Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Jump to: navigation, search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский
float

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

Purpose[edit]

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

Guidelines[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators[edit]

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

Image page requirements[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the Image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.


Creator[edit]

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

Technical requirements[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution[edit]

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

This does not apply to vector graphics (SVG).

Image quality[edit]

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

Composition and lighting[edit]

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

Value[edit]

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

How to nominate[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


Number of nominations[edit]

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

Evaluating images[edit]

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

How to review[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

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

Grace period and promotion[edit]

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

How to execute decision[edit]

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

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

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

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 2014 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process[edit]

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review[edit]

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you can not make a decision, add your comments, but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache


Contents

Nominations[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 06:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

October 24, 2014[edit]

October 23, 2014[edit]

October 22, 2014[edit]

October 21, 2014[edit]

October 20, 2014[edit]

October 19, 2014[edit]

October 18, 2014[edit]

October 17, 2014[edit]

October 16, 2014[edit]

October 15, 2014[edit]

October 14, 2014[edit]

October 13, 2014[edit]

October 12, 2014[edit]

October 11, 2014[edit]

October 10, 2014[edit]

October 9, 2014[edit]

October 7, 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:Ayuntamiento,_Tallin,_Estonia,_2012-08-05,_DD_03.JPG[edit]

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

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

File:Catholic_Parish_Church_St._Agatha_North_East_view.jpg[edit]

Catholic Parish Church St. Agatha North East view.jpg

  • Nomination Catholic parish church St. Agatha Kimratshofen / Altusried / Bavaria / Germany --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 21:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition but the building is entirely in shadow (hence a blue cast), contrast is too flat, and image is noisy --Kreuzschnabel 14:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I liked the blue. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 22:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI now for me, nice colours. And rule No. 1: Never compare an image with past promotions :-) --Kreuzschnabel 06:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Reus-slogan-1409.jpg

  • Nomination Independence slogan in Reus, Catalonia. --PereslavlFoto 21:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please check the image. IMO it needs perspective correction.--XRay 17:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    *Symbol support vote.svg Support Not an architectural photo, so perspective issue not disturbing. --Smial 11:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    It's a photo of a building, that makes it architectural. Perspective correction is something we ask of most photos, I don't see why this one would get a pass on that. --Mattbuck 19:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Bignor Roman Villa MMB 13.jpg[edit]

Bignor Roman Villa MMB 13.jpg

  • Nomination Bignor Roman villa. Mattbuck 06:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Do you think that it is our job to preselect your photos??? Not QI at all! --Hubertl 08:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    Hubertl, I'd appreciate it if you would show some good faith. I do preselect my photos, I have a big list of those which need nomination. When I upload, I add to the list those images I think might be QI. I thought this one might be QI. Honestly it was a borderline case - this isn't one of my best photos, but QI was never about "best" photos. This to me would not be a clear decline, though it wouldn't be an obvious promote either. I welcome constructive criticism, such as Jebulon's below. But saying "Not QI at all" is not really helpful to anyone. If you told me what was wrong, perhaps I could fix it. Mattbuck 17:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Could be sharper and get a bit more of contrast but QI for me. Hubertl, keep in mind that Mattbuck somehow appreciates the detail :-) --Kreuzschnabel 09:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. Symmetry is necessary for a symmetrical subject, IMO. --Jebulon 18:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Kunak Sabah Mostyn-Cave-01.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

Paris - The Eiffel Tower in spring - 2307.jpg

  • Nomination Eiffel Tower (by Jorgeroyan) --Paris 16 13:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The trees in front of the tower aren't nice. A few areas seem burned. Jakec 17:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    quality is good for me and composition is nice --Taxiarchos228 20:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    There's also purple and blue/green CA on the trees and red CA on the tower. Jakec 12:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

London MMB «C2 Canary Wharf.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Nomination Kleiner Sonnenröschen-Bläuling - Aricia agestis --Hockei 20:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO not sharp enough for this kind of image. --XRay 15:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You forget that these butterflies were in hectic motions. Please another opinions. --Hockei 18:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Norwood Junction railway station MMB 03 377439.jpg[edit]

