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 • ‎svenska
float

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

Purpose[edit]

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

Guidelines[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators[edit]

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

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


Creator[edit]

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

Technical requirements[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution[edit]

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

This does not apply to vector graphics (SVG).

Image quality[edit]

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

Composition and lighting[edit]

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

Value[edit]

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

How to nominate[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


Number of nominations[edit]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


Evaluating images[edit]

Any registered user, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination.
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

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


Grace period and promotion[edit]

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

How to execute decision[edit]

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

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

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

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 2015 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache


Contents

Nominations[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 22:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.
Please nominate only a maximum of 5 images per day. [1]

April 25, 2015[edit]

April 24, 2015[edit]

April 23, 2015[edit]

April 22, 2015[edit]

April 21, 2015[edit]

April 20, 2015[edit]

April 19, 2015[edit]

April 18, 2015[edit]

April 17, 2015[edit]

April 16, 2015[edit]

April 15, 2015[edit]

April 13, 2015[edit]

Consensual review[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".


Consensual Review[edit]

File:2014.09.20.-12-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Wolfspinne-Xerolycosa nemoralis-Weibchen.jpg[edit]

2014.09.20.-12-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Wolfspinne-Xerolycosa nemoralis-Weibchen.jpg

  • Nomination Xerolycosa nemoralis, Weibchen (female) --Hockei 12:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no clear subject to background --Denkmalhelfer 18:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm convinced it's not the nature's intention.--Hockei 05:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Singapore_High-rises-at-Marina-Bay-02.jpg[edit]

Singapore High-rises-at-Marina-Bay-02.jpg

  • Nomination Singapore: Highrises at Marina Bay: OUE Bayfront, The Fullerton Bay Hotel, Change Alley Aerial Plaza and The Fullerton Pavilion --Cccefalon 02:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Water on the front have no structure and partly CA --Denkmalhelfer 17:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree: I cannot see any relevant CA. --Cccefalon 21:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality--Lmbuga 11:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --Milseburg 14:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Ruddy_darter_dragonfly_(Sympetrum_sanguineum)_almost_adult_male_wings_forward.jpg[edit]

Ruddy darter dragonfly (Sympetrum sanguineum) almost adult male wings forward.jpg

  • Nomination Ruddy darter dragonfly (Sympetrum sanguineum) almost adult male --Charlesjsharp 20:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark and a bit noisy. --Hockei 12:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Noise is acceptable and looks fine --Denkmalhelfer 17:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Myra_theatre.jpg[edit]

Myra theatre.jpg

  • Nomination Demre - Ruins of Myra - Theatre --Imehling 08:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO, overexposed at the orchestra and too tight crop at the bottom. --C messier 12:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done --Imehling 17:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    The surface shows no detail, just grey. I don't think this can be saved. --C messier 11:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC) I think we should discuss that. In my view the surfaces of the stones in the theatre show no structure because they are sleek. There are structures visible on other grey stones. --Imehling 12:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose left part of circle end in nothing and not sharp. --Denkmalhelfer 17:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

File:2012-05-02 GoWwest-USA (385).jpg[edit]

2012-05-02 GoWwest-USA (385).jpg

  • Nomination le village fantôme à Calico, près de Barstow, Californie du sud.(USA).--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 08:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)* Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment could you brighten the dark areas and check, if you can remove the CA (see notes)? --Hubertl 08:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. Thank you Hubertl for your note correction CA and brighten the dark areas.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC) * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment puhhhh! Have you seen the first version from November? I Don´t know really, why you darkened this one. I set it on Discuss, maybe I´m wrong. --Hubertl 18:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose to much shadow without CA --Denkmalhelfer 18:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion

File:ZSL_London_-_Ring-tailed_lemur_(02).jpg[edit]

ZSL London - Ring-tailed lemur (02).jpg

  • Nomination Ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta) in London Zoo. --KTC 16:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Paw, leg and tail too blurred. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 17:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition and for me sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 19:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lmbuga 20:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for QI.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 13:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

File:ZSL_London_-_Ring-tailed_lemur_(01).jpg[edit]

