Commons:Quality images candidates

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

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

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

Purpose[edit]

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

Guidelines[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators[edit]

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

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

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technical requirements[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media.

This does not apply to vector graphics (SVG).

Image quality[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value[edit]

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

How to nominate[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the Image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.


Number of nominations[edit]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is at least frowned upon or may even lead to immediate decline.

Evaluating images[edit]

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

How to review[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Grace period and promotion[edit]

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from review, the image becomes promoted or fails, according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 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]] 10:38, 20 September 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.

September 20, 2014[edit]

September 19, 2014[edit]

September 18, 2014[edit]

September 17, 2014[edit]

September 16, 2014[edit]

September 15, 2014[edit]

September 14, 2014[edit]

September 13, 2014[edit]

September 12, 2014[edit]

September 11, 2014[edit]

September 10, 2014[edit]

September 9, 2014[edit]

September 8, 2014[edit]

September 7, 2014[edit]

September 6, 2014[edit]

September 5, 2014[edit]

September 4, 2014[edit]

August 31, 2014[edit]

August 29, 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:13-05-24-wien-RalfR-136.jpg[edit]

13-05-24-wien-RalfR-136.jpg

  • Nomination statue of Heracles at Hofburg Wien, Austria --Ralf Roletschek 14:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Name of the file and description in the file page are not good (as usual), but the picture itself is not a technical QI neither. The cropped roof of the car (?) is a no go, some parts are overexposed, the picture is tilted and needs a serious perspective correction.--Jebulon 15:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. An unrealistic modification of perspective would destroy the image. Pleas discuss. -- Spurzem 17:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Again and again, you don't vote for a picture, but in order to make a point against the guidelines. That's unacceptable. Please stop this.--Jebulon 19:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry Spurzem but for me Jebulon have right. Especially in this case, no offense to Ralf Roletschek --Livioandronico2013 19:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Jebulon. And: DFTT. --Cccefalon 06:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

File:FIS_Sommer_Grand_Prix_2014_-_20140809_-_Tom_Hilde_2.jpg[edit]

FIS Sommer Grand Prix 2014 - 20140809 - Tom Hilde 2.jpg

  • Nomination FIS Sommer Grand Prix 2014 - 20140809 - Tom Hilde --Pleclown 11:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why 1/1,000 sec (0.001) and only f/3.2? Random picture?--Lmbuga 23:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Geneva_Rugby_Cup_-_20140808_-_SF_vs_LOU_-_Jonathan_Danty_1.jpg[edit]

Geneva Rugby Cup - 20140808 - SF vs LOU - Jonathan Danty 1.jpg

  • Nomination Geneva Rugby Cup - 20140808 - SF vs LOU - Jonathan Danty --Pleclown 11:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    Ok if the chromatic noise is removed Poco a poco 21:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chromatic noise. DOF and noise (f/2.8, ISO 3,200, 1/500 sec). --Lmbuga 23:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Levisham railway station MMB 05 45407.jpg[edit]

Levisham railway station MMB 05 45407.jpg

  • Nomination 45407 at Levisham. Mattbuck 06:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality, but the person in the foreground is disturbing. But still QI imo.--ArildV 10:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry. But the person is very disturbing and the image is too dark. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 13:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Statue_4_in_front_of_Campo_Verano.jpg[edit]

Statue 4 in front of Campo Verano.jpg

  • Nomination Statue 4 in front of Campo Verano --Livioandronico2013 20:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too soft --A.Savin 12:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Hi A.Savin,can I ask tu you to check this other version? thanks --Livioandronico2013 19:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:St_Pancras_railway_station_trainshed_2014-09-14.jpg[edit]

St Pancras railway station trainshed 2014-09-14.jpg

  • Nomination St Pancras railway station trainshed. --Colin 22:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    Very impressive, and I am inclined to say, you go go straight down, turn right, where it says 'FPC', but perhaps before you go, it appears there are some minor foreground stitching problems, the floor looks 'weird' around the area of the annotation I have added to the file page. -- Slaunger 22:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    It's a gap that I filled without perfection. There are some minor stitching errors in the roof. So I don't think it could be FP but hope that overall (considering the 103MP) it is QI. -- Colin 22:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The foreground problem is definately a minor issue and a recurring difficult aspect of interior panoramics. The image has huge wow, and it might even pass FP too. -- Slaunger 19:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC) --Slaunger 19:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The perspective here just makes it look wrong. It's as if the shed gets steeper closer to the photographer, and that is not the case in real life. The roof beautiful and a marvel of construction, this photo makes it look ugly. --Mattbuck 08:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Derzhavinsky_Lane_SPB_01.jpg[edit]

Derzhavinsky Lane SPB 01.jpg

  • Nomination Derzhavinsky Lane in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 18:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 18:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, IMO DoF too small.--XRay 18:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Christian Ferrer 17:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Maria_Cruz_Profpic_062013.JPG[edit]

