Commons:Quality images candidates

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

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

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

Purpose[edit]

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

Guidelines[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators[edit]

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

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


Creator[edit]

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

Technical requirements[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution[edit]

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

This does not apply to vector graphics (SVG).

Image quality[edit]

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

Composition and lighting[edit]

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

Value[edit]

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

How to nominate[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


Number of nominations[edit]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. 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 November 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]] 18:28, 25 November 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.
The new rule is effective now. Please nominate only a maximum of 5 images per day. [1]

November 25, 2014[edit]

November 24, 2014[edit]

November 23, 2014[edit]

November 22, 2014[edit]

November 21, 2014[edit]

November 20, 2014[edit]

November 19, 2014[edit]

November 18, 2014[edit]

November 17, 2014[edit]

November 16, 2014[edit]

November 15, 2014[edit]

November 13, 2014[edit]

November 9, 2014[edit]

November 8, 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:Архангело-Михайлівська_церква.Краснокутськ.JPG[edit]

Архангело-Михайлівська церква.Краснокутськ.JPG

  • Nomination Архангело-Михайлівська церква 1880р., смт Краснокутськ Харківська обл. By User:Denis Vitchenko --Ahonc 01:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Sorry. It's really too unsharp. --XRay 07:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    I have reverted to the original resolution (it was manually stretched from 2.7 to over 12 MP), thus it is not unsharp anymore --NickK 02:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I won't say "too unsharp", but the crosses are not clear-cut. And the lighting is not lucky, so the colors of church tend to grey. (ru: Не сказал бы, что "слишком нерезко", но кресты, правда, не являются чёткими. И освещение не очень удачное — в результате церковь «сероватая». Может, есть снимки ещё, сделанные днём? --Brateevsky 11:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC))

File:American_Football_EM_2014_-_AUT-DEU_-_141.JPG[edit]

American Football EM 2014 - AUT-DEU - 141.JPG

  • Nomination The gold medal game of the European American Football Championship 2014 was decided on the 7th of July at Ernst-Happel-Stadion in Vienna. Germany won over Austria 30-27 by AleXXw
    --Hubertl 02:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Focus is on his helmet and not his face. --Crisco 1492 11:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree in this case, it was extremely difficult to get the focus. For me its QI even with this small problem --Hubertl 17:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

File:São_Paulo_Center.jpg[edit]

São Paulo Center.jpg

  • Nomination São Paulo Center
    Wilfredor 09:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry say ever the same things....Noise,too much noise --Livioandronico2013 10:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure, I preffer discuss before apply downsize --Wilfredor 13:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Even with this history of the measurement. My photos are much more of your degree but do not have all this noise! Nothing to do with the measure. --Livioandronico2013 15:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Livioandronico2013. Why ISO 800? Downsizing will not really fix it, a noisy images gets soft then. --Kreuzschnabel 08:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Bad weather conditions, without tripod > high ISO. --Wilfredor 10:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I in this condition don't shot....anyway never use more of 400 ISO...the noise is always there with more --Livioandronico2013 11:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment São Paulo is a city of sunny weather almost all year. I hope your premise is a joke, otherwise, we would no images of places with cloudy climates. under certain conditions the noise is acceptable, you can not apply the same rule noise for the day to night.--Wilfredor 12:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Think of it as a joke, meanwhile the noise there. I never use above 400 and in my not there. --Livioandronico2013 13:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Ligularia wilsoniana. Locatie De Kruidhof.JPG[edit]

Ligularia wilsoniana. Locatie De Kruidhof.JPG

  • Nomination Ligularia wilsoniana. Location The Kruidhof.
    Famberhorst 05:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately too many parts are burned out. --Hockei 09:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support i desagree,parts are burned out are very few. And I don't be sure that are "burned out" --Livioandronico2013 10:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Not optimal e.g. the background, but ok --Uoaei1 17:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Kuyalnik-arc.jpg[edit]

