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 • ‎svenska
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. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


Evaluating images[edit]

Any registered user, other than the author and the nominator, 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 February 2015 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]] 08:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.
The new rule is effective now. Please nominate only a maximum of 5 images per day. [2]

February 1, 2015[edit]

January 31, 2015[edit]

January 30, 2015[edit]

January 29, 2015[edit]

January 28, 2015[edit]

January 27, 2015[edit]

January 26, 2015[edit]

January 25, 2015[edit]

January 24, 2015[edit]

January 23, 2015[edit]

January 21, 2015[edit]

January 19, 2015[edit]

January 18, 2015[edit]

January 17, 2015[edit]

January 13, 2015[edit]

January 10, 2015[edit]

January 8, 2015[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:St-vincent sur jard , la côte (3).JPG[edit]

St-vincent sur jard , la côte (3).JPG

  • Nomination La côte vendéenne à Saint Vincent sur Jard, Vendée, France.PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 13:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    Right side rather blurry, general lack of sharpness. --Mattbuck 23:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC) < /br > ✓ Done cropping and improvement of the picture--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 17:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

File:St-vincent sur jard , la côte (1).JPG[edit]

St-vincent sur jard , la côte (1).JPG

  • Nomination La côte vendéenne à Saint Vincent sur Jard, Vendée, France.PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    clearly tilted --DXR 20:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)< br >Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for your note. Tilt is corrected -1 °.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 20:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality now --DXR 18:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Needs sharpening IMO. --Mattbuck 23:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)< /br > *✓ Done more sharpeness in the image--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

File:ESC2014_-_Austria_15.jpg[edit]

ESC2014 - Austria 15.jpg

  • Nomination Conchita Wurst from Austria performing her song in the first dress rehearsal for the second semi final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2014. --abbedabb 18:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Coyau 11:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For me too tight crop below. And what about the spots at the left and the right side? Are they parts of illumination? -- Spurzem 16:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Landratsamt Marburg-Cappel 3.jpg[edit]

Landratsamt Marburg-Cappel 3.jpg

  • Nomination District Office in Marburg --Hydro 07:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overall good quality. Can you please get the walls rectilinear? - yet, the are leaning out. Thanks, --Cccefalon 09:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you, I uploaded an improved version. --Hydro 09:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Ok now --Cccefalon 20:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Actually the right side is leaning out. --Mattbuck 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Porta_Pia_-_Statue_of_Saint_Alexander.jpg[edit]

Porta Pia - Statue of Saint Alexander.jpg

  • Nomination Porta Pia - Statue of Saint Alexander --Livioandronico2013 20:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The statue is slightly bluish and needs a correction of color. Also could the sharpness be better. --Steindy 21:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks --Livioandronico2013 13:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sharpness is better now, but the shade of blue is still available. --Steindy 00:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks --Livioandronico2013 13:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, no! Don't you see the heavy bluish? --Steindy 23:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    Really not,can you tell me where? Thanks.--Livioandronico2013 20:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Steindy,thanks for review --Livioandronico2013 14:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry  Not done --Steindy 00:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    Not done? Other please --Livioandronico2013 15:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion {{{2}}}

File:Livarot_(fromage)_06.jpg[edit]

Livarot (fromage) 06.jpg

  • Nomination Livarot (cow's milk cheese) --Coyau 10:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sharpness is not good around left top corner. --Zcebeci 11:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    What about this crop? --Coyau 11:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    Still needed a abit more (approx 200 px) crop at top. --Zcebeci 12:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Low DOF is in my opinion not a problem here, but the too soft lighting. Soft light is ok when depicting the whole object, but in macro mode it leads to low contrast, dull colors, and "flat" appearance. -- Smial 14:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the DoF and contrast combine to make this too weak and indistinct. -- Ram-Man 03:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Poplar DLR station MMB 04 103.jpg[edit]

Poplar DLR station MMB 04 103.jpg

  • Nomination Poplar DLR station. Mattbuck 07:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 18:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The left side is leaning. Also the train is not sharp. --Steindy 23:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Mattbuck 18:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 09:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Abbatiale_Saint-Gilles_12.jpg[edit]

Abbatiale Saint-Gilles 12.jpg

  • Nomination Abbey of Saint-Gilles, Saint-Gilles, Gard, France. --Christian Ferrer 06:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I really like most of your pictures, but I think in this case the distortion is simply too strong (and not fixable). --Code 09:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree, the distortion is normal Symbol support vote.svg Support, QI to me. --Ralf Roletschek 13:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support, QI to me, as Ralf --Milseburg 18:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Chevrolet_Corvette_Targa_de_1971,_Helsinki,_Finlandia,_2012-08-14,_DD_01.JPG[edit]

Chevrolet Corvette Targa de 1971, Helsinki, Finlandia, 2012-08-14, DD 01.JPG

  • Nomination Chevrolet Corvette Targa of 1971, Helsinki, Finnland --Poco a poco 19:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Autos mit Weitwinkel sind böse aber die Qualität stimmt. --Ralf Roletschek 20:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Gehört aber ein bisschen ansprechende und zweckmäßige Bildgestaltung nicht auch zu einem Qualitätsbild? Ich erinnere mich, dass hier Fotos wegen zu knappen Zuschnitts oder wegen eines leicht verzeichneten Gebäudes im Hintergrund abgelehnt wurden. Ich bitte um weitere Meinungen. -- Spurzem 23:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because of short focal distance the car is unrealisticly distortet. Further the pillar at the left would need a perspective correction. -- Spurzem 11:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version with several improvements (the focal length is hard to change, though) Poco a poco 19:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Katarinavägen_January_2015.jpg[edit]

Katarinavägen January 2015.jpg

  • Nomination The street Katarinavägen. Södermalm, Stockholm. --ArildV 19:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion There is a black curved stripe in top side of the image. --Zcebeci 21:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Easy to fix, small crop done. --ArildV 21:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC) @Zcebeci:--ArildV 14:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 11:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (115).jpg[edit]

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (115).jpg

  • Nomination Neunkirchen railwaystation. – Plasser & Theurer overhead lines service vehicle. --Steindy 00:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    Noticable CA. Mattbuck 22:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that new catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Purple CA on not copper areas --Christian Ferrer 07:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 22:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 11:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The slight CAs should be eliminated but they are negligible. -- Spurzem 17:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The slight CAs should must be eliminated before a promotion --Christian Ferrer 09:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Concesionario_de_Mercedes-Benz,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2013-03-30,_DD_24.JPG[edit]