Maria Cruz Profpic 062013.JPG

  • Nomination Community Coordinator of Program Evaluation & Design, Wikimedia Foundation by Damian Martone--Ezarate 20:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Background badly blurred --DXR 21:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC) see now Ezarate 22:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the masking (the complete outline of the person) isn't quality. --Llez 08:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Llez --Livioandronico2013 08:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:109_Bank_Ottawa_Hydro.jpg[edit]

109 Bank Ottawa Hydro.jpg

  • Nomination Designated heritage building Ottawa Hydro Electric Company Building at 109 Bank Street --MB-one 00:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    Needs sharpening. Mattbuck 18:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion ✓ Done--MB-one 18:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    It's a bit better, but still missing the crispness in the people I'd expect from a well-lit street scene. This is an Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose from me I'm afraid. Mattbuck 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    The people are not meant to be the subject of this image. Do you think the building is sharp enough? --MB-one 00:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Benediktinerabtei Seckau, Äußerer Klosterhof 2.jpg[edit]

Benediktinerabtei Seckau, Äußerer Klosterhof 2.jpg

  • Nomination Seckau Abbey courtyard, Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 14:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality, noise --A.Savin 10:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC) I disagree on that one. --Dnalor 01 11:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with A.Savin --Uoaei1 13:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A new, corrected version uploaded. --Dnalor 01 18:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 1600 ISO - it was my mistake, look at my comment and info on my user disc page ... --Dnalor 01 10:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support New version seems okay. --Steindy 21:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The new version is overprocessed, resulting in a loss of details and sharpness (e.g. the hands of the watch and the tiles). The shadows under the arches are bearing artefacts. Still, there is too much magenta under the roof hood of the tower. --Cccefalon 06:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Benediktinerabtei Seckau, Äußerer Klosterhof 1.jpg[edit]

Benediktinerabtei Seckau, Äußerer Klosterhof 1.jpg

  • Nomination Seckau Abbey courtyard, Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 14:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sharpness + noise + perspective --A.Savin 11:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC) I disagree on that one. --Dnalor 01 11:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with A.Savin --Uoaei1 13:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A new, corrected version uploaded. --Dnalor 01 17:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support The new version seems okay. --Steindy 21:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Basilika Seckau, Gnadenkapelle, Gotisches Glasfenster 3.jpg[edit]

Basilika Seckau, Gnadenkapelle, Gotisches Glasfenster 3.jpg

  • Nomination Gothic stained-glass window, Chapel of Grace, Basilica Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 16:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion We have assessed a lot of stained glass windows in the past which can be uses as reference what amount of sharpness is expected for a QI of that genre. Unfortunatly, this image does not meet the required sharpness. Sorry. --Cccefalon 17:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC) This is not my view of the things. --Dnalor 01 04:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. In my opinion sharpness can not be much better. I only had cropped the image at the dark lines. -- Spurzem 14:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for your important comment, new version uploaded: cropped at the dark lines. I've cropped the other 3 pictures of gothic stained-glass windows in Basilica Seckau at the dark lines too (above in the QIC-nomination of 15th september 2014). ✓ Done --Dnalor 01 14:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks to Spurzem. Now QI. --Steindy 21:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-090.jpg[edit]

14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-090.jpg

  • Nomination ski jump "Holmernkollenbakken" in Oslo, Norge --Ralf Roletschek 14:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me. --Dnalor 01 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    dust spots --A.Savin 17:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done --Ralf Roletschek 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --A.Savin 10:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support One Dustspot left (easily to remove, see note), but QI --DKrieger 22:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done --Ralf Roletschek 12:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-089.jpg[edit]

14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-089.jpg

  • Nomination ski jump "Holmernkollenbakken" in Oslo, Norge --Ralf Roletschek 14:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me. --Dnalor 01 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    dust spots --A.Savin 17:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done --Ralf Roletschek 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --A.Savin 10:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality image --DKrieger 19:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-097.jpg[edit]

14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-097.jpg

  • Nomination ski jump "Holmernkollenbakken" in Oslo, Norge --Ralf Roletschek 14:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me. --Dnalor 01 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    dust spots; poor perspective --A.Savin 17:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done )Dust) but perspective ist normal at 10mm --Ralf Roletschek 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite good, QI. --Steindy 21:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-104.jpg[edit]

14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-104.jpg

  • Nomination ski jump "Holmernkollenbakken" in Oslo, Norge --Ralf Roletschek 14:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me. --Dnalor 01 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    dust spots --A.Savin 17:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done --Ralf Roletschek 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --A.Savin 10:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Äußerer Klosterhof und Türme der Basilika Seckau 1.jpg[edit]