Kuyalnik-arc.jpg

  • Nomination The system of retaining walls, stairs, arch, the descent from the cliff (late XIX century). Monument of architecture and urban planning (engineering art) of local significance. Odessa. By User:Q-lieb-in --Ahonc 01:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood quality.--Famberhorst 05:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Missing colors and perspectivic distortion. --Berthold Werner 09:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support black/white is ok to me and the perspective also. --Ralf Roletschek 12:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Absolutely per Berthold Werner (For distortion) --Livioandronico2013 13:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others, and overprocessed.--Jebulon 23:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support „Missing colors“ in an black&white-photo. And when the distortion is much different waved through in the candidacies. For me, this photo is quite successful. The user has other wonderful images with artistic design. --Steindy 23:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There are 256 colors. Perspective? Its a kind of art piece in my opinion. --Hubertl 12:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is not the right category for such artistic pictures. Might be rather suitable for FP, but not QI --Uoaei1 17:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Cosmea (Cosmos bipinnatus) 02.JPG[edit]

Cosmea (Cosmos bipinnatus) 02.JPG

  • Nomination Cosmos (Cosmos bipinnatus) is an annual plant of the sunflower family (Asteraceae).
    Famberhorst 16:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 17:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It seems to me as if it's oversharpend. The relatively thick black lines around the petals comes from that IMO. I'd like to know what other people think. --Hockei 09:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support its a predefined filter of Canon EOS M, QI --Wilfredor 10:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's not a top notch due to the weird transition between the foreground and background, but it's enough for a QI. I suspect the average non-technical person would actually find it more attractive. Ram-Man 14:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't want to say that this picture is bad, quite the converse. But this line gives it an unnatural touch. I'm convinced that this is halfway avoidable. --Hockei 15:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Small correction. --Famberhorst 19:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hardly visible but a bit better. --Hockei 11:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted C messier 14:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)~

File:Code River, as viewed from near Prawirodirjan - North.jpg[edit]

Code River, as viewed from near Prawirodirjan - North.jpg

  • Nomination Code River, passing through YogyakartaCrisco 1492 11:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurred on the left and right side. IMO it's not fixable. --Halavar 12:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Not blurred, but focus is elsewhere. --Crisco 1492 12:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support its ok --Wilfredor 09:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Halavar, sorry. --Hockei 11:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others, the focus point is too far. --Christian Ferrer 16:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

File:View_of_Rocky_Mountains_National_Park_from_Many_Parks_Curve,_looking_NE_20110824_1.jpg[edit]

View of Rocky Mountains National Park from Many Parks Curve, looking NE 20110824 1.jpg

  • Nomination A View of Rocky Mountains National Park from Many Parks Curve, looking NE --DXR 16:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The weather,ok...but really too dark.--Jebulon 22:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Jebulon, I disagree and I don't think too dark is an appropriate direct decline (it can be obviously be fixed if there is a consensus for that). Have you looked at it in full screen? I can brighten it half an EV or so if desired, but this is a upcoming storm, simply not bright in reality... --DXR 22:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm really tired to explain twice every decline vote, sorry.--Jebulon 13:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Brightened a bit. Please trust me that making it brighter than that wouldn't be faithful to reality. --DXR 22:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We need pictures of stormy weather, lack of admosferica light to express the reality of what is observed. --Wilfredor 09:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 21:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Arkalochori Axe 215.jpg[edit]

Arkalochori Axe 215.jpg

  • Nomination Arcalochori axe. --C messier 09:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 09:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For now, because of the yellow chromatic aberration at left, easily correctible. By the way, could you improve the description in the file page ?--Jebulon 10:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)✓ Done --C messier 13:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_kolumna_maryjna_04.JPG[edit]

2014 Kłodzko, kolumna maryjna 04.JPG

  • Nomination Marian Column in Kłodzko 2 --Jacek Halicki 20:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose a bit overexposed IMO, the left is leaning in --Christian Ferrer 07:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, please discussion --Jacek Halicki 19:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed I declined too fast, the new version is ok, sorry. --Christian Ferrer 16:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I cant see any QI criteria overexposed.svg Overexposed --Wilfredor 09:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Halavar 12:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted C messier 14:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Mongolskie_zapasy_na_lokalnym_festiwalu_Naadam_(35).jpg[edit]

Mongolskie zapasy na lokalnym festiwalu Naadam (35).jpg

  • Nomination Traditional Mongolian wrestling during the local Naadam festival. Kharkhorin, Övörkhangai Province, Mongolia. --Halavar 14:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sky WB is off. See this one. --Ram-Man 02:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I fixed the WB. I think the image is good now. --Halavar 17:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Mongolskie_zapasy_na_lokalnym_festiwalu_Naadam_(39).jpg[edit]

