Mattbuck 23:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Kreuzkapelle_--_2014_--_2741.jpg[edit]

Dülmen, Kreuzkapelle -- 2014 -- 2741.jpg

  • Nomination Masonry of the Holy Cross chapel, Dülmen, Germany --XRay 03:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm not convinced of the sharpness. --Hockei 19:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed I tried to sharpened the image. Hopefully it's OK.--XRay 17:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Better, but I'm still not sure. We should discuss. --Hockei 21:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Head_of_Lion_on_Porta_Furba.jpg[edit]

Head of Lion on Porta Furba.jpg

  • Nomination Head of Lion on Porta Furba --Livioandronico2013 19:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not crisp, some overexposure. --Mattbuck 22:59, 29 Octoben pleaser 2014 (UTC)
    strong desagree, more sense opinions please --Livioandronico2013 23:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

File:P-rubtsova-7481.jpg[edit]

P-rubtsova-7481.jpg

  • Nomination Visitor admires the artistic exhibition in Pereslavl museum-preserve. --PereslavlFoto 08:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
  • Nice image. The permission of the person is missing. Why is this image categorized as "to be improved"? --XRay 08:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Because any non-QI image has to be improved. --PereslavlFoto 14:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO the image is tilted CW and the person in the background is too unfavorable. The composition with the thinking woman looks good, but IMO another would not help. Sorry. --XRay 06:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Not the image is tilted, but the paintings are fixed under some angle to vertical walls. Check the shadows Smile--PereslavlFoto 23:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment May you're right with the tilted image. I checked the window. IMO the main problem is the person in the background.--XRay 17:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
        • This is not about QI as technology, it's about composition. --PereslavlFoto 23:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Бюст_юноши_Ск._БАРАТТА_П..JPG[edit]

Бюст юноши Ск. БАРАТТА П..JPG

  • Nomination Летний сад, СПб. --Max A. Khlopov 12:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support crop tight and sky just ok, however ok for me --Christian Ferrer 12:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    Fails COM:FOP#Russia (which explicitly excludes sculpture). --Mattbuck 22:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    According to the catalog entry linked in the WLM-template (sorry, seems I can't link this here), the sculpture was created in 1719-1720, so it's probably old enough to be in the Public Domain, FOP or not. Should probably use {{Art Photo}} instead of {{Information}} though … --El Grafo 09:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Baños_del_Rey_y_de_la_Reina,_Bath,_Inglaterra,_2014-08-12,_DD_42.JPG[edit]

Baños del Rey y de la Reina, Bath, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 42.JPG

  • Nomination Roman Baths, Bath, England --Poco a poco 19:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    Quite a lot of CA, cyanotic sky. Mattbuck 18:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Not done Mattbuck 20:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Poco a poco 21:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    I feel it is QI now, please, let's discuss to avoid that the bot sweeps it Poco a poco 15:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the sky is not really better IMO.--Jebulon 21:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no lack at the sky. But the crop at the bottom is too tight for me and the perspective correction seems not to be the best. -- Spurzem 22:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Църква_св._Йоан_Канео,_Охрид.JPG[edit]

Църква св. Йоан Канео, Охрид.JPG

  • Nomination en:Church of St. John at Kaneo with lake Ohrid in the background, Ohrid, Macedonia. --Tropcho 09:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise, perspective distortion --A.Savin 16:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    The image is certainly not super sharp (probably as good as it gets with that camera). But regarding the perspective distortion - perhaps it's a matter of taste, but I don't think that it's hurting the shot in this case. I'd be happy if someone else would care to give additional feedback. Thanks! --Tropcho 22:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not enough detail on the main subject. --MB-one 13:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo17 Dianthus imereticus.jpg[edit]

Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem 10-2014 photo17 Dianthus imereticus.jpg