Äußerer Klosterhof und Türme der Basilika Seckau 1.jpg

  • Nomination Seckau Abbey courtyard, Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 14:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    noise, poor sharpness --A.Savin 17:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC) This is not my view of the things. --Dnalor 01 04:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As for A.Savin. Noise reduction often also reduces sharpness. -- Smial 13:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New, corrected version uploaded! --Dnalor 01 05:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment sky needs denoising. --P e z i 21:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Basilika Seckau, Augustinus-Altar 3.jpg[edit]

Basilika Seckau, Augustinus-Altar 3.jpg

  • Nomination Augustinus-Altar, Basilica Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 14:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    noise, poor sharpness --A.Savin 17:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC) This is not my view of the things. --Dnalor 01 04:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Inappropriate lighting (direct flash) burns highlights and makes hard shadows. Also rather noisy. Please use a tripod instead of high ISO - church interior usually does not move too fast. -- Smial 13:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A new, corrected version uploaded. --Dnalor 01 06:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unsharp due to noise reduction. --P e z i 21:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Stary_Waliszów,_dom_nr_112_02.JPG[edit]

2014 Stary Waliszów, dom nr 112 02.JPG

  • Nomination House number 112 in Stary Waliszów --Jacek Halicki 20:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion {{o}} Wire (cable) is disturbing. Other of your pictures with this subject has not this wire--Lmbuga 00:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, I'm not sure. It's only my criteria. It's better "discuss", other users can think and I can Learn--Lmbuga 22:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)✓ Done
    I retouched the wire--Jacek Halicki 00:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Lmbuga 20:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Cccefalon 06:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

File: Goggomobil Coupé (2014-09-03 7049) Heck.JPG[edit]

Goggomobil Coupé (2014-09-03 7049) Heck.JPG

  • Nomination Goggomobil Coupé, a very small car with 250-cm³-engine -- Spurzem 15:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the white car of the corner is disturbing. Not Qi for me.--Lmbuga 23:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. I saw promoted images of oldtimer meetings with much more disturbing things than a part of another car in the foreground or otherwise. --
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I understand you. It may be that I am wrong. Let others think: "discuss" --Lmbuga 22:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The car is fully visible. I think it is ok here for a QI. However, before promoting, the defringing amount for magenta has to be raised to get rid of the CA's. --Cccefalon 07:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Kemabong_Sabah_Dataran-Daerah-Kecil-Kemabong-01.jpg[edit]

Kemabong Sabah Dataran-Daerah-Kecil-Kemabong-01.jpg

  • Nomination Shop rows in Pekan Kemabong, Sabah along Subdistrict Square --Cccefalon 13:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Can you brighten it a bit? --Tuxyso 14:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done brightened --Cccefalon 17:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Probably a bit too bright now, but imho QI now. --Tuxyso 08:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The photo is unmistakably wrong. See Notes. --Steindy 15:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I dont think so. When you dont stand exactly in front of a building and shoot a centered image, you won't have parallel lines. --Cccefalon 16:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Uwe is right, the non-straight horizontal lines of the building are due to the non-centered shooting position - no problem here. --Tuxyso 17:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI. --P e z i 21:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Labuan_Malaysia_Airport-03.jpg[edit]

Labuan Malaysia Airport-03.jpg

  • Nomination Labuan, Malaysia: Front view of Labuan Airport --Cccefalon 07:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The roof is cut off on the right side. --Steindy 15:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    So what? Will you decline all buildings which are not 100% visible? --Cccefalon 16:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI. --P e z i 21:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Florstein 19:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Falcon September 2014-1b.jpg[edit]

Falcon September 2014-1b.jpg

  • Nomination A Peregrine Falcon in captivity -- Alvesgaspar 22:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems tilted IMO. The head has overexposed areas (blown out). The resolution is not excellent. Too much space at top --Lmbuga 23:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC) -- A second opinion, please - Alvesgaspar 04:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That cup thing goes to one side and the bird into the other direction. So if you'd "untilt" it, it will open up another can of worms. And I don't mind the rim light on the head. I embrace it as seperation from the background. Image doesen't knock me of my feet but I still think it's QI.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 22:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. About 4 MPIxel is not overwhelming, neither the sharpness. Somewhat disturbing minor sharpening artifacts. All in all certainly a useful image that meets QI criteria a bit tedious. -- Smial 13:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC) (But that bird looks so sad...)