Mongolskie zapasy na lokalnym festiwalu Naadam (39).jpg

  • Nomination Audience. Traditional Mongolian wrestling during the local Naadam festival. Kharkhorin, Övörkhangai Province, Mongolia. --Halavar 14:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sky WB is off. See this one. --Ram-Man 02:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I fixed the WB. I think the image is good now. --Halavar 17:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Pickering railway station MMB 02.jpg[edit]

Pickering railway station MMB 02.jpg

  • Nomination Pickering railway station. Mattbuck 07:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Much too dark. No QI for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 08:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    Why discuss? Anyway Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark --Livioandronico2013 08:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoFirst: It is not the sense of CR to send photos immediately there. Second: It is good practice here to give a chance to the people when there is a possibility to fix the problem. Brightening is always worth a try. --Cccefalon 09:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    Dear Cccefalon butMattbuck don't give never chance,anyway normally the people leave a review and don't go directly to CR. I'm here from a few of time and something i know... --Livioandronico2013 09:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Livioandronico2013: if you have a problem with the way I review images then why don't you use my talk page and tell me rather than being passive-aggressive like this. Mattbuck 18:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Because ,Mattbuck, I want that everyone see what I think of your bad way of doing, not just those who read your page.I don't like to hide. Face-smile.svg --Livioandronico2013 18:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I've brightened up the image and removed some color noise. How does it look now? Ram-Man 01:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Spurzem and Livioandronico2013 - too dark, also without colors and contrast. Not a QI. --Halavar 17:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed --Wilfredor 09:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not a sunny day but nothing underexposed --Christian Ferrer 20:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the edit I made makes it bright enough. It could be made a little brighter, but it seems fine to me. Ram-Man 01:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Old Agios Minas iconostasis.JPG[edit]

Old Agios Minas iconostasis.JPG

  • Nomination The iconostasis of the old church of Agios Minas, Heraklio. --C messier 18:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The angle isn't very good. --Mattbuck 18:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Mattbuck thanks for review, I would aprreciate more opinions please. --C messier 14:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment More accurately, it is the angles that are not very good. The image is shot from ground level looking up, which causes the weird stretch, but I'd be OK with that if it were the only problem. But this was also shot just left of center, skewing the cross and giving the image a rotated ccw feel. The detail is pretty good at least. -- Ram-Man 01:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not only the angle is not the best but there are obvious jpeg artifacts in the background. Alvesgaspar 13:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Rheinberg,_St._Peter,_2014-08_CN-15.jpg[edit]

Rheinberg, St. Peter, 2014-08 CN-15.jpg

  • Nomination Organ gallery in the Catholic Saint Peter Church in Rheinberg --Carschten 15:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • See my two annotations please --Cccefalon 21:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --Carschten 11:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't like the crop - there's too much at the bottom for it to be of the organ, but too little to be a general shot. Mattbuck 18:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Completely unnatural equalization in an effort to get the vertical lines vertical. In addition, the window is toal outshines top left. --Steindy 21:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good quality for me! Don't forget that we here have not to vote about featured images and please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Half Support The (lack of) crop is fine, sometimes I like a little context to my images. But the angle is very awkward, causing a rather distracting perspective. But the base quality is very good: sharp, good exposure, excellent color balance, and perhaps most importantly, it's illustrative. It has the look of a downsampled image, but the EXIF is missing (intentionally?). If so, the original full size image should be uploaded, even if it leads to inevitable opposes. -- Ram-Man 04:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is fine to me although I would prefer it cropped in the bottom. Alvesgaspar 13:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

File:USO-CAB_-_20131130_-_Régis_Lespinas.jpg[edit]