  • Nomination Dianthus imereticus in the Botanical Garden of Berlin --A.Savin 11:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 13:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background is too noisy for QI IMO. Maybe chromatic noise(?). --Hockei 13:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support: Quality is ok, but I would prefer a tighter crop. --MB-one 13:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Hockei --Livioandronico2013 14:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. As MB-one. The crop should be tighter. -- Spurzem 22:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nysa,_Dom_Wagi_Miejskiej_07.JPG[edit]

2014 Nysa, Dom Wagi Miejskiej 07.JPG

  • Nomination City Scales House in Nysa 2 --Jacek Halicki 22:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, but 70 nominations in 2 weeks is flooding.--Hubertl 07:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Set to Discussion; IMO you can only withdraw images which you have nominated. --P e z i 22:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMO, description in English wood be appreciated. --P e z i 10:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    • 🇬🇧...And maybe "would" should be more appreciated than "wood"...😃--Jebulon 21:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
      • To do a description "in English wood" is too problematic :) --Brateevsky 20:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good quality. Not Featured, maybe, but it's a QI at least. --Brateevsky 20:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nysa,_Dom_Wagi_Miejskiej_09.JPG[edit]

2014 Nysa, Dom Wagi Miejskiej 09.JPG

  • Nomination City Scales House in Nysa 3 --Jacek Halicki 22:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, but 70 nominations in 2 weeks is flooding.--Hubertl 07:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Set to Discussion; IMO you can only withdraw images which you have nominated. --P e z i 22:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nysa,_Dom_Wagi_Miejskiej_15.JPG[edit]

2014 Nysa, Dom Wagi Miejskiej 15.JPG

  • Nomination City Scales House in Nysa 4 --Jacek Halicki 22:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, but 70 nominations in 2 weeks is flooding.--Hubertl 07:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Set to Discussion; IMO you can only withdraw images which you have nominated. --P e z i 22:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If I am right we have no limit per nominator. -- Spurzem 18:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment STOP THIS ! Imo, QIC is becoming completely crazy ! Here we have a flooder, an illegal delister because of flooding, a CR pusher because of illicit withdrawn, and a support vote because "no limit per nominator" !!!!!! And what about the picture ? Does somebody have a technical opinion about it ? --Jebulon 20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes Sir, I have also an opinion on the image; the reason for "pushing" to CR was to avoid treatment by the bot. BTW Pictogram voting question.svg Question what is the correct behaviour in that case? Setting back to "Nomination"? --P e z i 09:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes I think so. Sorry, I apologize, I was a bit angry, you were not my "target" in this case, but the situation was a bit strange, wasn'nt it ?--Jebulon 21:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness is borderline, but still QI IMO. --P e z i 09:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Yamaha_XV_535_Virago.JPG[edit]

2014 Yamaha XV 535 Virago.JPG

  • Nomination Yamaha XV 535 Virago --Jacek Halicki 22:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, but 70 nominations in 2 weeks is flooding.--Hubertl 07:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Set to Discussion; IMO you can only withdraw images which you have nominated. --P e z i 22:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    If I remember right we saw only one photo of this Yamaha, which I would like a bit brighter. And that is no flooding for me. In my opinion nominations should be limited, for instance five per week of the same photographer. But we may not say by feeling: that is flooding and this is no flooding. -- Spurzem 13:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_ul._Sienkiewicza,_01.JPG[edit]

2014 Kłodzko, ul. Sienkiewicza, 01.JPG

  • Nomination Sienkiewicza Street in Kłodzko 1 --Jacek Halicki 22:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, but 70 nominations in 2 weeks is flooding.--Hubertl 07:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Set to Discussion; IMO you can only withdraw images which you have nominated. --P e z i 22:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_ul._Sienkiewicza,_02.JPG[edit]

2014 Kłodzko, ul. Sienkiewicza, 02.JPG

  • Nomination Sienkiewicza Street in Kłodzko 2 --Jacek Halicki 22:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, but 70 nominations in 2 weeks is flooding.--Hubertl 07:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Set to Discussion; IMO you can only withdraw images which you have nominated. --P e z i 22:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_ul._Sienkiewicza,_03.JPG[edit]