ZSL London - Ring-tailed lemur (01).jpg

  • Nomination Ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta) in London Zoo. --KTC 16:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Feet too unsharp. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 16:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Feet are sharp enough for me. I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 19:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Weak support --Lmbuga 20:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support looks fine --Denkmalhelfer 18:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for QI.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Viooltje (Viola cornuta), Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei 02.jpg[edit]

Viooltje (Viola cornuta), Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei 02.jpg

  • Nomination Viola cornuta, Location, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei.
    Famberhorst 04:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF a tick too shallow. Besides. Please fix the description. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 10:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think, for a non studio work it is well done. The center is sharp. This is whats possible with f/13. --Hubertl 15:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dust spot (see note) is disturbing IMO. F/13, but the DOF is a bit sparse to be QI IMO. Personal opinion: I don't know if it has too much contrast or if it is oversaturated. I don't like the red halo of the yellow edge (see note)--Lmbuga 16:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Dust Spot and edge removed.--Famberhorst 17:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Fürstliche_Gruft_für_Karl_Fugger_Babenhausen-5.jpg[edit]

Fürstliche Gruft für Karl Fugger Babenhausen-5.jpg

  • Nomination Neuromanischer Zentralbau in Kapellenform, Einfriedung mit Schmiedeeisengitter, von Leonhard Romeis und Jakob Raffler, 1889/90 --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 07:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Probably could have been cropped below but otherwise good --Daniel Case 21:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs perspective corrections before promotion IMO. The compo is not good for a QI (to be cropped below, indeed. Consensual review, please.--Jebulon 21:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not a good combo, frame cutted --Denkmalhelfer 18:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jebulon it needs perspective correction.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 22:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Geranium sylvaticum20140704 481.jpg[edit]

Geranium sylvaticum20140704 481.jpg

  • Nomination Flower of Wood cranesbill (Geranium sylvaticum). --Bff 14:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 2,048 × 1,536 pixels. The minimum resolution for submissions is 4 megapixels. Too tight at top IMO--Lmbuga 15:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Please don't apply this ominous rule before there is a real consensus about it which isn't found during a ad-hoc-eastern-holiday-pseudo-vote. --LC-de 22:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't apply the rule. Flowers of Geranium sylvaticum have 2-3 cm. With 3 cm is 4 megapixels too? This is QIC! The picture don't has good composition IMO, but it's a good picture--Lmbuga 16:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lmbuga. --Code 18:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 23:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File: Bad Wörishofen, Klosterkirche, Fresko - Geißelung.JPG[edit]

Bad Wörishofen, Klosterkirche, Fresko - Geißelung.JPG

  • Nomination Fresco Flagellation of Christ in the monastery church of Bad Wörishofen -- Spurzem 09:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeToo blurred. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 20:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Where? Perhaps you should get new glasses? ;-) I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 21:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ah, I see. The fresco painter used a resolution not sufficient for QI. Additionally his brush strokes were a bit uneven and blurred -> too much alcohol? No, taking a look at the edges I dont think its blurred, even if its starting to loose contours due to ISO noise. But this is IMHO still tolerable in this case. --LC-de 11:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me --Rjcastillo 15:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 20:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 23:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File:2009-05-31 Bonn-Endenich Schumannhaus Bueste (1).JPG[edit]

2009-05-31 Bonn-Endenich Schumannhaus Bueste (1).JPG

  • Nomination Bust of Robert Schumann, Bonn, Germany (by Sir James).--Leit 09:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Below 4Mpix. Sorry --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 20:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Please don't apply this ominous rule before there is a real consensus about it which isn't found during a ad-hoc-eastern-holiday-pseudo-vote. --LC-de 22:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 23:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Common_pheasant_(Phasianus_colchicus)_male_white_hybrid.jpg[edit]

Common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) male white hybrid.jpg

  • Nomination Common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) male white hybrid, Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire --Charlesjsharp 20:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportNice good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, nice, but it's blurried and the head lacks detail--Lmbuga 16:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Lmbuga. Nearly all details on the animal are killed by blur and/or noise reduction. --LC-de 07:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 23:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File:2015-03-22_Air_Berlin_Takeoff_at_Berlin-Tegel_by_sebaso.jpg[edit]