Norwood Junction railway station MMB 03 377439.jpg

  • Nomination 377439 at Norwood Junction. Mattbuck 07:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Much too dark. Far away from QI. -- Spurzem 11:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - IMHO contrast too high... --Ehsc 11:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure who set this to discuss, but ok. ✓ Brightened. Mattbuck 15:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose right part of the image simply to dark (equal shadowed). --Alchemist-hp 19:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    It was getting to evening, the sun was low, I contend this is a realistic portrayal of conditions. Mattbuck 23:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    The dark shadows are still a photographers error. Please use simple another daytime for a better illumination for the entire image. --Alchemist-hp 19:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support realistic and QI, even good IMO --Christian Ferrer 04:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

File:Roundabout_September_2014_12.jpg[edit]

Roundabout September 2014 12.jpg

  • Nomination Roundabout Vällingbyvägen/Råckstavägen. --ArildV 07:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 10:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    could the exposure be optimized? Additional Opinions? --Ehsc 10:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Did you have a opinion? If so, please explain.--ArildV 19:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image is underexposed. A correction is possible, so I'd like to change to support. --Alchemist-hp 19:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

File:2014_Bystrzyca_Kłodzka,_Brama_Wodna_11.JPG[edit]

2014 Bystrzyca Kłodzka, Brama Wodna 11.JPG

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

File:2014_Bazylika_Nawiedzenia_NMP_we_Frydku-Mistku_06.jpg[edit]

2014 Bazylika Nawiedzenia NMP we Frydku-Mistku 06.jpg

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


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

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

File:2014_Lądek-Zdrój,_rynek_03.JPG[edit]

2014 Lądek-Zdrój, rynek 03.JPG

  • Nomination Market Square in Lądek-Zdrój 2 --Jacek Halicki 21:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too strong shadow in the foreground for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Can you brighten the shadow area (or black level) a bit? --Hockei (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 22:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good, for me QI. --Hockei 17:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me now. --Hubertl 11:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Bayon,_Angkor_Thom,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_27.jpg[edit]

Bayon, Angkor Thom, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 27.jpg

  • Nomination Documentation work at Bayon, Angkor Thom‎, Cambodia --Poco a poco 18:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient focus. Above all, the person is disruptive behind the statue. --Steindy 20:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness should be better but it is enough for me. The image is an impressive document of the painter. Please diskuss. -- Spurzem 10:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version with increased sharpening Poco a poco 15:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 17:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately, the main subjekt should be sharp enough but it isn't IMO. --Hockei 20:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness not perfect, but acceptable. Nice documentation. -- Smial 14:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

File:34_cours_Jean-Jaurès,_Pézenas,_Hérault.jpg[edit]

34 cours Jean-Jaurès, Pézenas, Hérault.jpg

  • Nomination Entrance of the 34 Cours Jean-Jaurès. Pézenas. --Christian Ferrer 17:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    Unfortunate lighting imo Poco a poco 18:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Poco a poco, it's a good light, I presume that you speak rather about shadows --Christian Ferrer 07:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion As discussed, due to the shadows not a QI to me --Poco a poco 15:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    Good quality and nice contrast between shadows and nice light, I ask to discuss, thank you Diego --Christian Ferrer 15:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Sorry. But for me this is not a good image. The shadows are very disturbing. -- Spurzem 21:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like playing with light and shadow. No details lost in dark parts, probably slight overexposure in bright areas, but not disturbing. -- Smial 14:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Here I increased the contrast in a deliberate way :) --Christian Ferrer 16:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 07:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC) as smial

File:2014.06.21.-04-Mannheim Rheinau--Hufeisenklee-Widderchen.jpg[edit]

2014.06.21.-04-Mannheim Rheinau--Hufeisenklee-Widderchen.jpg

  • Nomination Hufeisenklee-Widderchen - Zygaena transalpina --Hockei 18:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me--Holleday 12:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems a bit unnatural to me - oversharpened maybe? Hard to say, but for me this is not QI. --Mattbuck 18:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me yes --Livioandronico2013 18:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurred, lack of detail, jpeg artifacts Alvesgaspar 10:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others--Lmbuga 23:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014.06.21.-03-Mannheim Rheinau--Hufeisenklee-Widderchen.jpg[edit]