File:Plate_on_fontaine_near_Porta_del_Popolo.jpg[edit]

Plate on fontaine near Porta del Popolo.jpg

  • Nomination Plate on fontaine near Porta del Popolo --Livioandronico2013 15:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cccefalon 17:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    {{o}} Sorry, right side is out of focus and noisy (see note). Too sharpened IMO and too much contrast. I don't like the detail--Lmbuga 23:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you check another time Lmbuga? Thanks --Livioandronico2013 07:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Better with the crop, but too sharpened and too much contrast IMO--Lmbuga 22:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Bognor Regis MMB 01 Aldwick Beach.jpg[edit]

Bognor Regis MMB 01 Aldwick Beach.jpg

  • Nomination Aldwick beach. Mattbuck 13:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Lewis Hulbert 13:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. I think the beach is too dark, and there is a big blob in the sky. Dont know if it is dirt or glare from the sun. Lets discuss. --Slaunger 14:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lens glare on the right. --MB-one 22:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Tejo September 2014-3a.jpg[edit]

Tejo September 2014-3a.jpg

  • Nomination River Tagus, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 22:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Sorry. A nice image, but in the middle too dark. --XRay 08:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC) -- The dark silhouette is deliberate -- Alvesgaspar 22:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Japonaise au bain James Tissot 1864.jpg[edit]

Japonaise au bain James Tissot 1864.jpg

  • Nomination La Japonaise au bain, James Tissot. Painting in Musée des beaux-arts de Dijon --Yelkrokoyade 17:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry,no very sharp. --Livioandronico2013 20:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    Is it not? We should discuss. -- Spurzem 22:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp.--Jebulon 16:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Stiftskirche_Göttweig_Hochaltar_01.JPG[edit]

Stiftskirche Göttweig Hochaltar 01.JPG

  • Nomination High altar of Göttweig Abbey Church, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 13:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeBad CA at the stained glass, not sharp enough. --Mattbuck 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info I sharpened this image. Regarding CAs: for me there are just colorful reflections, but not CAs. I aks for more opinions and move it to discussion --Uoaei1 16:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Mattbuck. --P e z i 21:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I don't agree with Mattbuck and Pezi for I see no CAs. What you criticize are reflections of colored glass. -- Spurzem 13:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. Not sharp enough, sorry.--Jebulon 16:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kapliczka_w_Wolanach_02.JPG[edit]

2014 Kapliczka w Wolanach 02.JPG

  • Nomination Chapel in Wolany --Jacek Halicki 12:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion JPEG artifaction in the trees. --Mattbuck 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    QI for me. We should discuss. -- Spurzem 22:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Sharpness could be better, but I realy cannot find JPG artifacts. Good lighting and composition. -- Smial 14:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, while I agree with Smial on the facts, the missing sharpness, for me, is a dealbreaker here. The roof shows very little detail and the trees are completly blurred. It might be art but it's not "good quality". F4.8 was probably the wrong choice for this shot. --MB-one 16:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_St-Kunibert-11.jpg[edit]

Cologne Germany St-Kunibert-11.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: Basilika St. Kunibert (east side) --Cccefalon 13:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The perspective correction in my opinion is not good. -- Spurzem 15:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sky is overexposed. --Ivar 17:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    I concur with Spurzem and ivar. Mattbuck 18:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @Spurzem: I uploaded another version. To overcome the problem, that some people have with the pure vertical depiction and the view of the tiltshift lense, I added a ratio correction. Don't complain about the verticals; I intentionally added a small incline to get a more natural view for you. @Iifar: Already before post processing, this photo was not overexposed and showed a regular histogram. What you complain is an original grey - and not a remapped to grey - sky. --Cccefalon 18:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    @Mattbuck: We had an edit conflict. I just uploaded a new version. --Cccefalon 18:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, then CR. --Cccefalon 18:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_St-Kunibert-10.jpg[edit]

Cologne Germany St-Kunibert-10.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: west transept with calvary in the Basilica St. Kunibert --Cccefalon 13:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Top is too unsharp due to perspective. --Mattbuck 18:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. And I swear, today was the last day I donated full size images to Commons. --Cccefalon 18:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It works for me, but the resolution is quite low --Uoaei1 16:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    That would be because CCCefalon just downsampled it to 2MP out of spite. Mattbuck 21:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 19:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Face_of_ogre.jpg[edit]

Face of ogre.jpg

  • Nomination Face of ogre --Livioandronico2013 20:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not in focus. --Mattbuck 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Other opinions please --Livioandronico2013 07:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Focus point is not perfect, but there is stil enough detail. --MB-one 01:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Heads_of_lions_in_quartiere_coppedè.jpg[edit]

Heads of lions in quartiere coppedè.jpg

  • Nomination Heads of lions in quartiere coppedè --Livioandronico2013 20:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overexposed. --Mattbuck 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Is simple fixable,how do you decline for a simple thing like this??? Then,Mattbuck, do not complain that someone has problems with you,have a nice day Clin --Livioandronico2013 07:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Overexposure generally is not fixable. The problem is a loss of information, you can remap it to grey but that won't bring back the detail. As for my FP nomination, I think there's a difference - if you take a photo of a light source, it will be overexposed. Mattbuck 13:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ DoneYes, it is different, the problem, in my opinion, is your way to make hasty, I take the only sensible thing you've said "generally", in fact if it is possible to fix a photo, by at least a chance. --Livioandronico2013 14:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good light and good image. @ Mattbuck: We can not only take night photos on sunny days. -- Spurzem 19:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Gummer's How MMB 19 Lake Windermere.jpg[edit]