USO-CAB - 20131130 - Régis Lespinas.jpg

  • Nomination USO-CAB - 20131130 - Régis Lespinas --Pleclown 11:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice pregame portrait-he keeps our attention despite the guy behind him --Daniel Case 04:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not accessible sufficiently sharp and especially to strong noise. --Steindy 20:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak Support{{neutral}} This is a borderline image, so I'm going to think about this. I agree that the composition is unusual in that the person in the background is not very distracting. The resolution is not high and the noise level approaches unacceptable, but that is not atypical for this type of "sports photography", so I think it might just be fine. Ram-Man 04:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 11:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very small (I assume a downsampling), very noisy, chromatic noise in the hair, sharpness beyond the limit IMO.--Jebulon 10:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality and composition. Alvesgaspar 13:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Noise and size acceptable for sports photography. (I remember PierreSelim's comment in an earlier FPC.) Jkadavoor 03:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise reduction has gone too far imo. I prefer more noise with a bit more sharpness. Very slight CA. -Kadellar 12:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For QI enough.--Hubertl 12:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For QI enough.--Ralf Roletschek 13:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Nottingham railway station MMB 12 158842.jpg[edit]

Nottingham railway station MMB 12 158842.jpg

  • Nomination 158842 at Nottingham. Mattbuck 07:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • I like the idea (would have cropped a bit tighter, though), but I think it's not sharp enough. --El Grafo 10:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems fairly sharp to me - you can read the unit code quite clearly. --Mattbuck 18:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dark,sky overexposed,CA,noise --Livioandronico2013 20:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    It's not overexposed as it's not #FFFFFF. I can't see any CA even on zooms over 300% and it's actually remarkably not noisy. Mattbuck 23:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    For me is as above....the rest are words... --Livioandronico2013 08:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Neither do I see CAs, nor is there any noise. The sky isn't blown out as well. But I'm not sure whether the composition is ok for QI or not since most of the picture is nothing but pure black. Anyway I think I am not experienced enough to make a clear decision. It would be interesting to hear the opinions of some of the QI-regulars here. --Code 18:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I've been hesitant to weigh in and cast a vote because it is so different than the typical images we see. At first glance the clarity isn't great, there is a lot of "dead space", and I wanted to reject out of hand. But not all photos have to have the same technical and compositional attributes. This image is really about the lighting. You get the glow on the train, the glow on the tracks, the glow from the lights in the tunnel, and the glow off the building. It's actually quite a thematic image and visually aesthetic. Why can't an image show it's subject primarily through light instead of detail? It is a very impressive use of light, and regardless of the outcome of this vote for QI purposes, I want to compliment the photographer for a superb job. -- Ram-Man 18:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- I can't oppose this pciture because I like it a lot although I recognize that image quality in on the poor size: little detail probably caused by an agreessive de-noising? Alvesgaspar 14:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    No, just an older camera. Mattbuck 16:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support interesting. --Ralf Roletschek 12:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I see some noise, but not disturbing, some oversharpening, big black areas, and an interesting contre-jour photo. -- Smial 15:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

File:St._Verena_in_Rotwand_Ritten_Westansicht.jpg[edit]

St. Verena in Rotwand Ritten Westansicht.jpg

  • Nomination St. Verena in Rotwand church in Ritten. --Moroder 21:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perspective correction is needed. --Halavar 22:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the hint. The cross is tilted. Regards --Moroder 18:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNot really crisp enough IMO. Mattbuck 18:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not agree. QI for me --Halavar 22:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unlike many other building shots, this has perfect lighting/exposure/dynamic range, proper depth of field, it's sharp, and the composition is slightly interesting. It looks good even at 100%. As for the perspective I wouldn't mind if the cross were straight, but it's the only thing I don't care for in the image. Ram-Man 03:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. For me, the first version was better, because it corresponded to the natural vision. --Steindy 21:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too strong distortet. --Ralf Roletschek 12:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp, no disturbing artifacts. @Ralf: Gegenüber anderen Entzerrversuchen ist das hier aber mal noch durchaus im Rahmen. Mit einer Shiftlinse oder einem waagerecht gehaltenen 17er (unten dann entsprechend viel abschneiden für denselben Bildausschnitt) sähe das ganz ähnlich aus. Du weißt, daß mich zwanghaftes Senkrechtzwingen ebenfalls nervt, aber hier geht es wirklich noch. -- Smial 16:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Rests_of_Temple_of_Diana_in_Nemi.jpg[edit]