2014.06.21.-03-Mannheim Rheinau--Hufeisenklee-Widderchen.jpg

  • Nomination Hufeisenklee-Widderchen - Zygaena transalpina --Hockei 18:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me--Holleday 12:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems a bit unnatural to me - oversharpened maybe? Hard to say, but for me this is not QI. --Mattbuck 18:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support For me yes --Livioandronico2013 18:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurred, lack of detail. Alvesgaspar 10:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others--Lmbuga 23:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Brixner_Dom_Orgel_4.JPG[edit]

Brixner Dom Orgel 4.JPG

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

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

File:Bettingen_-_Fernsehturm_St._Chrischona_-_Tag_der_offenen_Tür3.jpg[edit]

Bettingen - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona - Tag der offenen Tür3.jpg

  • Nomination TV Tower St. Chrischona --Taxiarchos228 05:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    Could you crop/paint out that little blue thing at the bottom left? Mattbuck 16:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Not done --Mattbuck 21:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support. The "little blue thing" can not be a reason to decline a very good image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Bettingen_-_Fernsehturm_St._Chrischona_-_Tag_der_offenen_Tür11.jpg[edit]

Bettingen - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona - Tag der offenen Tür11.jpg

  • Nomination TV Tower St. Chrischona, view from operating pulpit --Taxiarchos228 05:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    Noticable barrel distortion. Mattbuck 16:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Not done --Mattbuck 21:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    The left side quite clearly bends out. Taxiarchos has had 10 days to fix this. Mattbuck 23:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
here is n.th. to be fixed, we have a wideangle view --Taxiarchos228 09:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
That’s no excuse. Good wide-angle lenses don’t show any barrel distortion, for the others it’s easily fixed. --Kreuzschnabel 19:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chromatic noise in shady areas. Improvable--Lmbuga 23:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Bettingen_-_Fernsehturm_St._Chrischona_-_Tag_der_offenen_Tür10.jpg[edit]

Bettingen - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona - Tag der offenen Tür10.jpg

  • Nomination TV Tower St. Chrischona, view from operating pulpit --Taxiarchos228 05:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    Perspective/tilt issues. Mattbuck 16:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective/tilt issues --Mattbuck 21:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. QI for me. Please diskuss but not decline! -- Spurzem 22:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why should he? Discuss is set when a contradictory opinion comes up, that’s the normal prodecure as shown in the guidelines. The first reviewer has his own opinion about the image, which may be a clear deline, and he does not yet know you’ve got a different view of things. – As for the image, Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it’s clearly tilted (look in full view at any vertical line, e.g. the panel or the steel structures hanging from the ceiling). The window framing is leaning for real of course. And it’s quite noisy, I wasn’t aware of the Nikon top range to have such problems at ISO 400. --Kreuzschnabel 20:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A bit of chromatic noise in shady areas. Improvable--Lmbuga 23:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Castle Combe Circuit MMB C7 Castle Combe Saloon Car Championship.jpg[edit]

Castle Combe Circuit MMB C7 Castle Combe Saloon Car Championship.jpg

  • Nomination Saloon car racing at Castle Combe. Mattbuck 07:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment QI? The main object is not very sharp. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 11:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • was this a opposing vote? --LC-de 09:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support focus is on the car, it's ok IMO, in more weather conditions were not the best. --Christian Ferrer 10:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I know better images of racing cars which were declined. Therefore no QI for me. Sorry. -- Spurzem 22:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Spurzem --Livioandronico2013 00:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing really sharp. For a racing photo the main subject is way too small depicted. For an overview of the location it is way too unsharp. -- Smial 12:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --LC-de 09:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Championnat_de_France_de_cyclisme_handisport_-_20140614_-_Course_en_ligne_handbike_37.jpg[edit]

Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport - 20140614 - Course en ligne handbike 37.jpg