2014 Kłodzko, ul. Sienkiewicza, 03.JPG

  • Nomination Sienkiewicza Street in Kłodzko 3 --Jacek Halicki 22:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, but 70 nominations in 2 weeks is flooding.--Hubertl 07:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Set to Discussion; IMO you can only withdraw images which you have nominated. --P e z i 22:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The shadow in front is too disturbing.--Jebulon 20:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done I cutted this shadow. --Jacek Halicki 23:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Votivkirche (Обетная церковь).jpg[edit]

Votivkirche (Обетная церковь).jpg

  • Nomination Votivkirche, Обетная церковь.
    Max A. Khlopov 12:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)At first, it need an accurate description --Christian Ferrer 06:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Not done --Mattbuck 20:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)✓ Done--Max 20:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me this perspective have something pleasant IMO --Christian Ferrer 18:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Ayuntamiento,_Tallin,_Estonia,_2012-08-05,_DD_03.JPG[edit]

Ayuntamiento, Tallin, Estonia, 2012-08-05, DD 03.JPG

  • Nomination Gargoyle at the Town Hall, Tallinn, Estonia --Poco a poco 17:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion {{o}} Sorry, not QI IMO: artifacts, perhaps too much noise reduction and too much sharpened--Lmbuga 20:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Poco a poco 20:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Better, but the detail it's not good IMO, others can think--Lmbuga 21:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose main subject unsharp --Christian Ferrer 18:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Christian Ferrer.--Jebulon 20:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Reus-slogan-1409.jpg[edit]

Reus-slogan-1409.jpg

  • Nomination Independence slogan in Reus, Catalonia. --PereslavlFoto 21:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please check the image. IMO it needs perspective correction.--XRay 17:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    *Symbol support vote.svg Support Not an architectural photo, so perspective issue not disturbing. --Smial 11:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    It's a photo of a building, that makes it architectural. Perspective correction is something we ask of most photos, I don't see why this one would get a pass on that. --Mattbuck 19:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a photo of a poster, in which the building is only incidental accessory. -- Smial 13:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 13:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective issues (and btw, this is not really an "independence" slogan, but a demand for a vote.) --Jebulon 20:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The flags make us think they demand a vote against independence? --PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
      • 🇪🇸--Jebulon 21:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Kunak_Sabah_Mostyn-Cave-01.jpg[edit]

Kunak Sabah Mostyn-Cave-01.jpg

  • Nomination Kunak, Sabah: Entrance to Mostyn Cave. Because of it's location on the WWII Japanese Military Camp, it is also referred as "Japanese Tunnels" --Cccefalon 05:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood quality. --Livioandronico2013 07:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, the only part which is sharp is the wooden barrier in the foreground. --Hubertl 10:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    See the bright side, at least there's something QI. I hope that somebody don't insult me for this. However, we can discuss. Clin --Livioandronico2013 11:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    I shot a complete series of the cave. Some of the photos offer intentionally a focus in the foreground. I thought, it is very obvious that it is intentional to get the focus to the foreground when there is a sign board... I also completly disagree the statement that the only sharp is the barrier. This big red thing with the white letters, haven't you checked the sharpness of it? --Cccefalon 12:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

File:DC-TOWER_1_from_Danube_River_to_Northnorthwest_-_Vienna-4551.jpg[edit]

DC-TOWER 1 from Danube River to Northnorthwest - Vienna-4551.jpg

  • Nomination DC-Tower 1, view from Handelskai to northnorthwest --Hubertl 20:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentDust spot removed even here... --Hubertl 10:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Blue cast, and lack of contrast, IMO.--Jebulon 19:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • These are exactly the colors you will have at this time of the day - short after sunrise - in a distance of about 2.3 km. There is no strange blue in this picture. --Hubertl 17:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Paris - The Eiffel Tower in spring - 2307.jpg[edit]