Rests of Temple of Diana in Nemi.jpg

  • Nomination Rests of Temple of Diana in Nemi --Livioandronico2013 21:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI -- Spurzem 22:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some parts of the photo are out of focus. Also, some parts are overexposed. --Steindy 22:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral due to composition (the wire in the foreground). I fixed the overexposure and uploaded an edited version. Ram-Man 04:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The new version is better, but some problems are existing further. See my annotations. --Steindy 21:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For the second version. Just a question, maybe you can produce an own version from raw with the same quality? ;-) --Hockei 11:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Walls_of_Temple_of_Diana_in_Nemi.jpg[edit]

Walls of Temple of Diana in Nemi.jpg

  • Nomination Walls of Temple of Diana in Nemi --Livioandronico2013 21:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The vast area of the photo is out of focus. Also, some parts are overexposed. --Steindy 22:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    out of focus? Others please --Livioandronico2013 22:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I have make some annotationes that you can see it yourself. --Steindy 21:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically the QI review rules require review at 100%, which makes the right third of the image "out of focus". Of course it's perfectly fine under reasonable standards, but you should still use a smaller aperture next time. As for the overexposure, I fixed that and uploaded a new version. -- Ram-Man 03:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Your version ist better, but the problems are further existing. See my annotations. --Steindy 21:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Out of focus for me too. As suggested by Ram-Man, a different exposure solution with a smaller aperture (and higher ISO setting) would have solved the problem. Alvesgaspar 14:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Somewhat more DOF would have been nice, but the main parts are sharp enough. -- Smial 16:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Panoramica_del_Centro_de_São_Paulo.jpg[edit]

Panoramica del Centro de São Paulo.jpg

  • Nomination Panoramica del Centro de São Paulo --Wilfredor 16:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise everywhere,not very sharp --Livioandronico2013 20:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Could be nice underestand more the noise concept when the picture is taken with a Nikon D300 and you have a super size image. Thanks --Wilfredor 21:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Understand? Would be better and more interesting to understand your concept of noise, super images are exempt? And Nikon D5000,D4000 etc...what change? --Livioandronico2013 21:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Again. Due to the size of the image, I think that is enough for QI--Wilfredor 21:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Repeat...for me not. Big o small,there's noise --Livioandronico2013 21:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Makes no sense to have small images that meet the minimum requirement without noise. The noise is not everything, it's important to have pictures with more information .--Wilfredor 22:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For some it's not about the size/resolution, but 100% magnification. For me, this is more than acceptable. I find the stitching errors to be quite minor and the "noise" is insignificant. Ram-Man 04:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Given the size of the photo image noise is acceptable. --Steindy 21:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Livioandronico, this is certainly not a QI. Large size does not mitigate the extensive noise and lack of detail. It looks as if the original photo were upsampled. Alvesgaspar 14:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Alvesgaspar: but you are forcing me to apply downsize, this is a panoramic of 25 images --Wilfredor 22:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Where does that strong noise come from? A panoramic cannot show more noise than the source images do. Have they really been that bad? --Kreuzschnabel 12:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Problem Solved, Downsizesing had been applied. Thanks for nice reviews and recomendations --Wilfredor 14:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Are you kidding? Barely above the 2 mpix limit now, way too small for such a shot. It’s still a bit soft due to the noise. And have a brief look into the right bottom corner. --Kreuzschnabel 21:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Now is too small for me --LivioAndronico talk 17:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    I ask myself, for what size requirements, if nobody respects that when reviewing a picture. --Wilfredor 23:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    I appreciate your attempt to make a statement, but I seriously doubt it will work. Just change it back and if they refuse to support, just move on. It's a good photo for sure and still useful regardless. Ram-Man 01:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    I applied rollback to supersize version, I preffer a big size with nosie than a small size without noise, This forces me to apply downsize in my future work. I'm not talking about your comment, I much discouragement when comments that do not help, especially when take into account noise and no great effort to make a panorama of 25 pictures with a camera of 8 years old are made making 104mpx image. --Wilfredor 16:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 13:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise clearly improvable --Lmbuga 14:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Fulmer_Falls_Wide_View_3000px.jpg[edit]