Concesionario de Mercedes-Benz, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-03-30, DD 24.JPG

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz dealership, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 19:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Cccefalon 11:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree. Can you fix the tilt? Perhaps some perspective correction/rotation? --Colin 19:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA (red - green) -- Smial 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version Poco a poco 21:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful photo taken in the night---PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good after rework. The small burnt highlights and reflections are acceptable and unavoidable. -- Smial 12:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Jamides celeno 01591.JPG[edit]

Jamides celeno 01591.JPG

  • Nomination Jamides celeno --Vengolis 17:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion At f/4 @ 250 iso the DoF is very shallow. This should have been taken at f/5.6 @ 500 iso, or even f/8. That said, for QI it's just enough. --Ram-Man 02:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think all the purple areas are CAs and are black in reality --Christian Ferrer 12:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The colors look like original but the submarginal areas on forewing's apex is unsharp. --Zeynel Cebeci 08:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too much no natural purple (fringe) areas on the on the head and legs, see this and read this --Christian Ferrer 09:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Cambodge.- la cité lacustre de Saray, (3).jpg[edit]

Cambodge.- la cité lacustre de Saray, (3).jpg

  • Nomination la cité lacustre de Saray, Tonlé Sap Cambodge.PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. A little bit unsharp. --XRay 16:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Very unsharp! --Mattbuck 22:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done sharpening in the image.- Please care to take another look?--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    While mildly better, this is still a long way from the sharpness I expect from a QI. Mattbuck 18:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Take care not to oversharpen, but I think good enough. Ram-Man 12:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 14:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 23:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Cambodge.- la cité lacustre de Saray, (4).jpg[edit]

Cambodge.- la cité lacustre de Saray, (4).jpg

  • Nomination la cité lacustre de Saray, Tonlé Sap Cambodge.PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Smoke on the right is a little bit disturbing. --XRay 16:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    Tilted (see roof), too blue. --Mattbuck 22:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC) *✓ DoneThanks, I' ve corrected inclination of 2°. Please care to take another look?-- Pierre André (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 14:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit blue but QI for me -- Spurzem 23:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Hue_Vietnam_Citadel-of-Huế-19.jpg[edit]

Hue Vietnam Citadel-of-Huế-19.jpg

  • Nomination Hue, Vietnam: Yellow painted wall within the Imperial palace in Hue‎ --Cccefalon 06:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry I do not think this picture is QI--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 23:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    Declining a photo should come with an explanation, which of the photographic rules are not met. --Cccefalon 07:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Too much yellow, and too less contrast!--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear, when someone sends a photo to discussion, then please do not play god and revert it to decline. And I find it very funny to complain, that a yellow wall has too much yellow. --Cccefalon 10:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info It is a detail view of the yellow painted house, where I recently uploaded a detail view of the windows. Asking for more contrast in an almost evenly painted background image cannot be resolved. So far, I do not comply with your reasons for decline. --Cccefalon 10:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Zizula hylax in Nayikayam Thattu.jpg[edit]

Zizula hylax in Nayikayam Thattu.jpg

  • Nomination Zizula hylax (Tiny Grass Blue) Jkadavoor 07:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Joydeep 08:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree: Relatively large blurred area on flowers on left side. --Zcebeci 15:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Calliptamus_barbarus_on_Opuntia_stricta,_Sète_03.jpg[edit]

Calliptamus barbarus on Opuntia stricta, Sète 03.jpg

  • Nomination Calliptamus barbarus (Occitan Grasshopper) on a Opuntia stricta (Erect Prickly Pear) --Christian Ferrer 05:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jkadavoor 07:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The main subject is too small relative to the total area of the image. --Bff 15:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    acceptable IMO, my subject is a young and have a size of only a few mimimeters high, at this distance it is impossible to have a good DoF thus the sharp area is small, a crop will change nothing --Christian Ferrer 18:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Poertschach Landspitz Passagierschiffe Thalia und Klagenfurt 27092014 883.jpg[edit]

Poertschach Landspitz Passagierschiffe Thalia und Klagenfurt 27092014 883.jpg

  • Nomination Passenger ships "Thalia" and “Klagenfurt” with the Pyramid Ballon in the background, Poertschach, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 04:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice but burned out overexposed areas on the main subject, not fixable, also dustspots (see notes) --Christian Ferrer 05:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    * Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree. Some problems are fixable, some are not so relevant, beeing QI --Hubertl 08:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hubertl, It will be good that you don't vote in QIC page for images that you edited, and if there is no rules IMO it's needeed. --Christian Ferrer 12:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    Please accept, that people may have a complete different approach to wikimedia projects. My approach is striktly a collaborative one. This implies, that people are working together not only for themselves, but for the project itself and not against. If you once have made almost 130k of edits, you will understand this. Maybe. --Hubertl 01:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I had a (very-very) large hours editing the images of others and no one can say my approach is not collaborative (or less collaborative than yours), and most of the images I edited have been promoted here and at least a more of a dozen at FPC, but on this page where one vote means a lot when I am involved in the editing an image I try to stay back because it is my work that is potentially found and judged here. Because a bad edit, I don't say it's the case here, but a bad edit can make a potential good image not QI, so the editor must stay neutral. It is my collaborative opinion on that subject. And most of the users in this page already apply this very collaborative way to work. --Christian Ferrer 07:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
And the fact that you, the editor, take here the freedom to support this work without trying to correct the defects I mentioned is not at all a collaborative work. --Christian Ferrer 08:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Natural brightness is not overexposed for me. The dust spot of course should be eliminated. -- Spurzem 23:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
If everyone support saying the defects should be corrected, this images will be promoted without that defects will be corrected. --Christian Ferrer 08:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
See also that --Christian Ferrer 08:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

File:AT-20134_Empress_Elisabeth_monument_(Volksgarten)_-hu-_3844.jpg[edit]

AT-20134 Empress Elisabeth monument (Volksgarten) -hu- 3844.jpg

  • Nomination Fountain at the Empress Elisabeth monument (Volksgarten) --Hubertl 23:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 10:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree. Bad focus and composition. Foreground (the fountain itself) unsharp. Central object in the sharp background hidden by unsharp elements of the foreground. --Smial 11:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:A-20126_Erzherzog_Karl-Denkmal_-_Heldenplatz_Wien_-hu-_6326.jpg[edit]

