Commons:Quality images candidates

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

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

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

Purpose[edit]

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

Guidelines[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators[edit]

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

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


Creator[edit]

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

Technical requirements[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution[edit]

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

This does not apply to vector graphics (SVG).

Image quality[edit]

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

Composition and lighting[edit]

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

Value[edit]

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

How to nominate[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


Number of nominations[edit]

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


Evaluating images[edit]

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

How to review[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

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


Grace period and promotion[edit]

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

How to execute decision[edit]

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

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

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

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 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]] 22:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.
The new rule is effective now. Please nominate only a maximum of 5 images per day. [1]

March 6, 2015[edit]

March 5, 2015[edit]

March 4, 2015[edit]

March 3, 2015[edit]

March 2, 2015[edit]

March 1, 2015[edit]

February 28, 2015[edit]

February 27, 2015[edit]

February 26, 2015[edit]

February 25, 2015[edit]

February 24, 2015[edit]

February 23, 2015[edit]

February 22, 2015[edit]

February 16, 2015[edit]

Consensual review[edit]

Rules

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

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


Consensual Review[edit]

File:St Casimir Church Interior 3, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg[edit]

St Casimir Church Interior 3, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

  • Nomination St. Casimir Church interior. Vilnius, Lithuania. (by Diliff) --Pofka 11:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Ximonic 16:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very distorted and much too bright. No QI for me. -- Spurzem 20:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Steinhuder Meer, Skulptur Tanz der Winde (1).jpg[edit]

Steinhuder Meer, Skulptur Tanz der Winde (1).jpg

  • Nomination Sculpture at Lake Steinhude --Hydro 08:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Isiwal 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    Looking to the horizon in this flat landscape, I think, it´s tilted. --Milseburg 20:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Samantha_Stollenwerck_Bardentreffen_2014_Sa_1885.jpg[edit]

Samantha Stollenwerck Bardentreffen 2014 Sa 1885.jpg

  • Nomination Samantha Stollenwerck (USA / Germany), appearance at the 39th music festival "Bardentreffen" 2014 in Nuremberg, Germany, Lorenz square stage --Rs-foto 23:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Uninteresting random centered composition; upper crop too tight (it should be looser, or cut some of the hat instead). A bit noisy. --Kadellar 17:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree. The image is sharp enough, well exposed, has no disturbing noise or lens errors. Composition has perhaps no big wow! factor, but is acceptable as nothing essential is badly cropped. At com:fpc I would decline because of lacking wow!, but in com:qic it is absolutely ok. "Don't like the composition" should not be the only reason for decline except the image is completely messed up. --Smial 15:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:St Casimir Church Interior 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg[edit]

St Casimir Church Interior 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

  • Nomination St. Casimir Church main altar. Vilnius, Lithuania. (by Diliff) --Pofka 08:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    Is it really QI? Please look at the rear vaults and at the chandeliers. They are very distorted. And the dome is too bright. -- Spurzem 23:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Its always bright inside of this church. The details quality is unquestionable for me. Just look at the altar and all the frescoes. -- Pofka (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course the image is very sharp but please look at the marks. -- Spurzem 13:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014-12-18_Facade_details_at_Neue_Burg,_Vienna_-hu-_6253.jpg[edit]

2014-12-18 Facade details at Neue Burg, Vienna -hu- 6253.jpg

  • Nomination Facade details of the neue Burg, Vienna --Hubertl 08:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:38, 04 March 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree Too dark, I'll support if fixed --Moroder 12:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC) * ✓ Done Not too much, otherwise I would lose textures, especially in the face, it was the 18th of December, late afternoon.. But thx for your review, Wolfgang! --Hubertl 15:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Kaunas Town Hall 1, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Kaunas Town Hall 1, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

  • Nomination Kaunas Town Hall in Kaunas, Lithuania. (by Diliff) --Pofka 09:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good quality. --Cccefalon 06:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I’d like to discuss this. First, the distortion is too much for me, the topmost store of the tower appears slanted to the back. Second, the entire image looks oversharpened to me (white linings around details). As yet a Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose for the oversharpening. --Kreuzschnabel 08:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I like it, but there is a pixel or two of bad bordering on left and right. Top is a bit noisy too. Mattbuck 20:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Santiagobernabeupanoramav5.JPG[edit]