2015-03-22 Air Berlin Takeoff at Berlin-Tegel by sebaso.jpg

  • Nomination Air Berlin Takeoff at Berlin-Tegel, Boeing 737 D-ABKT --Sebaso 19:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the sky is overexposed--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 19:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please check again on commons detail page with white background - its not overexposed. --Sebaso 20:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK! In that case, I'll adjust my judgment in the discussion.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 20:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Well it does seem over-exposed to me too. --Charlesjsharp 20:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Well, the sky isn't overexposed, it is just a dull day. But - this picture shows actually only sky. And the parts that aren't sky are overprocessed with strong artifacts of what I assume might be caused of oversharpening naturally blurred areas (blurred by turbulent air) --LC-de 11:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 13:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

File:2015-02-21_Samstag_am_Karmelitermarkt_Wien_-_9440.jpg[edit]

2015-02-21 Samstag am Karmelitermarkt Wien - 9440.jpg

  • Nomination Farmersmarket on a saturday at the Karmelitermarkt, Vienna --Hubertl 00:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Both sides leaning out Poco a poco 09:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • ✓ Done New, perspective correctioned version uploaded, Poco a poco.
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks fine to me now Poco a poco 20:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose crop bad with cut sign --Denkmalhelfer 17:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sign itself is not subject of this picture, Denkmalhelfer. Außerdem gilt in Deutschland Vermummungsverbot! --Hubertl 08:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA. Saturation. -- Smial 10:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done CA korrigiert, danke für den Hinweis, Smial --Hubertl 11:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment CA now acceptable, but why has the new version now this reddish tint? Reds are partly oversaturated now. I don't understand. -- Smial (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment red-saturation reduced. Thanks a lot for your friendly suggestion. @Smial: --Hubertl 20:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK IMO. --C messier 15:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 21:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 13:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Pennsylvania Route 487 northbound south of Stillwater.JPG[edit]

Pennsylvania Route 487 northbound south of Stillwater.JPG

  • Nomination Pennsylvania Route 487. Jakec 18:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSorry Jakec below 4mpx, there is new rules (see QI talk page) --Christian Ferrer 14:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    • It was nominated before that rule. Jakec 11:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA(s), poor detail, 2,123 × 1,504 pixels (see notes)--Lmbuga 16:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'd like to add unclear composition to the lmbugas opposing arguments - beside the resolution one which is still not agreed. Composition should receive more attention than it gets now as this says more about quality than the resolution. --LC-de 07:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 23:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Störche Steinwedel (3).jpg[edit]

Störche Steinwedel (3).jpg

  • Nomination Two young white storks. --Hydro 07:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Cayambe 11:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I'm not convinced about the sharpness here --Poco a poco 14:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose looks not sharp --Denkmalhelfer 12:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a sharpened version. --Hydro 19:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Unbalanced IMO, but...--Lmbuga 16:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 13:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Stryhanka Tyshycia Windbreak.JPG[edit]

Stryhanka Tyshycia Windbreak.JPG

  • Nomination Windbreak between Stryhanka and Tyshycia villages. --Mykola Swarnyk 05:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC) * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please do a perspective correction..! --Hubertl 06:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ DoneMykola Swarnyk 07:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 08:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose below 4mpx --Christian Ferrer 13:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    Bigger size added. --Mykola Swarnyk 15:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC) ok but it's a bit unsharp with lack of fine details, sorry --Christian Ferrer 16:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Really, too unsharp. CAs (see note as example). Underexposed areas IMO. Sorry, nothing is QI IMO: The road is cropped or too tight at left (poor composition)--Lmbuga 17:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, haven´t seen that you´ve already answered, Christian! --Hubertl 13:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I totally accepting that. Thanks for revision! Mykola Swarnyk 22:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 21:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Benton Township, Columbia County, Pennsylvania in April (1).JPG[edit]

Benton Township, Columbia County, Pennsylvania in April (1).JPG

  • Nomination Benton Township, Columbia County, Pennsylvania. Jakec 18:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 00:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose below 4mpx --Christian Ferrer 15:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    Christian Ferrer the limiti for 4 mpx started from 14 April --Livioandronico2013 19:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    Yes and we are the 19 April and the image is still candidate, until it's writen in the guideline it's the same rules for all candidates in this page, I was not in favor of this rules and I'm sorry that Jakec was not invited for to vote and that the vote be stopped so fast. --Christian Ferrer 08:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    But surely if it was nominated before, it would be subject to the grandfather clause. Jakec 18:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Christian Ferrer 21:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor detail (see note). Too noise reduction IMO. CAs (see notes). 2,256 × 1,504 pixels (not 4 megapixels). It seems dark IMO. A bit cyan--Lmbuga 17:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree to Lmbuga --Denkmalhelfer 18:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 20:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Hondeghem Estaminet de l'ancienne maison commune.jpg[edit]