A-20126 Erzherzog Karl-Denkmal - Heldenplatz Wien -hu- 6326.jpg

  • Nomination Archduke Carl Ludwig Johann Joseph Laurentius von Österreich, in the background the Church of the Minoriten. --Hubertl 23:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree: In front, the main subject of the photo is not clear and blurred technically. --Zcebeci 16:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As part of the composition, I think that the statue in the foreground should be in focus, but even if it was chosen deliberately to be out of focus, it dominates the picture and IMHO it detracts more than it adds. --C messier 15:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 14:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The „blurred“ foreground is part of the highly successful composition. --Steindy 23:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Glaucium_sp._08.jpg[edit]

Glaucium sp. 08.jpg

  • Nomination Grand-flowered Horned Poppy (Glaucium grandiflorum). Bolkar Mts. TR --Zeynel Cebeci 22:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC) * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, your actual review/nomination rate is 0:18 --Hubertl 23:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The lighting could be a little "harsher" for more contrast, but it's more than adequate. --Ram-Man 02:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Done, thanks for your comments --Zcebeci 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose artefacts in all the image --Christian Ferrer 18:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • still Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice but oversharpened (sharpened noise visible all over the leaves). Ought to be re-done. --Kreuzschnabel 05:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

File:PlayaLaPerlaNorte.jpg[edit]

PlayaLaPerlaNorte.jpg

  • Nomination La Perla Norte Beach, Mar del Plata, Argentina --Ezarate 13:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Its a matter of respect to review your pictures befor nomination. Its extremely tilted. --Hubertl 23:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done I tried to repare it Ezarate 22:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK now. (Who put this on Discuss? There are no diverting opinions.) --Kreuzschnabel 15:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I put it on Discuss when I fixed the picture Ezarate 14:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No need for that, just leave it in the daily section next time (having added a "done" note), it will be re-reviewed then. Discussion is only necessary if two reviewers do not agree. --Kreuzschnabel 20:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Berwick-upon-Tweed MMB 33.jpg[edit]

Berwick-upon-Tweed MMB 33.jpg

  • Nomination Viewpoint near Berwick-upon-Tweed. Mattbuck 06:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. --Halavar 09:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too low DOF. Really sharp is only the front of the photo. --Steindy 23:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    The middle-distance is still perfectly sharp. Mattbuck 08:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The background being so unsharp is disturbing me, too. Not convinced yet. Sharpness still decreases generally towards the right. --Kreuzschnabel 15:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Beeston railway station MMB 38 222016.jpg[edit]

Beeston railway station MMB 38 222016.jpg

  • Nomination 222016 at Beeston. Mattbuck 06:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Bgag 15:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Right side leaning to left. --Steindy 23:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I believe I took my verticals from the bridge, as that seemed more likely to be straight than old wooden shelters on a sloped platform. Mattbuck 08:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Check again – the (assumed) lamp post and the column of the way out stairs are leaning in, too. --Kreuzschnabel 15:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I've done a correction - the post still leans, but I'd be surprised if it didn't, they're incredibly bad for verticals. Mattbuck 22:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK now for me. Really hard to decide what’s vertical in reality here. Would you mind going back there armed with a water level to check thoroughly? --Kreuzschnabel 05:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
            Unfortunately I don't have need to travel to Nottingham anymore, but maybe one day. I do have an old friend who allegedly lives near the station. Mattbuck 19:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Verticals seems perfect (in my experience, lamp posts are often leaning indeed). Dark parts a little bit disturbing, especially at the right. But still QI. -- MJJR 14:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Calliptamus_barbarus_on_Opuntia_stricta,_Sète_02.jpg[edit]

Calliptamus barbarus on Opuntia stricta, Sète 02.jpg

File:Camaricus formosus 07109.JPG[edit]

Camaricus formosus 07109.JPG

File:Calliptamus_barbarus_on_Opuntia_stricta,_Sète_01.jpg[edit]

Calliptamus barbarus on Opuntia stricta, Sète 01.jpg

  • Nomination Calliptamus barbarus (Occitan Grasshopper) on a Opuntia stricta (Erect Prickly Pear). --Christian Ferrer 09:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The grasshopper is too small and in many parts not sharp. --Steindy 00:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    It's a young Grasshopper, and it is indeed very small, less than 1 cm long; as you can see on the other images if I get closer the DoF decreases a lot and some other rewiewers will say too small DoF... and regarding the crop it is acceptable, the composition too. It is QI IMO. --Christian Ferrer 06:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Suchum,_Małpiarnia,_Makak_rezus_(03).jpg[edit]

2014 Suchum, Małpiarnia, Makak rezus (03).jpg

  • Nomination The rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta). Apery. Research Institute of Experimental Pathology and Therapy, Academy of Sciences of Abkhazia. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 01:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Cayambe 17:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The ape is only in the eyes sharp and the hands and feet are cutted. --Steindy 00:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Steindy. Not a favourable image of this animal. --Kreuzschnabel 15:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Pennsylvnia Route 339 in Mifflinville.JPG[edit]

Pennsylvnia Route 339 in Mifflinville.JPG

  • Nomination Pennsylvania Route 339. Jakec 00:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO a better crop is necessary.--XRay 10:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    Specifically? Jakec 17:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Let's ask for another opinion.--XRay 16:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO the empty area at the bottom is too big.--XRay 06:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Pennsylvania Route 254 north of Rohrsburg.JPG[edit]

Pennsylvania Route 254 north of Rohrsburg.JPG

  • Nomination Pennsylvania Route 254. Jakec 00:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO a better crop is necessary.--XRay 10:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Personally, I like this one the way it is. Jakec 17:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Let's ask for another opinion.--XRay 16:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with XRay that another crop would be better, but I think that this version still meets QI standards. --Code 06:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a crop to square may be better? --Ralf Roletschek 14:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

St-vincent sur jard , la côte (2).JPG

  • Nomination La côte vendéenne à Saint Vincent sur Jard, Vendée, France.PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 16:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted. Please correct this faults before you nominate pictures like this. As a matter of respect! I am not here to discuss such errors! --Hubertl 21:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry - This is an unfortunate mistake on my part ✓ Fixed It's now right. Thanks for your review..--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It´s ok for me now.--Hubertl 04:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Löwenzahn Entwicklungsstadium (Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia).JPG[edit]