Fulmer Falls Wide View 3000px.jpg

  • Nomination Fulmer Falls Ram-Man 04:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Discussion was getting a bit long, so I moved it here where there is more space. Ram-Man 14:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Please remember to change to /Discuss, or it'll get nuked as soon as QICbot runs! Mattbuck 15:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    I didn't know that. Thanks for the info! Ram-Man 16:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tilted cw. Slight magenta fringing in the foreground water part. All fixable. Please fix the redlink category. --Cccefalon 07:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I fixed the tilting and the category. I don't have the tools to fix the fringing, but if someone else wants to take a shot, go for it. Ram-Man 13:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info still tilted; the single water streaks still don't follow gravity law yet. --Cccefalon 13:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The water streaks are being ejected under pressure from the water behind it and from bouncing off the rocks. You can see how the water curves out from the rock before somewhat straightening, showing it is not falling directly downward. This is easier to see in this version. The direction of the water streaks are not directly at the camera, so of course it would not appear to fall straight down. The image is flat where the rocks meet the water line. Ram-Man 14:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • So far, I did not declined the photo but just left comments. How can it be, that this photo appears in CR during the afternoon? --Cccefalon 18:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    See above. Ram-Man 19:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, I didn't noticed that insertion. --Cccefalon 19:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Big Symbol support vote.svg Support Very beautiful! I particularly like that the water is not frozen. Looks like a painting. --Steindy 21:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Very good. -- Spurzem 22:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chromatic noise (please see note). Seems a bit over processed, and I don't like the water does not look natural (Exposure time, sorry Steindy, my opinion)--Jebulon 11:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I respect your opinion, but I see the best of intentions no chromatic noise. I only see the dust of the water. --Steindy 01:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Its ok IMHO for QI. Nice quality for a E8700 --Wilfredor 09:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    The 8700 was my first digital camera. I loved it, and for a point-and-shoot produced really high quality (sharp) images that would contest my later Nikon D50 SLR. Of course it was no good anywhere but outdoors in bright sunlight due to its poor noise performance (and the other minor faults pointed out by reviewers). It was also a slow camera. But this is one of many very good photos I got from it and 8 years later it is still getting votes for a QI. Not bad. -- Ram-Man 01:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
It was a very nice Camera. lately, QI seem vote by the cameras, rather than the ability of photographers --Wilfredor 10:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Mongolskie_zapasy_na_lokalnym_festiwalu_Naadam_(10).jpg[edit]

Mongolskie zapasy na lokalnym festiwalu Naadam (10).jpg

  • Nomination Traditional Mongolian wrestling during the local Naadam festival. Kharkhorin, Övörkhangai Province, Mongolia. --Halavar 11:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Pleclown 12:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    White balance needs adjustment. --Mattbuck 07:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New, fixed version uploaded. --Halavar 22:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Mongolskie_zapasy_na_lokalnym_festiwalu_Naadam_(12).jpg[edit]

Mongolskie zapasy na lokalnym festiwalu Naadam (12).jpg

  • Nomination The judges and viewers. Traditional Mongolian wrestling during the local Naadam festival. Kharkhorin, Övörkhangai Province, Mongolia. --Halavar 11:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Pleclown 12:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    The white balance is not correct here - everything's green/yellow. --Mattbuck 07:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New, fixed version uploaded. --Halavar 22:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Église_réformée_Saint-Martin_de_Vevey_-_10_-_vitrail_du_chœur.jpg[edit]

Église réformée Saint-Martin de Vevey - 10 - vitrail du chœur.jpg

  • Nomination Église réformée Saint-Martin de Vevey - le chœur - vitrail représentant saint Martin. --Jmh2o 16:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Two issues: Too much black (resolvable by tighter crop, see my note). Needs slight perspective correction. Please try also, if adding a little bit more sharpness is enhancing the upper part of the stained glass window. --Cccefalon 07:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    Feels unsharp to me. Mattbuck 15:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks like some of the changes were done. Good enough for me. --Ram-Man 01:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp in the upper part. --Steindy 01:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp.--Jebulon 19:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, I can not make de upper part sharper. --Jmh2o 07:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Belinskogo_Bridge_SPB_01.jpg[edit]