Santiagobernabeupanoramav5.JPG

  • Nomination Santiago Bernabéu Stadium.--لا روسا 22:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --El Grafo 09:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    I don't like the crops, specially that of the field. --Kadellar 17:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The photo itself has a good quality, there is no way to have the field completely by a person, but via photo aerial.--لا روسا 05:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Overexposure, too tight a crop. Mattbuck 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Royal Naval College, Greenwich 00 (2).JPG[edit]

Royal Naval College, Greenwich 00 (2).JPG

  • Nomination Royal Naval College, Greenwich.--لا روسا 09:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)(UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It needs perspective and tilt correction, not very detailed for a 3 Mpix image, maybe due to low jpeg quality (or the small sensor). --C messier 18:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @C messier:.--لا روسا 22:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose Sorry, IMHO it is too unsharp for its size. --C messier 14:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, could you let it to another one to review it as you mentioned that weak oppose.--لا روسا 04:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Rather purple, foreground inclusion is problematic. Mattbuck 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Royal Naval College, Greenwich 00 (1).JPG[edit]

Royal Naval College, Greenwich 00 (1).JPG

  • Nomination Royal Naval College, Greenwich.--لا روسا 09:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)(UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It needs perspective and tilt correction, not very detailed for a 3 Mpix image, maybe due to low jpeg quality (or the small sensor). --C messier 18:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @C messier:.--لا روسا 21:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose Sorry, IMHO it is too unsharp for its size. --C messier 14:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, could you let it to another one to review it as you mentioned that weak oppose.--لا روسا 04:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Cyanotic sky, not brilliant perspective, odd bright spot bottom left, generally purple and a bit unsharp. Mattbuck 20:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Malleus_(5_von_16).jpg[edit]

Malleus (5 von 16).jpg

  • Nomination Malleus beim Feel Festival 2014 in Berlin --Pistenwolf 08:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --C messier 16:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unnecesary vignetting, unnatural colours, looks like ana "artistic" filter. Slight CA. --Kadellar 17:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The overexposure on the neck spoils it. Mattbuck 20:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:20140312_Cologne_ESC_Germany_0547.jpg[edit]

20140312 Cologne ESC Germany 0547.jpg

  • Nomination 'Eurovision Song Contest 2014 - Unser Song für Dänemark': 'Unheilig'. By User:MarkusFelix --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 03:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Camera tilted (on purpose, obviously, but it doesn't work for me), drumset cut in half, snowflake (?) right in front of the singer's eye. --El Grafo 17:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good quality. --Kadellar 17:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Good technical quality in most aspects, but the composition fails it. Mattbuck 20:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Head of Publius Aelius Traianus Hadrianus in Museo Nazionale Romano.jpg[edit]

Head of Publius Aelius Traianus Hadrianus in Museo Nazionale Romano.jpg

  • Nomination Head of Hadrian --Livioandronico2013 09:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeInsufficient description, bad categorization, again and always. Sorry.--Jebulon 11:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done as always Jebulon --Livioandronico2013 13:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    Bad categorization and description shouldn´t be a reason for declining. --Hubertl 13:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    I was stuck without warning, hello to all Face-crying.svg

. --LivioAndronico 14:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC Hubertl What is a QI ? See point 3 in Images requirements of QIC guidelines, thanks.--Jebulon 22:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Description could be better but it is enough for me. I see no reason to decline. -- Spurzem 23:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Citadel of Qaitbay 024.JPG[edit]

Citadel of Qaitbay 024.JPG

  • Nomination Citadel of Qaitbay, Egypt.--لا روسا 22:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Slightly inclined to the right. Description and categories are missing. --Zcebeci 11:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • sorry, bad categorization and description shouldn´t be a reason for declining. Already there was an arabic description and category of Cultural heritage monuments in Egypt 2014, because this photo was a part of Wiki love monuments in Egypt. Now, i add en and es description also.--لا روسا 15:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The building is leaning to the right. The crop ist too tight at the top and on the right side. The verticals are not rectilinear. Too much space at the bottom as well. JPEG quality isn't as good as it should be, lots of artefacts. Sorry, nice weather and nice subject but not a QI. --Code 06:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. The level of detail might barely be acceptable though it’s really not good, but the tight crop and the perspective issues kill it for me. --Kreuzschnabel 06:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too much inclined --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Lack of fine detail, bad perspective. Mattbuck 20:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --C messier 08:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Moosburg Schloss Tigring 20022015 7674.jpg[edit]