Löwenzahn Entwicklungsstadium (Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia).JPG

  • Nomination Common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale)--NoRud 16:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion to evaluate please
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the quality is ok, try to crop it on the left side, the composition is getting much better. Will be QI for me then.--Hubertl 10:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done settled,to evaluate please new
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral No signatures. Who is talking here to the reviewers? --Cccefalon 13:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done settled,to evaluate please new.--NoRud 14:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A really nice picture, the composition now is great! --Hubertl 17:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Nilgänse (Alopochen aegyptiacus).JPG[edit]

Nilgänse (Alopochen aegyptiacus).JPG

  • Nomination Egyptian goose (Alopochen aegyptiacus)--NoRud 16:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Image should be in the proper category (or categories). There shouldn't be any red links in the categories. Also, when you use English language template, the names should be in English, not in German language. --Halavar 18:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Donesettled,to evaluate please
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment try to make a tighter crop to concentrate more on the subject. Its QI then for me.--Hubertl 10:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done settled,to evaluate please new
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral No signatures. --Cccefalon 13:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done settled,to evaluate please new.--NoRud 14:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it now! QI for me!--Hubertl 17:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Blässhuhn (Fulica atra) young bird.JPG[edit]

Blässhuhn (Fulica atra) young bird.JPG

  • Nomination Eurasian coot (Fulica atra) young bird. --NoRud 16:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion I think "discuss" isn't needed until "promotion" or "support" collides with "oppose", but no problem: Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The water confused me in full size, but I like a ~1300×1000 crop (bird with its mirror at the bottom). Funny colours. –Be..anyone 23:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Donesettled,to evaluate please new
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral No signatures. --Cccefalon 13:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done settled,to evaluate please new.--NoRud 14:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, now fine. –Be..anyone 07:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (124).jpg

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

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

  • I don´t know what the problem is: simple technical corrections are not co-authoring at all, we don´t promote people, we assess pictures. Or do you want to punish people, because they don´t have professional software? Or do you want to foil the idea of helping hands of Wikipedia? Or maybe, its simply personal because of me, @Smial:? --Hubertl 10:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • (writes the guy, who prohibits any changes to his own uploads: "Please do not upload an updated image here without consultation with the Author." - a limitation that does not really match common practices. --Smial 11:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC))
    • You name it: We assess pictures, we do (usually) not edit them but leave this to the author (sometimes edits go the wrong way as you see in the contributions here saying this image was better in the original state). And of course you’re making yourself co-author by performing optimizing measures to an image (at least by contributing your personal opinion of what the image should look like). In case the author wants his picture optimized and does not himself have the skills and/or tools to do so, there’s the photography workshop to consult. QIC is the wrong place for that. --Kreuzschnabel 14:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Deutsch: Zur Kenntnis: Ich werde an meinen Fotos gar nichts, aber überhaupt nichts mehr ändern! Ihr könnt diese Diskussion sofort schließen. Ich habe eingesehen, dass - egal ob Porträts, Fußball-, Eisenbahn- oder Denkmalfotos - ich nur beschissenen Pixelmüll produziere, die den geforderten Standards nicht stand halten. Ich werde euch deshalb mit meinen unscharfen, verwischten, CA verseuchten, farb rauschigen Fotos nicht mehr auf QI belöästigen. Ich habe meine Lektion gelernt und ich bin diese Diskussionen, die nur darauf abzielen, die Arbeit von Fotografen schlecht zu machen, einfach müde und ich lasse mich auch nicht fertig machen. Ich werde daher hier nur mehr als (manchmal auch strenger) Kritiker in auftreten, so wie ich es von manchen anderen Benutzern gelernt habe.
English: Note: I will do nothing, but nothing at all to change in my photos! You can immediately conclude this discussion. I've seen that - whether portrait-, football-, rail- or monument-photos - I just shitty pixel garbage produce that was not the required standards maintained. I will therefore no longer belöästigen with my blurred, blurring, CA-polluted, noisy, cromatic noisy photos on QI. I've learned my lesson and I am these discussions, the only aim to make the work of photographers bad, just tired and I will not even get ready. I will therefore occur only over (sometimes severe) critics, as I have learned it from some other users.
Regards --Steindy 22:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Calliptamus_barbarus_on_Opuntia_stricta,_Sète_04.jpg[edit]

Calliptamus barbarus on Opuntia stricta, Sète 04.jpg

  • Nomination Calliptamus barbarus (Occitan Grasshopper) on a Opuntia stricta (Erect Prickly Pear). Close view. --Christian Ferrer 09:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too shallow DoF IMO, not a QI to me. --Poco a poco 12:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For a 15mpx image of a subject about 5mm high, I'm not sure the DOF is so bad. --Christian Ferrer 18:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
About 1700×1600 could show only the grasshopper, clearer than 05. –Be..anyone 08:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed more you get closer, more the subject is big but more the DoF decreases. I did not nominate your exemple because the subject is a bit out of focus. But on this one the head is in focus and sharp enough, it's QI for me. --Christian Ferrer 11:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small DOF. --Steindy 22:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Clapton-in-Gordano MMB 14 M5.jpg[edit]

Clapton-in-Gordano MMB 14 M5.jpg

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

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

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

File:Abbatiale_Saint-Gilles_08.jpg[edit]

Abbatiale Saint-Gilles 08.jpg

  • Nomination Abbey of Saint-Gilles, Saint-Gilles, Gard, France. --Christian Ferrer 15:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective distortion. --Steindy 00:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In my defense it's the wall that you can see here on the left and as you can see there is a fence so I could not back and the lens focal length is at its wider position (14mm). It was for me impossible to take an entire face view of this wall without a perspective distortion and unfortunately I do not know make photo assemblies. But of course it change nothing and maybe it is not a QI. --Christian Ferrer 12:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The distortion appears wavy and very difficult to correct. Otherwise it's of nice high quality. I may be in the minority regarding this type of distortion, but I think it's QI anyway. Ram-Man 13:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, per Steindy. Distortion is too strong. Maybe a VI anyways. --Code 06:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I now have looked at this picture now three or four times, but I can´t find any realistic solution. It´s just distorted.--Hubertl 04:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Suchum,_Pomnik_przy_nabrzeżu.jpg[edit]