Hondeghem Estaminet de l'ancienne maison commune.jpg

  • Nomination Hondeghem Estaminet de l'ancienne maison commune.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 17:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. --Touzrimounir 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Touzrimounir Can you give me the pleasure to motivate your opposition? Pierre and I do you'd be terribly grateful! Thanks --Livioandronico2013 18:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A pic ‎(4 608 × 3 456 pixels, taille du fichier : 11,73 Mio, type MIME : image/jpeg), corrected with RawTerapee ! Please, Touzrimounir I would be happy to know why it's Insuffisant quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support The left part of the picture is blurry, perhaps may be cropped Ezarate 01:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ Ezarate thank you for your review. The left part croped, gives a pic too tight.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 20:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Ξυλόσκαλο 3751.jpg[edit]

Ξυλόσκαλο 3751.jpg

  • Nomination Fog on Lefka Ori, Crete. --C messier 13:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but: no meaningful file naming, stains, uncalibrated Colorspace. --F. Riedelio 15:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Name is in greek (i think this acceptable) and is the name of the place (+ image number from the camera). Uncalibrated Colorspace maybe due to RawTherapee, I think I can fix it. Can you note the stains on the picture? --C messier 18:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I note some stains on the picture. --F. Riedelio 15:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose fog blow out half of the picture --Denkmalhelfer (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @F. Riedelio, thank you for your review. Cloned out the noted features, although I think it is more possible that these were real world objects, propably garbage. I cannot fix the color space in EXIF data, but sRGB was selected when saving from RawTherapee. --C messier 18:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Denkmalhelfer, I can't understand your comment. There is visible structure in the fog (which is also the subject of the image) and as is a thick fog it covers the top of the hills/mountains. I don't see a technical shortcoming there. --C messier 18:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment here we are not talking about creative or idea behin the picture, it is pure quality of the pciture. And this is not good due too half of the picture flooded in white fog. --Denkmalhelfer 12:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support with less of the half of the picture flooded in white fog. --Ralf Roletschek 11:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Ralf.. It was the fog that makes you capture this moment. --Hubertl 15:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 20:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Irisbus_Cristalis_ETB_12_n°115_TCL_Place_Carnot_-_Florian_Fèvre.JPG[edit]

Irisbus Cristalis ETB 12 n°115 TCL Place Carnot - Florian Fèvre.JPG

  • Nomination Trolleybus in Limoges --Billy69150 15:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tilt/perspective issues. --C messier 10:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done --Billy69150 10:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Suffers from pincushion distortion on the left, and there is a lot of almost empty space above the subject. Mattbuck 07:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why is this image in CR? --C messier 09:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pincushion distortion on the left. The car of the bottom right is disturbing--Lmbuga 17:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Minor issues but very good dynamic with this bus. Kvardek du 19:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pincushion distortion not fixed. --C messier 06:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as for lmbuga -- Smial 11:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 20:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Sea Fishing, Batticaloa.jpg[edit]

Sea Fishing, Batticaloa.jpg

  • Nomination Fishermen return to seashore --AntanO 18:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Touzrimounir 18:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree: Colour noise in the sea part and posterisation in the sky. --Cccefalon 19:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can't see any relevant chromatic noise or posterization. Alvesgaspar 14:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great composition but Cccefalon is right. On the left side in the sky there is some heavy posterization. It's really a pity. Otherwise the picture was FP-worthy in my eyes. I don't know if that's fixable. --Code 09:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose coclour noise on dark parts. --Denkmalhelfer 12:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Colour noise in the sea part and posterisation in the sky. As Cccefalon--Lmbuga 17:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Posterized sun evident at thumbnail size. Daniel Case 22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 23:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Hoverfly April 2014-1.jpg[edit]