Gummer's How MMB 19 Lake Windermere.jpg

  • Nomination Lake Windermere. Mattbuck 06:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Sorry. It's too dusty. --XRay 08:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    I've done some recolouring, let me know if it's any better. --Mattbuck 13:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 11:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB «W5 Canary Wharf.jpg[edit]

London MMB «W5 Canary Wharf.jpg

  • Nomination Canary Wharf. Mattbuck 06:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Sorry. Nice image, but IMO the foreground is too dark. --XRay 08:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    I did that purposefully - the buildings look good as near-silhouettes IMO. --Mattbuck 13:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

File: Hansa 1100, Bj. 1959 (2014-08-31 6769).JPG[edit]

Hansa 1100, Bj. 1959 (2014-08-31 6769).JPG

  • Nomination Hansa 1100 from 1959 at spa gardens of Bad Neuenahr, Germany -- Spurzem 18:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The van in the background is too disturbing. --Mattbuck 23:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support In this case is possible ask a crop,anyway the van isn't so disturbing for me. --Livioandronico2013 07:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is enough separation (in this case by color and brightness), ok for me - the crop would be ok as well but not required. --Generic1139 16:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Kimanis_Sabah_Kimanis-Maritim-Traffic-Monitoring-Station-03.jpg[edit]

Kimanis Sabah Kimanis-Maritim-Traffic-Monitoring-Station-03.jpg

  • Nomination Kimanis, Sabah: Lighthouse and control tower of Kimanis Maritim Traffic Monitoring Station --Cccefalon 16:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Wire spoils it. --Mattbuck 23:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, a wire itself is not a reason for decline. especialle here it is not only a wire but also a pole and a bird on the wire. Do we have a new policy to decline every image with a visible wire? --Cccefalon 05:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 07:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Historisches_Rathaus_--_2014_--_6852.jpg[edit]

Münster, Historisches Rathaus -- 2014 -- 6852.jpg

  • Nomination Historical town hall, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp in the upper part (hardly fixable), CAs, tilted --Uoaei1 06:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Thanks for your reviews. Some of your advices are fixed.--XRay 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    Still quite unsharp in the upper parts - I would like to ask for other opinions --Uoaei1 17:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Probably effect of perspective correction by software. This has limits. -- Smial 23:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp enough IMO --Christian Ferrer 07:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Uoaei1, sorry. Not sharp, remains of CA. And it needs a crop below, until the bicycle, IMO.--Jebulon 17:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ (Nearly) fixed Some issues are improved. Other aren't possible. May be it's not QI, but it's better now.--XRay 11:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Valtice (Feldsberg) - Kostel Nanebevzetí Panny Marie.JPG[edit]

Valtice (Feldsberg) - Kostel Nanebevzetí Panny Marie.JPG

  • Nomination Valtice (Feldsberg) - Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary --Pudelek 09:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough for this rather low resolution --Uoaei1 06:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    In my opinion is enough sharp --Pudelek 16:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good photo, sharp enough. -- Spurzem 10:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sharp enough for QI, indeed. More disturbing are the redlink categories. Why introducing a category when not linking to an appropriate superior category? --Cccefalon 17:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC) I will support, when the redlinks are removed or linked to a higher category. --Cccefalon 19:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 07:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Excellent photographical QI, but exactly per Cccefalon. I notice that categorization work is more and more careless in QIC. It is a bad thing we should fight against. Please notice that we have a guideline (criterion 3) which is our common rule.--Jebulon 16:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Jebulon, Cccefalon, one of the category links of the file is perfectly correct, and should be enough to respect the guideline. Do you ask to delete the red links? --Christian Ferrer 05:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I asked for a correct categorization. I also cannot understand, why a regular commoner who is with WikiCommons since years and who also is familiar with the topic of his images, should not be capable to connect a new category to a superior category. as Pudelek introduced the two new categories, he made a statement, that he thinks it is desirable to have those two categories to describe the image. Deleting the redlinks now is IMHO just a stupid bypass. What the hell is so difficult to find a superior category for "Maria column in Valtice"? And - given that "Náměstí Svobody (Valtice)" is not already in another writing an OVERCAT for "Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (Valtice)" - what is so difficult to find a superior category for a village or a town? Come on Christian, pointing out that one category is enough, is just a metadiscussion. --Cccefalon 06:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I added Category:Maria columns in Czech Republic as top category and believe me Christian, I feel a bit ashamed for you as regular, that you start a big discussion (partly here) about deletion or not instead of just adding a very easy top category. --Cccefalon 09:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