2014 Suchum, Pomnik przy nabrzeżu.jpg

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

File:2014_Suchum,_Pomnik_Efrema_Eszby_(01).jpg[edit]

2014 Suchum, Pomnik Efrema Eszby (01).jpg

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

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

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

  • Nomination la cité lacustre de Saray, Tonlé Sap Cambodge.PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry, the boat is unsharp. --Dnalor 01 10:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for your note, I corrected sharpness on the boat --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Okay maybe, but the people on the boat are not sharp anyway, sorry. --Dnalor 01 11:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    OK! but people were moving on this boat--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - While the background is sharp (albeit in need of perspective correction - left is vertical, right is not), the subject is at once unsharp, blurred and oversharpened. Mattbuck 19:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Alstom_Citadis_302_n°840_Boulingrin_ASTUCE_-_Florian_Fèvre.JPG[edit]

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

  • Nomination Tramway de Rouen --Billy69150 10:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    Left side leaining in Poco a poco 13:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Not done --Mattbuck 23:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done --Billy69150 12:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    Still leaning in, and I think the bottom crop is too tight. Mattbuck 17:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done (Perspective correction) --Billy69150 20:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the last version Poco a poco 19:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 15:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC) I don't understand Mattbuck's criticism.

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

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

  • Nomination Chafariz da Rua Escura, Porto, Portugal --Poco a poco 17:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overexposed sky. --Mattbuck 22:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ New version maybe, but very correctible and IMHO not relevant Poco a poco 19:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    No feedback, please, let me move it to CR. I think it meets QI --Poco a poco 18:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it OK for QI.--Hubertl 05:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks too dark and blueish. Regards, Yann 09:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
    Not really sure, but just uploaded a new version (brigther and warmer) Poco a poco 22:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Le lac chambon (5).JPG[edit]

Le lac chambon (5).JPG

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

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

File:Engels-Hof_12.jpg[edit]

Engels-Hof 12.jpg

  • Nomination Communal housing project buildings “Engelsplatzhof” (“Engels-Hof”) at Friedrich-Engels-Platz 1-10, Brigittenau, Vienna, Austria --Thomas Ledl 22:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 22:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dark, too tight a crop at the bottom. --Mattbuck 00:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I made the photo lighter. ok now? --Thomas Ledl 20:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (165).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – A ÖBB-Railjet passes the station on the new track 1. The tracks 2 and 4 are removed. --Steindy 00:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support One of the most beautiful trains on our planet. Gorgeous! --Johann Jaritz 04:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA throughout image, pylons which I'd assume should be vertical appear to be leaning. --Mattbuck 00:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 01:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 23:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am quite aware of that, but unless the gantries and signals are made of some material which oxidises to purple on one side and green on the other, there's chromatic aberration. Mattbuck 08:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until CAs is fixed --Christian Ferrer 08:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Deutsch: Zur Kenntnis: Ich werde an meinen Fotos gar nichts, aber überhaupt nichts mehr ändern! Ihr könnt diese Diskussion sofort schließen. Ich habe eingesehen, dass - egal ob Porträts, Fußball-, Eisenbahn- oder Denkmalfotos - ich nur beschissenen Pixelmüll produziere, die den geforderten Standards nicht stand halten. Ich werde euch deshalb mit meinen unscharfen, verwischten, CA verseuchten, farb rauschigen Fotos nicht mehr auf QI belöästigen. Ich habe meine Lektion gelernt und ich bin diese Diskussionen, die nur darauf abzielen, die Arbeit von Fotografen schlecht zu machen, einfach müde und ich lasse mich auch nicht fertig machen. Ich werde daher hier nur mehr als (manchmal auch strenger) Kritiker in auftreten, so wie ich es von manchen anderen Benutzern gelernt habe.
English: Note: I will do nothing, but nothing at all to change in my photos! You can immediately conclude this discussion. I've seen that - whether portrait-, football-, rail- or monument-photos - I just shitty pixel garbage produce that was not the required standards maintained. I will therefore no longer belöästigen with my blurred, blurring, CA-polluted, noisy, cromatic noisy photos on QI. I've learned my lesson and I am these discussions, the only aim to make the work of photographers bad, just tired and I will not even get ready. I will therefore occur only over (sometimes severe) critics, as I have learned it from some other users.
Regards --Steindy 22:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Soweit ich sehe, hat die Mehrzahl deiner Nominationen den QI-Stempel bekommen. Insofern kann ich deine Äußerung nur einer sehr selektiven Wahrnehmung zuschreiben. Fassen wir etwas vereinfacht zusammen: Drei deiner Bilder werden ohne Einspruch promotet, das vierte bekommt etwas Gegenwind, und schon tobst du herum, man würde deine Bilder allgemein für wertlosen Pixelmüll halten. Mit so einer – entschuldigung – idiotischen (im Wortsinn: ich-bezogenen) Einstellung wirst du auf QI garantiert nicht glücklich. Glaub doch einfach mal, daß dich keiner hier fertigmachen will. Wir geben alle nur unsere Meinung zu deinen Bildern ab. Wenn du deine Bilder nur für dich machst, okay. Wenn du deine Bilder machst, damit andere sie betrachten und benutzen, dann solltest du auch das ernst nehmen, was sie dir dazu rückmelden. Nur auf diese Weise wird man besser. Ich habe hier auch schon oft eigene Nominationen um die Ohren geschlagen bekommen. Dann habe ich mir das Bild nochmal vorgenommen und in jedem Fall eingesehen, daß die Kritiker recht hatten, das war wirklich noch nicht so gut, wie es hätte sein können. Man selbst ist bei seinen Werken immer irgendwie betriebsblind, deshalb ist es gut, sich dem Urteil anderer zu stellen. Nur so wird man besser. Oder man beharrt auf dem Standpunkt „Meine Bilder sind gut, und ihr seid nur zu blöd, um das zu erkennen“ – dann wird man eben nicht besser. Deine Entscheidung. --Kreuzschnabel 05:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (166).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – A ÖBB-Railjet passes the station. --Steindy 00:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. CA everywhere. But, stop, may be all new copper pylons? Jetzt weiß ich auch nicht. --Smial 10:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes Smail, you're absolutely right. These are not new catenary mooring, therefore, are also CAs to see; The photos and description of the image are only randomly labeled „total reconstruction“ of the station. You know, the ÖBB are so stupid and backward to the old catenary system down cut at a total reconstruction of a railway station in a meter lengths to then stitch it back together and hang again. In a contact wire cross-section of 120 mm2 one is quite simple. And as the contact wire rope depends on the support, this course must also have the appropriate section. So it is important to have no idea, but still give its „qualified comment“. For this to be able to read as many users, I do not put the photo on Withdrawn so that others can delight in it. That's what happens when you want another user to bash. --Steindy 23:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Kleine Englisch-Nachhilfe: Du meintest „when you want to bash another user“. Das, was du geschrieben hast, heißt auf Deutsch „wenn du willst, daß ein anderer User [wen auch immer] basht“.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA everywhere, even the insulators are green on one side and purple on the other. And I think the ÖBB are wise enough not to use insulators made of copper. --Kreuzschnabel 19:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry Kreuzschnabel, dass ich nicht so perfekt Englich kann wie du. Bei mir ist es immerhin schon mehr als 45 Jahre her, dass ich Englischunterricht hatte. And yes, you did also correctly detect: "ÖBB are wise enough not to use insulators made of copper". They are made of brown porcelain, but the switches are also made of copper. --Steindy 02:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
      • So, the CA on the insulators can hardly be explained the usual way. --Kreuzschnabel 11:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Das mit dem Englisch war kein Angriff, das war ein freundlich gemeinter Hinweis, du brauchst dich nicht gleich zu verteidigen und dich schon gar nicht bei mir zu entschuldigen. Ich entschuldige mich meinerseits dafür, dich auf einen Punkt hingewiesen zu haben, an dem man dich mißverstehen könnte. Soll nicht wieder vorkommen. --Kreuzschnabel 12:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Deutsch: Zur Kenntnis: Ich werde an meinen Fotos gar nichts, aber überhaupt nichts mehr ändern! Ihr könnt diese Diskussion sofort schließen. Ich habe eingesehen, dass - egal ob Porträts, Fußball-, Eisenbahn- oder Denkmalfotos - ich nur beschissenen Pixelmüll produziere, die den geforderten Standards nicht stand halten. Ich werde euch deshalb mit meinen unscharfen, verwischten, CA verseuchten, farb rauschigen Fotos nicht mehr auf QI belöästigen. Ich habe meine Lektion gelernt und ich bin diese Diskussionen, die nur darauf abzielen, die Arbeit von Fotografen schlecht zu machen, einfach müde und ich lasse mich auch nicht fertig machen. Ich werde daher hier nur mehr als (manchmal auch strenger) Kritiker in auftreten, so wie ich es von manchen anderen Benutzern gelernt habe.
English: Note: I will do nothing, but nothing at all to change in my photos! You can immediately conclude this discussion. I've seen that - whether portrait-, football-, rail- or monument-photos - I just shitty pixel garbage produce that was not the required standards maintained. I will therefore no longer belöästigen with my blurred, blurring, CA-polluted, noisy, cromatic noisy photos on QI. I've learned my lesson and I am these discussions, the only aim to make the work of photographers bad, just tired and I will not even get ready. I will therefore occur only over (sometimes severe) critics, as I have learned it from some other users.
Regards --Steindy 22:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
PS:Special thanks to Smial and Kreuzschnabel (hoffentlcih habe ich wenigstens dies in verständlichem Englisch geschrieben)