  • Nomination Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport - 20140614 - Course en ligne handbike. --Pleclown 16:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Poor image description. No indication who the athletes pictured. This image use is impossible. --~~~~ I don't feel like searching the right user for this comment.... --LC-de 08:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor image description. No indication who the athletes pictured. This image use is impossible. --Steindy 21:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not agree. The description is accurate, it's a participant of the race during the french disabled cycling championship. This is not a superstar, just a normal person. Pleclown 11:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 13:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LC-de 08:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Championnat_de_France_de_cyclisme_handisport_-_20140615_-_Contre_la_montre_58.jpg[edit]

Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport - 20140615 - Contre la montre 58.jpg

  • Nomination Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport - 20140615 - Contre la montre. --Pleclown 15:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor image description. No indication who the athletes pictured. This image use is impossible. --Steindy 23:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not agree. The description is accurate, it's a participant of the race during the french disabled cycling championship. This is not a superstar, just a normal person. Pleclown 11:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Pleclown, every athlete has a starting number and the start lists and result lists can these names read. If you write that it is insignificant athletes, where should because then the images so well these are also used in Wikipedia? --Steindy 20:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
        • The fact that the person depicted is not named is not relevant here.
        • As for the educational value, and the possible use in Wikipedia, if this is relevant, use your imagination. A disabled person on a trike... Where can this kind of picture be used in Wikipedia ? Pleclown 20:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 13:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good and impressive photo. This we should have to judge and not the description. -- Spurzem 22:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A good file description and categorization is an essential prerequisite for QI - See the guidelines --Moroder 21:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose to Spurzem's affirmation. This person should be identified.--Jebulon 17:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Why will you know the name of this woman? I see absolutely no reason. Perhaps soon we will get the telephone number too? -- Spurzem 21:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, and still valuable without the name of the person. Yann 09:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Are you sure that this girl is a professional cyclist? I'm not sure, and I don't have problem with the name if she is amateur, but the template {{Personality rights}} is convenient.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In my opinion chromatic aberrations (or halos), and lack of detail (see notes)--Lmbuga 23:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Image is shareable and usable, I'm sure--Lmbuga 23:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes? Yann 09:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB »0D4 City Canal.jpg[edit]

London MMB »0D4 City Canal.jpg

  • Nomination Reflections in the City Canal. Mattbuck 09:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Color noise at right especially at bottom --Christian Ferrer 17:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Mattbuck 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Missing sharpness. I can only detect a narrow sharp area in the lower third of the photo with the best intentions. --Steindy 23:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp enough IMO --Christian Ferrer 04:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For me the word "sharp" is totally absent here --Livioandronico2013 12:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Livioandronico2013 12:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Bettingen_-_Fernsehturm_St._Chrischona_-_Tag_der_offenen_Tür16.jpg[edit]

Bettingen - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona - Tag der offenen Tür16.jpg

  • Nomination TV Tower St. Chrischona, view to Rührberg --Taxiarchos228 05:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Pleclown 16:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until a more accurate description --Christian Ferrer 18:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Christian. Mattbuck 18:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LC-de 07:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:JasperCountyCourthouse_retouched.jpg[edit]

JasperCountyCourthouse retouched.jpg

  • Nomination Jasper County courthouse in Carthage, Missouri. --Kbh3rd 03:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood quality. --Ralf Roletschek 15:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad time of the day, wrong light direction, IMO. One side is in full shadow, the other in half shadow.--Jebulon 11:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support technical quality ok for QI. --MB-one 11:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --Livioandronico2013 22:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jebulon--Lmbuga 16:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If the clock isn't wrong, we look at a north facade, which will all time of the day be in shadow if the sun shines. Some very small overexposed spots, but ineglible. High contrast well handled, good detail also in shadows. The lighting shows the structures of the facade clearly. Good sharpness. -- Smial 18:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Hubertl 09:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose full per Jebulon. --Alchemist-hp 05:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Alchemist-hp 05:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Thu 16 Oct → Fri 24 Oct
Fri 17 Oct → Sat 25 Oct
Sat 18 Oct → Sun 26 Oct
Sun 19 Oct → Mon 27 Oct
Mon 20 Oct → Tue 28 Oct
Tue 21 Oct → Wed 29 Oct
Wed 22 Oct → Thu 30 Oct
Thu 23 Oct → Fri 31 Oct
Fri 24 Oct → Sat 01 Nov