Moosburg Schloss Tigring 20022015 7674.jpg

  • Nomination Castle Tigring, Moosburg, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 18:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A bit of sharpening wouldn't go amiss. Mattbuck 21:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's improvable. Sharpness and reducing the little overexposure. --Hockei 20:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thanks for your review. Reworked version uploaded. --Johann Jaritz 03:30, 01 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The colours and the light looks fine to me now. The sharpening is too much IMO. Look at the trees on the left side for example. There you can see the new noise too. --Hockei 12:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality anyway. --Palauenc05 21:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't agree. This version cannot be a QI IMO. I wrote what I think above. Also the sky is not blue anymore. --Hockei 18:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpening artifacts visible in every fine detail. Look at the windows, or the framework structure on the right – every edge is doubled by artifact lines. Even the blurred background has been tried to sharpen. Yuk. --Kreuzschnabel 06:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed, oversharpened. --Kadellar 17:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nathalie's castel? Good quality--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Bad dither patterns. Mattbuck 20:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Telšiai Cathedral Exterior, Telšiai, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Telšiai Cathedral Exterior, Telšiai, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

  • Nomination Telšiai Cathedral in Telšiai, Lithuania. (by Diliff) --Pofka 11:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very good detail as usual but the distortion from straightening the verticals is a bit too much for me. Some posterization in the clouds right of the tower. Let’s hear some more opinions. --Kreuzschnabel 09:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a borderline case for me distortion-wise – I've seen much, much worse. Clouds look OK to me. I'm not entirely convinced that the "natural framing" (branches) at the left side really work in this case. I'd really like to hear other opinions as well. --El Grafo (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe less perspective correction would look more natural, but good quality. --Kadellar 17:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Kadellar. Detail is beautiful. Mattbuck 20:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:ČSD Class (IMG 8750).JPG[edit]

ČSD Class (IMG 8750).JPG

  • Nomination A ČSD Class 451 (ČSD Class 451 045/046) departs from Zábřeh na Moravě station (Czech Republic). --Daniel Holý CZ 14:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI -- Spurzem 15:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting question.svg Question Maybe I am making a fool of myself but is this a Wikimedian’s work? --Kreuzschnabel 08:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am also in doubts. For me, it looks that the nominating user Daniel Holý CZ is uploading the work of some people with OTRS. However, this is not entitling the photos to participate in QIC. If this turns out to be the case, then there are some QI that have to be delisted. Example: The photo's author is Karel Furiš, but this [2] photos author is Viktor Zerzán. --Cccefalon 08:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice picture and interesting object, but perspective correction is needed --Shansov.net 21:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Tagus in Toledo002.jpg[edit]

Tagus in Toledo002.jpg

  • Nomination Tagus River in Toledo.--لا روسا 00:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Shadow parts need brightening. Maybe you can sharpen it a bit too. --Hockei 18:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Hard to say. The dark parts are better now. But I'm not quite convinced about the sharpness. I think you have used unsharp masking or sharpening only edges too strong. With this picture I cannot make it better. Sorry --Hockei 14:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    @Hockei: review it now.--لا روسا 11:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    I really don't know. Maybe other people can review it. --Hockei 12:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No fine detail, very unsharp for a 3 Mpix image IMHO. --C messier 16:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed. About 20% of the pixels are clipping in blue and green channels, still 5% in red channel. Leads to wrong colors in the sky. Not fixable. --Smial 10:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Smial In the original version sky looks better. --C messier 13:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Only gradual. I've looked at the first version and found the same color issues, only the area with clipping is smaller. -- Smial 15:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - cyanotic sky, generally feels "not QI" though it's hard to pin down an exact reason. Mattbuck 20:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:The Temple of Hercules010.JPG[edit]