File:1. SC Sollenau vs. FC Red Bull Salzburg 2014-07-12 (083).jpg[edit]

1. SC Sollenau vs. FC Red Bull Salzburg 2014-07-12 (083).jpg

  • Nomination Marcel Sabitzer, FC Red Bull Salzburg. --Steindy 23:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Left side of the face out of focus (not enought depth of field) --MB-one 19:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, please discussion. --Steindy 00:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Somewhat low DOF, but not disturbing. Very good lighting for a non studio shot. -- Smial 23:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Eyepart is not sharp enough. Also, as a matter of courtesy, it is not polite, to show the bad teeth of people in a portrait photo. --Cccefalon 16:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Bad teeth? Want the professional player who is examined several times a year on health, offend? Quite apart from the fact that as a photographer I can not help you choose outrageous arguments to discredit just to my photo? If you is fun, then do so. Removed personal insults by User:Steindy --A.Savin 18:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC) --Steindy (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a possibility to bleach such a defect. I pointed out at several other portrait reviews, that a portrait shot has to obey some curtesy retouchments, e.g. pimple removal etc. Especially a portrait photo of a public person in WikiCommons has to follow higher requirements of respect, as this photo might be published in different media. --Cccefalon 18:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
So you think that I should make a fake photo?! Just incredible what turned out to take some users here. This makes your photos appear in a new light. And I thought it's about an encyclopedia here. For some, just the ego is important. --Steindy 19:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment guys, look what I've found here:SV Mattersburg vs. SK Rapid Wien 2013018 (49).jpg from about a year earlyer. He may or may not be examined several times a year on health. But what he does about it is still his own buisness.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 12:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
And what do you want with this overexposed photo say (besides, of me)? Want to tell me that this is better? --Steindy 16:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
He is running around like this for over a year. Despite medical check up. Besides: This was directed towrds Cccefalon--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 20:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough. And next time just ask the guy or his management if they like the picture. There are people proud of scars and I doubt german actor Jürgen Vogel or american actor Michael Dorn in Worf make up will have a problem showing so called bad teeth. There are also people with gold teeth.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 11:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I have rarely read such witty comments. I have rarely read such witty comments. Have they missed the forum or just discovered this page? --Steindy 16:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Smial. --Dnalor 01 19:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 16:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The depicted person is obviously posing. It is not a motion shot, so I may demand a certain minimum of crispness which is not the case here. Also, I agree with Uwe. <personal attack removed --Steindy 22:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)> --A.Savin 17:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dear A.Savin! It is not necessary to discredit others for their votes. This makes your voice is not valuable, but falls back on you and spoil here to participate. I have already learned my lesson through these incredible comments. I'm impressed that you know exactly how this photo was created. Sure, during a footballmatch you can also arbitrarily detain you long before the bench and make whole photo series. Apparently it was not about the quality of a photo, but for the health of teeth and I am aware that there are many experts in this field here. You can rate all my pictures negative way, continue to be happy. Thanks for that! --Steindy 22:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with MB-one.--Jebulon 16:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:1. SC Sollenau vs. FC Red Bull Salzburg 2014-07-12 (085).jpg[edit]

1. SC Sollenau vs. FC Red Bull Salzburg 2014-07-12 (085).jpg

  • Nomination Valentino Lazaro, FC Red Bull Salzburg. --Steindy 23:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion not enough depth of field --MB-one 19:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, please discussion. --Steindy 00:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Somewhat low DOF, but not disturbing. Very good lighting for a non studio shot. -- Smial 23:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop on top. The border is cutting off a part of the hairs. --Cccefalon 16:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • So you know how long his hair is? Respect! Okay, and 12 pixels from the left and 45 from the top is also blurred. Look even sure if you still do not find something to discredit the photo. See also the comment one over it (Marcel Sabitzer). Removed personal insults by User:Steindy --A.Savin 18:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC) --Steindy 18:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Smial. --Dnalor 01 19:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Someone may argue about the hair and ear. But for me it's just a testament of photographic style in this age. You nailed that one quite well. Try to Improove upon it. I know that I will.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 05:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose His right eye is not sharp.--Jebulon 16:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Lądek-Zdrój,_rynek_02.JPG[edit]

2014 Lądek-Zdrój, rynek 02.JPG

  • Nomination Town hall in Lądek-Zdrój --Jacek Halicki 19:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Sorry. The image is tilted CW and the shadow in the front is very disturbing. --XRay 12:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, please discussion --Jacek Halicki 17:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Netherfield railway station MMB 07.jpg[edit]