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

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (154).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – Removal of the old platform 3/4. --Steindy 00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me --Hubertl 01:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    Noticable CA. --Mattbuck 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Copper is reddish. It then oxidises to green. It does not however turn blue or purple. Mattbuck 08:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Deutsch: Zur Kenntnis: Ich werde an meinen Fotos gar nichts, aber überhaupt nichts mehr ändern! Ihr könnt diese Diskussion sofort schließen. Ich habe eingesehen, dass - egal ob Porträts, Fußball-, Eisenbahn- oder Denkmalfotos - ich nur beschissenen Pixelmüll produziere, die den geforderten Standards nicht stand halten. Ich werde euch deshalb mit meinen unscharfen, verwischten, CA verseuchten, farb rauschigen Fotos nicht mehr auf QI belöästigen. Ich habe meine Lektion gelernt und ich bin diese Diskussionen, die nur darauf abzielen, die Arbeit von Fotografen schlecht zu machen, einfach müde und ich lasse mich auch nicht fertig machen. Ich werde daher hier nur mehr als (manchmal auch strenger) Kritiker in auftreten, so wie ich es von manchen anderen Benutzern gelernt habe.
English: Note: I will do nothing, but nothing at all to change in my photos! You can immediately conclude this discussion. I've seen that - whether portrait-, football-, rail- or monument-photos - I just shitty pixel garbage produce that was not the required standards maintained. I will therefore no longer belöästigen with my blurred, blurring, CA-polluted, noisy, cromatic noisy photos on QI. I've learned my lesson and I am these discussions, the only aim to make the work of photographers bad, just tired and I will not even get ready. I will therefore occur only over (sometimes severe) critics, as I have learned it from some other users.
Regards --Steindy 22:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
PS: With special thank to Mattbuck