Belinskogo Bridge SPB 01.jpg

  • Nomination Belinskogo Bridge in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 20:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Combination of bad foreground lighting and wires obstructing the best part. --Ram-Man 01:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Wat? No-no, you have mistaken, it's not FPC, I require the arbitral tribunal. :) --Florstein 19:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Ha, funniest thing I heard all day! It's true that I may emphasize composition more than some others, so let's see what they say. Incidentally, this is an example where the red-channel clipping is unimportant. Ram-Man 20:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The lighting in my opinion is unbalanced and the image seems to be a bit pressed. -- Spurzem 21:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Extreme wide angle perspetive is a bit irritating, but quality is acceptable. -- Smial 15:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Zespół_klasztoru_Gandan_(01).jpg[edit]

Zespół klasztoru Gandan (01).jpg

  • Nomination Gateway. Gandantegchinlen Monastery, Ulan Bator, Mongolia. --Halavar 20:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 20:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilt, tight crop.--Jebulon 21:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jebulon --Kreuzschnabel 18:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice facade detail. -- Smial 13:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree, but here we are talking about technical qualities of pictures, not beauty of subjects.--Jebulon 00:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, of course. The detail is very well depicted with good sharpness, colours and lighting. So we see nice facade details. If I want to show a detail, I do not need to show the complete thing. And I do not need to do a perspectivic correction if I want to show a special perspective. My special view as a photographer would be broken then. -- Smial 15:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Smial. --Ram-Man 20:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jebulon. --Kadellar 13:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jebulon.--Lmbuga 14:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche_--_2014_--_2781.jpg[edit]

Dülmen, Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche -- 2014 -- 2781.jpg

  • Nomination Holy Cross church, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Distortion and CA at upper right; sky seems overexposed --Daniel Case 05:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Thanks for your review. Distortion and CAs are fixed.--XRay 16:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don’t like the strong distortion of the tower, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 06:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Kreuzschnabel. Yann 13:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too strong distortet --Ralf Roletschek 12:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Żelazno,_Kościół_św._Marcina_02.JPG[edit]

2014 Żelazno, Kościół św. Marcina 02.JPG

  • Nomination Church of Saint Martin in Żelazno 1 --Jacek Halicki 18:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I've looked at this four times. There are so many noisy shadow areas, the lighter areas are not tack sharp. It's underwhelming. Ram-Man 03:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I disagree, please discussion --Jacek Halicki 23:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sky looks unnatural indeed. This may in this case be the result of a low JPEG quality. Can you upload another version with better JPEG quality settings? --Code 10:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. QI! It is the lack of many good photos that colors are more beautiful than in reality. But this is no reason to decline. Further I can not see that the image would be too noisy. -- Spurzem 18:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Spurzem--Livioandronico2013 21:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Rosa 'Madame Isaac Pereire'. Locatie De Kruidhof 03.JPG[edit]

Rosa 'Madame Isaac Pereire'. Locatie De Kruidhof 03.JPG

  • Nomination Rosa 'Madame Isaac Pereire'. Location De Kruidhof.
    Famberhorst 06:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Cccefalon 07:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. The image is overexposed, especially the rose. --Ram-Man 20:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A very little bit but sure ok for me --Livioandronico2013 13:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hockei 18:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Overexposed? -- Spurzem 22:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ram-Man. Yes, overexposed. The red channel on the rose is blown, that’s why the edges look so blueish. The sky is widely blown and posterized, too. Not a QI for me. Better lighting required. --Kreuzschnabel 13:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with the opposers Alvesgaspar 17:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose posterization --Carschten 13:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others --Lmbuga 14:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. New version.--Famberhorst 18:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Out of date clock icon 2.svg Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days Ram-Man 14:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Monumento_a_la_Independencia,_México_D.F.,_México,_2014-10-13,_DD_22.JPG[edit]