Netherfield railway station MMB 07.jpg

  • Nomination Netherfield railway station. Mattbuck 09:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO the image needs perspective correction. Please have a look to the ligths.--XRay 12:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    too dark --Taxiarchos228 13:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Brightened. --Mattbuck 17:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment both sides are leaning out --Christian Ferrer 17:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, I didn't notice the perspective correction comment. I disagree however - the streetlamp on the left is pretty clearly leaning - even if there were perspective distortion it would be nowhere near enough to make it that bad. The right side of the shelter looks pretty much vertical and the signal box in the background was likely where I took my reference point from. Further, if there were any perspective distortion it would have been the other way - leaning in, not out. Mattbuck 23:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the right and the middle of the image are straight however the left wall of the bridge is leaning, it was where I took my reference point from because I know that the streetlamp on the left is maybe not a good reference. So I correct my sentence : both side are not leaning out, only the left is leaning out. --Christian Ferrer 05:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Mallorca_-_Cap_de_Capdepera1.jpg[edit]

Mallorca - Cap de Capdepera1.jpg

  • Nomination Cap of Capdepera --Taxiarchos228 06:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please have a look to the horizon. It looks like a barrel.--XRay 08:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 08:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support - I disagree , its correct --Ralf Roletschek 22:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Barrel distortion is not ok. --Iifar 05:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a wide angle shot. The earth is not flat. -- Smial 11:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until it's fixed (easy to fix) --Christian Ferrer 17:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks as spherical as it does on google earth (I guess)--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 20:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Komisch: Panoramaaufnahmen mit Kurven, wo in Wirklichkeit Geraden sind, werden an anderer Stelle als exzellent ausgezeichnet. Und hier soll die leichte Biegung des Horizonts ein gravierender Mangel sein? -- Spurzem 10:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See [1], you need to be around 35,000 feet (10.6km) to hope to see the curvature of the horizon. The first report of seeing it was 51,783 ft in Germany(1931), the first photo was from a trip up to 72,395 ft. Pilots report seeing it around 50,000 ft. This image, on the other hand, has barrel distortion which is easily corrected. --Generic1139 16:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Canon_EF_35-70mm_F3.5-4.5.jpg[edit]

Canon EF 35-70mm F3.5-4.5.jpg

  • Nomination Old Canon EF 35-70mm F3.5-4.5 Objective. Had to choose between diffraction blur and sharpness. Loosing a bit out on featureless edges. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 18:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 20:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry but two problems (see notes, please) : blown out higlights and blurry lower right part of the lens. --JLPC 21:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment By adjusting the exposure for an 18% greycard, I get 97% / RGB 247 for the infinity wall. Which by accident matches the checkmate requirements for the product background on turbosquid.com. And the complaint is for going over 94% / RGB 240 ? It is true that the lens CAP isn't sharp. But the area in the rectangular note is just part of the shadow!--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 03:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness, DOF, and colours are ok. RGB(f8f8f8) is not blown. Noise level somewhat high, but acceptable. Why ISO800 with a still shot? I don't like the artifical looking shadows and the soft edges at the lens cap, but these are minor issues and unimportant for QI standards. -- Smial 15:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The setup worked well for the Camera
    Concord Eye-Q 1M Camera card slot usb rs232 view.jpg
    Do you like this one better?
    Headbands brown with comb and red with dots.jpg
    Note that this setup has over all less scharpness and will also introduces a nasty highlight on the ring with the lens name.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 02:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Reshoot with lower ISO due to lower flash gun position. Note reflection around EF letters. Had to add a couple of graduation filters to even out the light fall off and sharpening the bottom. Still missed the cap which isn't the subject anyway.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 19:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Now it is a completely different image. Why uploaded with the same name? The central reflection is very distracting now. Noise is much better, sharpness again nice. -- Smial 11:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
      • It is same view of the same Item. Unless the old one gets deleted, it makes no sense to upload under another name. Btw. did a lokal adjustment on the highlights. Also trie to lit it with an improvised V-Flat. Almost no shadows or reflections and looking somewhat boring and unnatural. So I did not bother to upload. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 20:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
        • The last version is the best, but, no, it is not exactly the same setup like the first version, it has a slightly different view. My supporting vote from above remains active. -- Smial 10:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The first prerequisite for such a picture that the lens cleaned so that no dust particles are seen. In addition, the property photo is not sharp enough. --Steindy 17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Removed spots caused by dust on the image sensor.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 21:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this is all I can do for now. Got my better tripod back and propper reflective umbrella plus a 3x flash gun bracket is in the mail.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 05:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Aerial_view_-_Lörrach_-_Rosenfels_Campus1.jpg[edit]

Aerial view - Lörrach - Rosenfels Campus1.jpg

  • Nomination Aerial view of "Rosenfels-Campus" in Lörrach --Taxiarchos228 18:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Perspectives : both sides are leaning out --Christian Ferrer 10:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Also clipping issue bottom left. Mattbuck 20:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    nothing is leaning, look note --~~~~ Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not done --Christian Ferrer 05:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    here is n.th. to be done --Taxiarchos228 04:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well how about getting rid of the clipping error for a start... Mattbuck 20:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Make clear what should be wrong with this picture. --Taxiarchos228 04:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