Hoverfly April 2014-1.jpg

  • Nomination A female hoverfly (Epistrophe eligans) on a Narrow leaved Cistus flower. The only one fly of this species that I have seen in Portugal. Alvesgaspar 21:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looking at Wikipedia etc. I think this is a different species. --Charlesjsharp 12:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info No, it is not. It was identified by an expert (diptera.info) Alvesgaspar 19:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Alvesgaspar:: I think it would be relevant to add details about the identification process on the file page, preferably with a link to the discussion where the identification is established. -- Slaunger 16:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
      • @Slaunger: Done, it is not possible to insert links into this template. Gerard Pennards is an expert on syrphid flies -- Alvesgaspar 13:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
        • @Alvesgaspar: I do not understand; what do you mean by you cannot add links 'into this template'? It is the file page I am referring to. That is the place to keep such informative details about the identification, and I do not see that any such information has been added to the file page. -- Slaunger 18:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Ahh, you had added it on the talk page? I have now integrated it into the file description. -- Slaunger 18:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the subject is sharp. The identification seems valid. --Hubertl 16:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 21:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 20:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Webysther_20150321171849-2_-_Painel_Tiradentes_de_Candido_Portinari.jpg[edit]

Webysther 20150321171849-2 - Painel Tiradentes de Candido Portinari.jpg

  • Nomination Painel Tiradentes, Candido Portinari. One of best works. --Webysther 14:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 18,431 × 3,351 pixels, but sorry, blurried, noise, poor detail, CAs. With this resolution other users may think differently: Discuss--Lmbuga 18:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info In place of exposition is not possible use tripod, flash and have low light. O do no how fix this issues. To create this image i used another 20 joined. -- Webysther 11:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me the resolution is good enogh to resolv the problems. In 3k pixel is impossible to see any problem. -- Webysther (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)The nominator is not allowed to vote --Christian Ferrer 07:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 20:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_Nicolás,_Tallinn,_Estonia,_2012-08-11,_DD_17.JPG[edit]

Iglesia de San Nicolás, Tallinn, Estonia, 2012-08-11, DD 17.JPG

  • Nomination St. Nicholas' Church, Tallinn, Estonia --Poco a poco 10:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Steeple unsharp, with CA --Daniel Case 05:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No reaction, please, let's discuss this one --Poco a poco 20:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good now. Daniel Case 20:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral No good perspective for me. Overall we see tilted lines. -- Spurzem 11:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The tilted lines underline the character of the subject: beeing high. And leads the eye up to the sky in good colour and with beautiful clouds. --ArishG 15:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Look to the hauses at the right. They don't lead me to the beautiful sky. I only think they will fall in. -- Spurzem 20:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: you are voting in 2 different directions Poco a poco 10:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The verticals should be rectilinear. --Code 16:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Daniel Case: Are you still opposing? --Code (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but only without unnatural distortion. Verticlas not must be rectilinear. --Ralf Roletschek 11:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective distortion is disturbing--Lmbuga 17:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correcting the distortion would give an absurd impression of the tower. --ArishG 06:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote? Code 16:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Lycaena thersamon - Lesser Fiery Copper 01.jpg[edit]

Lycaena thersamon - Lesser Fiery Copper 01.jpg

  • Nomination Wing upperside of male Lesser Fiery Copper (Lycaena thersamon). Adana - Turkey. --Zcebeci 10:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Halavar 10:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wings not in focus and are the colours not over-saturated? --Charlesjsharp 13:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support fine for me --Denkmalhelfer 12:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 20:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 02:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:PlacaenEscuelaNormal.JPG[edit]

PlacaenEscuelaNormal.JPG

  • Nomination Plaque infront of Escuela Normal, Tandil, Argentina --Ezarate 21:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Cayambe 08:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Could easily be taken with exactly frontal view, so distortion is not acceptable for me. --Uoaei1 18:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 02:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Fri 17 Apr → Sat 25 Apr
Sat 18 Apr → Sun 26 Apr
Sun 19 Apr → Mon 27 Apr
Mon 20 Apr → Tue 28 Apr
Tue 21 Apr → Wed 29 Apr
Wed 22 Apr → Thu 30 Apr
Thu 23 Apr → Fri 01 May
Fri 24 Apr → Sat 02 May
Sat 25 Apr → Sun 03 May