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

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (160).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – Removal of the old platform 3/4. --Steindy 00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    Noticable CA, lacking sharpness. --Mattbuck 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that new catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is a lots of magenta & green CA on the left side of the image (see the notes). Also the image is tilted to the right and needs a perspective correction. All these flaws can be fixed. --Halavar 01:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until CAs is fixed --Christian Ferrer 08:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Deutsch: Zur Kenntnis: Ich werde an meinen Fotos gar nichts, aber überhaupt nichts mehr ändern! Ihr könnt diese Diskussion sofort schließen. Ich habe eingesehen, dass - egal ob Porträts, Fußball-, Eisenbahn- oder Denkmalfotos - ich nur beschissenen Pixelmüll produziere, die den geforderten Standards nicht stand halten. Ich werde euch deshalb mit meinen unscharfen, verwischten, CA verseuchten, farb rauschigen Fotos nicht mehr auf QI belöästigen. Ich habe meine Lektion gelernt und ich bin diese Diskussionen, die nur darauf abzielen, die Arbeit von Fotografen schlecht zu machen, einfach müde und ich lasse mich auch nicht fertig machen. Ich werde daher hier nur mehr als (manchmal auch strenger) Kritiker in auftreten, so wie ich es von manchen anderen Benutzern gelernt habe.
English: Note: I will do nothing, but nothing at all to change in my photos! You can immediately conclude this discussion. I've seen that - whether portrait-, football-, rail- or monument-photos - I just shitty pixel garbage produce that was not the required standards maintained. I will therefore no longer belöästigen with my blurred, blurring, CA-polluted, noisy, cromatic noisy photos on QI. I've learned my lesson and I am these discussions, the only aim to make the work of photographers bad, just tired and I will not even get ready. I will therefore occur only over (sometimes severe) critics, as I have learned it from some other users.
Regards --Steindy 22:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (156).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – Auger and sheet piling are ready to build. --Steindy 00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 01:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor composition IMO. --Mattbuck 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not withdrawn. Not poor composition IMHO, only poor comment by Mattbuck. It's his problem, when he don't know what's to do with the equipment. --Steindy 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would you please keep your comments related to the photo rather than the editor? Mattbuck 08:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Deutsch: Zur Kenntnis: Ich werde an meinen Fotos gar nichts, aber überhaupt nichts mehr ändern! Ihr könnt diese Diskussion sofort schließen. Ich habe eingesehen, dass - egal ob Porträts, Fußball-, Eisenbahn- oder Denkmalfotos - ich nur beschissenen Pixelmüll produziere, die den geforderten Standards nicht stand halten. Ich werde euch deshalb mit meinen unscharfen, verwischten, CA verseuchten, farb rauschigen Fotos nicht mehr auf QI belöästigen. Ich habe meine Lektion gelernt und ich bin diese Diskussionen, die nur darauf abzielen, die Arbeit von Fotografen schlecht zu machen, einfach müde und ich lasse mich auch nicht fertig machen. Ich werde daher hier nur mehr als (manchmal auch strenger) Kritiker in auftreten, so wie ich es von manchen anderen Benutzern gelernt habe.
English: Note: I will do nothing, but nothing at all to change in my photos! You can immediately conclude this discussion. I've seen that - whether portrait-, football-, rail- or monument-photos - I just shitty pixel garbage produce that was not the required standards maintained. I will therefore no longer belöästigen with my blurred, blurring, CA-polluted, noisy, cromatic noisy photos on QI. I've learned my lesson and I am these discussions, the only aim to make the work of photographers bad, just tired and I will not even get ready. I will therefore occur only over (sometimes severe) critics, as I have learned it from some other users.
Regards --Steindy 22:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
With special thank to Mattbuck (If you do not find anything else, it is just a „poor composition“...)

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

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (157).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – The new tracks 1 and 3 are in operation, the old tracks 2 and 4 are already removed. --Steindy 00:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me. --Dnalor 01 15:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Noticable CA throughout, bad inclusion top right. --Mattbuck 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Some magenta CA on the right. I left a note. --Halavar 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until CAs is fixed --Christian Ferrer 08:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Deutsch: Zur Kenntnis: Ich werde an meinen Fotos gar nichts, aber überhaupt nichts mehr ändern! Ihr könnt diese Diskussion sofort schließen. Ich habe eingesehen, dass - egal ob Porträts, Fußball-, Eisenbahn- oder Denkmalfotos - ich nur beschissenen Pixelmüll produziere, die den geforderten Standards nicht stand halten. Ich werde euch deshalb mit meinen unscharfen, verwischten, CA verseuchten, farb rauschigen Fotos nicht mehr auf QI belöästigen. Ich habe meine Lektion gelernt und ich bin diese Diskussionen, die nur darauf abzielen, die Arbeit von Fotografen schlecht zu machen, einfach müde und ich lasse mich auch nicht fertig machen. Ich werde daher hier nur mehr als (manchmal auch strenger) Kritiker in auftreten, so wie ich es von manchen anderen Benutzern gelernt habe.
English: Note: I will do nothing, but nothing at all to change in my photos! You can immediately conclude this discussion. I've seen that - whether portrait-, football-, rail- or monument-photos - I just shitty pixel garbage produce that was not the required standards maintained. I will therefore no longer belöästigen with my blurred, blurring, CA-polluted, noisy, cromatic noisy photos on QI. I've learned my lesson and I am these discussions, the only aim to make the work of photographers bad, just tired and I will not even get ready. I will therefore occur only over (sometimes severe) critics, as I have learned it from some other users.
Regards --Steindy 22:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (152).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – A ÖBB Railjet is passing on the new track 1. The tracks 2 and 4 are removed. --Steindy 00:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 16:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Quite noisy, some CA. --Mattbuck 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Problem with the magenta CA. I left a notes. Also, sky is little bit overexposed. All these problems can be fixed. --Halavar 01:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until CAs is fixed --Christian Ferrer 08:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Deutsch: Zur Kenntnis: Ich werde an meinen Fotos gar nichts, aber überhaupt nichts mehr ändern! Ihr könnt diese Diskussion sofort schließen. Ich habe eingesehen, dass - egal ob Porträts, Fußball-, Eisenbahn- oder Denkmalfotos - ich nur beschissenen Pixelmüll produziere, die den geforderten Standards nicht stand halten. Ich werde euch deshalb mit meinen unscharfen, verwischten, CA verseuchten, farb rauschigen Fotos nicht mehr auf QI belöästigen. Ich habe meine Lektion gelernt und ich bin diese Diskussionen, die nur darauf abzielen, die Arbeit von Fotografen schlecht zu machen, einfach müde und ich lasse mich auch nicht fertig machen. Ich werde daher hier nur mehr als (manchmal auch strenger) Kritiker in auftreten, so wie ich es von manchen anderen Benutzern gelernt habe.
English: Note: I will do nothing, but nothing at all to change in my photos! You can immediately conclude this discussion. I've seen that - whether portrait-, football-, rail- or monument-photos - I just shitty pixel garbage produce that was not the required standards maintained. I will therefore no longer belöästigen with my blurred, blurring, CA-polluted, noisy, cromatic noisy photos on QI. I've learned my lesson and I am these discussions, the only aim to make the work of photographers bad, just tired and I will not even get ready. I will therefore occur only over (sometimes severe) critics, as I have learned it from some other users.
Regards --Steindy 22:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (155).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation. – The new switching scaffold for the catenary system. --Steindy 00:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 16:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Noticable CA top right. --Mattbuck 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Withdrawn! Thank you for rating Mattbuck. Of course you are right. No desire for discussions. --Steindy 02:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose On the top left there is a magenta CA. I left a note. That can be fixed. --Halavar 00:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until CAs is fixed --Christian Ferrer 08:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Deutsch: Zur Kenntnis: Ich werde an meinen Fotos gar nichts, aber überhaupt nichts mehr ändern! Ihr könnt diese Diskussion sofort schließen. Ich habe eingesehen, dass - egal ob Porträts, Fußball-, Eisenbahn- oder Denkmalfotos - ich nur beschissenen Pixelmüll produziere, die den geforderten Standards nicht stand halten. Ich werde euch deshalb mit meinen unscharfen, verwischten, CA verseuchten, farb rauschigen Fotos nicht mehr auf QI belöästigen. Ich habe meine Lektion gelernt und ich bin diese Diskussionen, die nur darauf abzielen, die Arbeit von Fotografen schlecht zu machen, einfach müde und ich lasse mich auch nicht fertig machen. Ich werde daher hier nur mehr als (manchmal auch strenger) Kritiker in auftreten, so wie ich es von manchen anderen Benutzern gelernt habe.
English: Note: I will do nothing, but nothing at all to change in my photos! You can immediately conclude this discussion. I've seen that - whether portrait-, football-, rail- or monument-photos - I just shitty pixel garbage produce that was not the required standards maintained. I will therefore no longer belöästigen with my blurred, blurring, CA-polluted, noisy, cromatic noisy photos on QI. I've learned my lesson and I am these discussions, the only aim to make the work of photographers bad, just tired and I will not even get ready. I will therefore occur only over (sometimes severe) critics, as I have learned it from some other users.
Regards --Steindy 22:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Irisbus_Crealis_Neo_18_n°6206_Théâtre_des_Arts_ASTUCE_-_Florian_Fèvre.JPG[edit]