    1. Perspective distortion - both sides are leaning out
    2. The crop exceeds the bounds of the photo at the bottom left. -mattbuck (Talk)

(1) As I already said there is no significant distortion (see image notes) (2) The crop shows exactly what it has to show, the Rosenfels Campus. Your arguments are not clear. Please proof againt or explain in a reasonable way what should be here the problem for a QI. --Taxiarchos228 07:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Regarding the crop; I suppose that Mattbuck are refering to the lower left corner (see note).--ArildV 07:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, this I see now, I'll correct this soon. But the distortion is not relevant IMO for a aerial view. --Taxiarchos228 10:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you please explain why ?--Jebulon 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
because it's minor and doesn't effect the image impression --Taxiarchos228 06:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
lol --Jebulon (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolutely natural view just as it is expected by the average viewer. This is aerial photography, not a drawing by an architect. I've tried a 100% correction at home - this looks more amusing instead of more natural. -- Smial 11:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    Smial, the bottom left corner crop exceeds the image limits - an image with that cannot be QI, surely. Mattbuck 23:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Left vertical lines are tilted. Right vertical lines seems Ok. Improvable and perhaps QI if you want--Lmbuga 07:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version. -- Smial 10:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --Generic1139 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps is the cache, but left vertical lines are tilted CW and right vertical lines are straight--Lmbuga 22:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Certina 1888 DS Podium Chronograph.jpg[edit]

Certina 1888 DS Podium Chronograph.jpg

  • Nomination Certina 1888 DS Podium Chronograph. --Dnalor 01 11:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not very sharp. --Mattbuck 10:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I can't find any problem with the sharpness. --Dnalor 01 07:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality! What against sharpness? Sharpness is good. -- Spurzem 21:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Magenta/green CA. A lot of noise which contributes to the fuzziness --Generic1139 21:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment And compare to this File:Taschenuhr Omega 1900 - H3463.jpg and File:Montre revolutionnaire-IMG 4629-black.jpg at 1:1 to see sharp watch faces and hands --Generic1139 21:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC) And this one didn't show up in my first search because it was too new to have the quality image assigned, but the recently promoted File:Omega Genève Handaufzug, Cal. 613.jpg by User:Dnalor 01 is also a nice sharp image --Generic1139 21:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for your statement, you're right, I've seen the differences! But I've uploaded a new version now, so the problem could be solved ... --Dnalor 01 07:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The new version is much better. Looks good to me. --Generic1139 (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, for a studio shot not sharp enough and too much noise --Berthold Werner 17:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness is not overwhelming, but acceptable. Yet noise is too high for a studio shot and some areas are clipping. -- Smial 12:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me is good --Livioandronico2013 19:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Smial --Lmbuga 07:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment noise reduction. ✓ Done --Dnalor 01 19:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support May not look good if you have to zoom in and scroll around on 1080p. But will look nice on the coming 8K.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 21:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Berthold . Denoising is a bit strong, it does not add to sharpness...--Jebulon 16:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Basilika Seckau, Habsburger Mausoleum, Wappen der Wittelsbach auf Kenotaph.jpg[edit]

Basilika Seckau, Habsburger Mausoleum, Wappen der Wittelsbach auf Kenotaph.jpg

  • Nomination Putti on cenotaph holding coat of arms of Wittelsbach, Habsburger mausoleum, Seckau basilica, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 09:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This one lacks sharpness --Poco a poco 09:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, I can't find any problem with the sharpness ... --Dnalor 01 09:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    I do, compare it with the head of Charles II. If you don't agree go ahead and put it on discussion, no problem with that Poco a poco 10:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)For me there are no problems with the sharpness. --Dnalor 01 10:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness is OK IMO. Yann 11:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sharpness is ok, but noise is too strong, especially in the background (ISO 1600!). Can you try to reduce it? --Uoaei1 16:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC) I'm very sorry, but unfortunately I'm not able to do that by myself ... --Dnalor 01 18:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise --A.Savin 11:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment noise reduction. ✓ Done --Dnalor 01 19:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm almost opposeing it b/c of sharpness. Almost.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 04:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness issue (DoF, IMO), see heads of putti. Noise acceptable.--Jebulon 16:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Fri 12 Sep → Sat 20 Sep
Sat 13 Sep → Sun 21 Sep
Sun 14 Sep → Mon 22 Sep
Mon 15 Sep → Tue 23 Sep
Tue 16 Sep → Wed 24 Sep
Wed 17 Sep → Thu 25 Sep
Thu 18 Sep → Fri 26 Sep
Fri 19 Sep → Sat 27 Sep
Sat 20 Sep → Sun 28 Sep