Monumento a la Independencia, México D.F., México, 2014-10-13, DD 22.JPG

  • Nomination Independence Monument, Mexico City, Mexico --Poco a poco 18:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is better than this picture, except for the very strange light ghosts that really detract from the image. Others may find the people ghosts distracting as well. Ram-Man 13:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Are you rejecting because of the ghots? The are not relevant versus the size of the subject IMHO Poco a poco 22:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Not the ghosts, they are just an additional factor, but I know that some reviewers are bothered by it even more than I am. Ram-Man 12:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Do you mind if we discuss it. I thing this decline is pretty tough --Poco a poco 21:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Isn't the picture leaning to the left? Or does it just seem so? Concerning the ghosts according to my opinion they are no reason for declining a promotion. However, there are some strange light effects with the lamps - they look like firing laser beams. Did they move during the exposure? --Code 18:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • The strange lights are what I called "light ghosts". Perhaps laser beams is more accurate. They are also on the point sources of light in the background buildings, and they don't all point in the same direction. It seems like it is a strange lens artifact. Ram-Man 01:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 11:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose blown whites, strange looking statue on the top of the column (blown whites, posterization?). --Carschten 15:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed Alvesgaspar 17:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 14:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Benkoka_Sabah_Jetty-at-Dataran-Benkoka-Pitas-01.jpg[edit]

Benkoka Sabah Jetty-at-Dataran-Benkoka-Pitas-01.jpg

  • Nomination Benkoka, Sabah: Jetty at the resthouse at Dataran Benkoka Pitas --Cccefalon 04:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 05:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Its completely overexposed. --Hubertl 07:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    Needless to say, I disagree. There is considerable detail even in the clouds. Looks more like a somewhat misty day. Crisco 1492 08:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    It's extremely overexposed. Check the histogram. Ram-Man 12:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    It was intended as feather-light depiction of the morning at Marudu Bay. I should have foreseen, that only a gaussian histo will be expected here ... anyway, I ✓ reworked it. --Cccefalon 14:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the new version. Ram-Man 21:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 17:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough: the blue channel is near the limit but not really blown -- Alvesgaspar 17:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted Ram-Man 14:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Münchenstein_-_Grün80-Park_-_Seismosaurus2.jpg[edit]

Münchenstein - Grün80-Park - Seismosaurus2.jpg

  • Nomination Dinosaur at Grün 80 --Taxiarchos228 05:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition: Tail is cut off. --Ram-Man 02:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    tail isn't presentable because it´s behind the brushwood, beside of this I see no valid reason against QI. --Taxiarchos228 22:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I would like to see the complete tail too. But it should not be a reason to decline this image. -- Spurzem 20:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Ram-Man. Not only the tail is cut off (no matter the reason) but the composition looks unbalanced. Alvesgaspar 17:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree. Would look balanced IMHO if the rightmost 40 percent are cropped off. But then, the head is unsharp. --Kreuzschnabel 12:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tail cropped is a reason to decline: The picture is taked from behind, it's not a portrait or close-up. Left area (head) is unsharp --Lmbuga 17:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined Ram-Man 14:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Schloss_Pottendorf_-_view_heading_west.jpg[edit]

Schloss Pottendorf - view heading west.jpg

  • Nomination Ruins of palace Pottendorf and chapel. View heading west. --Herzi Pinki 22:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting foreground elements. --Ram-Man 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree, for me QI --Hubertl 13:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the composition is acceptable. --Code 18:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice, but unsharp. --Carschten 15:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition but unsharp Alvesgaspar 17:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The sharpness could be better, but it is acceptable for QI. However, there are two sensor spots to eliminate. --Steindy 01:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown sky, posterizing clouds, and most of the subject is unsharp. Sorry, I don’t think it was possible to take a QI by single shot in this lighting. --Kreuzschnabel 08:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Intern_of_Church_of_St._John_of_the_Malva_in_Trastevere.jpg[edit]

Intern of Church of St. John of the Malva in Trastevere.jpg

  • Nomination Intern of Church of St. John of the Malva in Trastevere --Livioandronico2013 20:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed, low contrast, and a little noise. --Ram-Man 03:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Ok now Ram-Man? --Livioandronico2013 09:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    I like the original better. This white balance is not great. And the image is underexposed regardless. Ram-Man 12:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    Ok Ram-Man,last chance. Better now? Face-grin.svg--LivioAndronico talk 14:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    So, I modified it to brighten it up and increase the contrast. Not too much, but it pops much more now. This is what I had in mind. Ram-Man 23:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    The last,if don't work I surrender --Livioandronico2013 13:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Ram-Man 15:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy (surprising because of ISO 100), low sharpness. --Carschten 15:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Enough for me. --Hockei 18:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy and unsharp. Alvesgaspar 17:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Enough for me --Wilfredor 18:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Out of date clock icon 2.svg Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days Ram-Man 14:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

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