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

  • Nomination Bus articulé de Rouen --Billy69150 10:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Again Rouen, impressive bus. –Be..anyone 15:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Needs tilt/perspective correction, CA removal on the badge. --Mattbuck 00:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --Billy 13:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    CA on the badge still needs correction. A bit of sharpening of the bus would probably be good too. Mattbuck 19:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support! The image is OK. -- Spurzem 13:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC) @ Mattbuck: I think it is good no and we should not look for possible lacks at any price as we say in German. -- Spurzem 13:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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

ExCeL Centre MMB 26 Thameslink Desiro City Mockup.jpg

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

File:Tenmile Run in its lower reaches 2.JPG[edit]

Tenmile Run in its lower reaches 2.JPG

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

Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (109).jpg

  • Nomination A ÖBB-Railjet passes Neunkirchen railwaystation. --Steindy 00:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    Noticable CA. Mattbuck 22:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please take care of CA first. Mattbuck 19:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck does not know despite his many railway photos also evident that new catenary systems are made of copper and copper is known to be reddish. --Steindy 00:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am quite aware that catenaries are made of copper (albeit I work for London Underground and we don't have much use for overhead electrification). However given that copper oxidises green, it doesn't explain the numerous purple areas. Mattbuck 23:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Mattbuck for the CAs, but also the DOF is too small for this composition and more than the half of the image is blurred and unsharp --Christian Ferrer 09:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Deutsch: Zur Kenntnis: Ich werde an meinen Fotos gar nichts, aber überhaupt nichts mehr ändern! Ihr könnt diese Diskussion sofort schließen. Ich habe eingesehen, dass - egal ob Porträts, Fußball-, Eisenbahn- oder Denkmalfotos - ich nur beschissenen Pixelmüll produziere, die den geforderten Standards nicht stand halten. Ich werde euch deshalb mit meinen unscharfen, verwischten, CA verseuchten, farb rauschigen Fotos nicht mehr auf QI belöästigen. Ich habe meine Lektion gelernt und ich bin diese Diskussionen, die nur darauf abzielen, die Arbeit von Fotografen schlecht zu machen, einfach müde und ich lasse mich auch nicht fertig machen. Ich werde daher hier nur mehr als (manchmal auch strenger) Kritiker in auftreten, so wie ich es von manchen anderen Benutzern gelernt habe.
English: Note: I will do nothing, but nothing at all to change in my photos! You can immediately conclude this discussion. I've seen that - whether portrait-, football-, rail- or monument-photos - I just shitty pixel garbage produce that was not the required standards maintained. I will therefore no longer belöästigen with my blurred, blurring, CA-polluted, noisy, cromatic noisy photos on QI. I've learned my lesson and I am these discussions, the only aim to make the work of photographers bad, just tired and I will not even get ready. I will therefore occur only over (sometimes severe) critics, as I have learned it from some other users.
Regards --Steindy 22:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. -- Spurzem 19:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Simiane_La_Rotande.jpg[edit]

Simiane La Rotande.jpg

  • Nomination Simiane-La-Rotonde - The castle tower (La Rotande) --Imehling 20:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Coyau 09:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bit unsharp, some overexposure. --Mattbuck 00:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Suchum,_Ogród_botaniczny_(12).jpg[edit]

2014 Suchum, Ogród botaniczny (12).jpg

  • Nomination Chinese Tea (Camellia sinensis var. sinensis). Botanical garden. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 12:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed --Pleclown 11:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not agree. I checked it in 2 software edit programs. Maybe others should decide. --Halavar 20:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The software can only show you clipping highlights. It can't really tell you if the whole picture (or most of it) is too bright. That's something you must judge yourself (make sure your monitor settings are OK). --El Grafo 12:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. The wires are somewhat disturbing, but I think this is acceptable. The exposure is good. --Code 06:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed. Ram-Man 12:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I agree, the picture is overexposed. Mattbuck 23:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose OE --Christian Ferrer 08:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed. --Steindy 22:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Pseudocoladenia dan by Nayikayam Thattu.jpg[edit]

Pseudocoladenia dan by Nayikayam Thattu.jpg

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

File:Hořejší_Kařezský_rybník,_neznámé_rostliny.jpg[edit]

Hořejší Kařezský rybník, neznámé rostliny.jpg

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

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Sat 24 Jan → Sun 01 Feb
Sun 25 Jan → Mon 02 Feb
Mon 26 Jan → Tue 03 Feb
Tue 27 Jan → Wed 04 Feb
Wed 28 Jan → Thu 05 Feb
Thu 29 Jan → Fri 06 Feb
Fri 30 Jan → Sat 07 Feb
Sat 31 Jan → Sun 08 Feb
Sun 01 Feb → Mon 09 Feb