Paris - The Eiffel Tower in spring - 2307.jpg

  • Nomination Eiffel Tower (by Jorgeroyan) --Paris 16 13:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The trees in front of the tower aren't nice. A few areas seem burned. Jakec 17:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    quality is good for me and composition is nice --Taxiarchos228 20:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    There's also purple and blue/green CA on the trees and red CA on the tower. Jakec 12:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, nice picture. I think it meets the QI criteria. --Code (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB «C2 Canary Wharf.jpg[edit]

London MMB «C2 Canary Wharf.jpg

  • Nomination Canary Wharf. Mattbuck 06:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too dark --Taxiarchos228 08:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • That would be because it was taken at night. --Mattbuck 23:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Too bright, streetlamps are blown :-) No, no, Symbol support vote.svg Support for me. --Kreuzschnabel 06:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support4metoo --Christian Ferrer 17:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Ship_procession_fresco,_part_4,_Akrotiri,_Greece.jpg[edit]

Ship procession fresco, part 4, Akrotiri, Greece.jpg

  • Nomination Ship procession fresco, part 4, Akrotiri, Greece. --Yann 19:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Lacks sharpness, sorry --Poco a poco 20:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    New version. Please check. --Yann 13:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    Better, but not at QI level IMHO, sorry, Poco a poco 19:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Ford_Mustang_Convertible_de_1968,_Helsinki,_Finlandia,_2012-08-14,_DD_01.JPG[edit]

Ford Mustang Convertible de 1968, Helsinki, Finlandia, 2012-08-14, DD 01.JPG

  • Nomination Ford Mustang Convertible of 1968, Helsinki, Finnland --Poco a poco 13:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion I am not convinced of this image: very tight crop, disturbing advertising of Texaco in the background, lop-sided pillars. We should discuss. -- Spurzem 17:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version with a bunch of improvements (but the Texaco sign) Poco a poco 19:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. --MB-one 13:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014.06.21.-25-Mannheim Rheinau--Kleiner Sonnenroeschen-Blaeuling.jpg[edit]

2014.06.21.-25-Mannheim Rheinau--Kleiner Sonnenroeschen-Blaeuling.jpg

  • Nomination Kleiner Sonnenröschen-Bläuling - Aricia agestis --Hockei 20:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO not sharp enough for this kind of image. --XRay 15:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You forget that these butterflies were in hectic motions. Please another opinions. --Hockei 18:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You're right. So it is difficult to take the photo of the butterflies. IMO 1/60 s is too long for this kind of photo.--XRay 06:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The compromise was to select F13 in order to get enough DOF. And that's borderline. Therefore the relatively long shutter time with flash. More opinions? --Hockei 08:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can see why you chose those settings, but in the end it's just not sharp enough for me. Great composition and beautiful colors, though! --El Grafo 09:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Olustvere mõisa peahoone, 1900-1915.a.a*.jpg[edit]

Olustvere mõisa peahoone, 1900-1915.a.a*.jpg

  • Nomination Olustvere manor main house (by A.palu) Kruusamägi 20:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good, but a bit tilted CCW--Lmbuga 20:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    Good quality, I cannot see tilted parts --Hubertl 12:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)It need description --Christian Ferrer 16:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • ok for description but 1 dustspot (see note) and both sides are leaning in a bit --Christian Ferrer 05:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ok, but it needs a little perspective correction. See notes. Vertical lines are not stright. Improvable--Lmbuga 20:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Roundabout_September_2014_12.jpg[edit]

Roundabout September 2014 12.jpg

  • Nomination Roundabout Vällingbyvägen/Råckstavägen. --ArildV 07:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 10:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    could the exposure be optimized? Additional Opinions? --Ehsc 10:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Did you have a opinion? If so, please explain.--ArildV 19:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image is underexposed. A correction is possible, so I'd like to change to support. --Alchemist-hp 19:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC) . Symbol support vote.svg Support I stike my oppose. --Alchemist-hp 17:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Thank you. New version uploaded.--ArildV 11:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI.--P e z i 22:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dirtsc 11:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Hotel_The_Rubens,_Londres,_Inglaterra,_2014-08-07,_DD_001.JPG[edit]

Hotel The Rubens, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-07, DD 001.JPG

  • Nomination The Rubens hotel, London, England --Poco a poco 10:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Top too unsharp. --Mattbuck 22:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Poco a poco 08:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    I think it's acceptable now, please let's discuss, please --Poco a poco 20:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective issue.--Jebulon 20:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Bystrzyca_Kłodzka,_Brama_Wodna_11.JPG[edit]

2014 Bystrzyca Kłodzka, Brama Wodna 11.JPG

  • Nomination Wodna Gate in Bystrzyca Kłodzka 8 --Jacek Halicki 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Noisy and unsharp at the top. --Mattbuck 22:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    noise isn't disturbing here in the dark areas, good QI for me --~~~~
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good quality. I have no insight for the criticism above. -- Spurzem 10:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose--MB-one 14:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Bazylika_Nawiedzenia_NMP_we_Frydku-Mistku_06.jpg[edit]

2014 Bazylika Nawiedzenia NMP we Frydku-Mistku 06.jpg

  • Nomination Basilica of the Visitation of Our Lady, Mariánské náměstí, Frýdek-Místek. Moravian-Silesian Region, Czech Republic. --Halavar 15:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    Lacking contrast, top very unsharp. Mattbuck 10:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion ✓ Done New version uploaded. Hope it's better now. --Halavar 18:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, but as with the other there's a strange horizontal graining. Mattbuck 20:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
overexposed areas from Picture


✓ Done Fixed. New version uploaded. Please take a look again. --Halavar 17:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Better, but there is still quite a bit of general noise/grain, and the top of the spire is not sharp. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Mattbuck 17:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not sure as well. --Hockei 15:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed. Yann 17:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's not true. Pleaae show us a printscreen from your software, showing us that this image has overexposed parts. I have 2, and both didn't show it. --Halavar 19:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed and/or blown-out lights. --Alchemist-hp 19:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version nuploaded. Hope it's better now. --Halavar 22:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me now!--Hubertl 14:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Brixner_Dom_Orgel_4.JPG[edit]

Brixner Dom Orgel 4.JPG

  • Nomination Organ of Brixen Cathedral --Uoaei1 06:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion slightly tilted and quite dark. --MB-one 10:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ fixed --Uoaei1 20:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    Now, it has weird effects at the window part. Maybe you want to ask for discussion. --MB-one 22:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done CAs removed at the window. More opinions please! --Uoaei1 07:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support--Hubertl 10:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

File:JasperCountyCourthouse_retouched.jpg[edit]

JasperCountyCourthouse retouched.jpg

  • Nomination Jasper County courthouse in Carthage, Missouri. --Kbh3rd 03:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support technical quality ok for QI. --MB-one 11:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --Livioandronico2013 22:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jebulon--Lmbuga 16:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If the clock isn't wrong, we look at a north facade, which will all time of the day be in shadow if the sun shines. Some very small overexposed spots, but ineglible. High contrast well handled, good detail also in shadows. The lighting shows the structures of the facade clearly. Good sharpness. -- Smial 18:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Hubertl 09:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose full per Jebulon. --Alchemist-hp 05:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Alchemist-hp 05:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Thu 23 Oct → Fri 31 Oct
Fri 24 Oct → Sat 01 Nov
Sat 25 Oct → Sun 02 Nov
Sun 26 Oct → Mon 03 Nov
Mon 27 Oct → Tue 04 Nov
Tue 28 Oct → Wed 05 Nov
Wed 29 Oct → Thu 06 Nov
Thu 30 Oct → Fri 07 Nov
Fri 31 Oct → Sat 08 Nov