The Temple of Hercules010.JPG

  • Nomination The Temple of Hercules, Amman.--لا روسا 12:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support QI -- Spurzem 12:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    IMHO, it needs perspective correction. --C messier 15:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @C messier: review it now.--لا روسا 11:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Why needs it perspective correction? I know many images which are distorted by these modern duing and this here would not look better with absolutely vertical lines. -- Spurzem 20:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Spurzem: So i have to revert the original one.--لا روسا 21:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done. The top of the columns is leaning in. It's not difficult, but you need a special software, like the freely available GIMP. According to Image guidelines "Images of architecture should usually be rectilinear. Perspective distortion should either have a purpose or be insignificant". In this case the camera isn't angled enough for the perspective not to be corrected (for a purpose) nor the disturtion is insignificant (it is noticable in the thumbnail). I gave it a try and it looked really nice. --C messier 14:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@لا روسا: I have to apologize. For now it is indeed too distorted. -- Spurzem 14:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
What side is the right one? Is it wrong way now or before? -- Spurzem 15:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I have taken 2 photos from its two sides, one is this from the back (original one without any perspective) and the other is that from the front.--لا روسا 20:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose  Not done --C messier 15:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Posterisation in the background spoils this even if we ignore the rest. Mattbuck 20:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Jerash Oval Plaza 003.JPG[edit]

Jerash Oval Plaza 003.JPG

  • Nomination Jerash Oval Plaza.--لا روسا 00:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion JPEG artifacts in the sky. --MB-one 17:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC).
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, it was an autocorrect and not be artifact or unreal image. You can see the original one, if you want to replace it again.--لا روسا 11:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@MB-one: review it now.--لا روسا 21:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --MB-one 18:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to the dust spot and artifaction. I think the original version was generally better, just lacking contrast a bit. Mattbuck 20:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mattbuck: ok, i revert to the original one. Review it again.--لا روسا 22:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Van_Hool_A308_M3021_Demi-Lieue_STAR_-_Florian_Fèvre.JPG[edit]

Van Hool A308 M3021 Demi-Lieue STAR - Florian Fèvre.JPG

  • Nomination Bus in Roanne --Billy69150 07:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support You didn't lose your subject this time (although once again, simplifying these with tighter crops will help) --Daniel Case 06:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Seems to have a fair amount of perspective distortion, and brightness isn't great. --Mattbuck 22:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support I don't specially like the photo but I see no apparent issues. Kvardek du 18:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Lisboa January 2015-46a.jpg[edit]

Lisboa January 2015-46a.jpg

  • Nomination Monument to the Portuguese discoveries (silhouette), Lisboa, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 12:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't understand why you nominate the picture again. Nothing changed since last time. The picture may be nice from an artistic point of view but the light situation is still not sufficient for QI. Are you hoping for different reviewers this time? --Code 20:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I'm hoping for a wiser attitude from the old ones. Alvesgaspar 16:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • So you think that we were just not wise enough to review your picture properly? Don't you think that this is a quite disrespectful attitude? --Code 08:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes and no. Everybody makes mistakes and correcting them adds to the respect the others have on us. Alvesgaspar 12:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • To say that declining your nomination was a mistake doesn't make me respect you more. I would respect you if you could accept that not every picture you nominate has to be a QI in the eyes of others. It probably doesn't bother you but it makes me very sad what you're doing here. --Code 17:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. as the unvailing nomination a few days ago. --Hubertl 14:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why and nobody seems to be able to explain. Thus sent to CR (again), Alvesgaspar 14:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same reason as last time. Nothing changed. Re-nominating after a decline without changing anything is disrespectful in my eyes (and probably against the rules). --Code 07:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Let me quote the reason of last time: Sorry, bad light situation. Monument is too dark. Yes, it is too dark, as in most contre-jour photographs, many of them QI or FP. In some cases, including the present one, contrast is enhanced in order to obtain the desired effect (see original here) For me to respect a technical review it ought to be intelectually respectable, which is obviously not the case here. Alvesgaspar 08:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The description says "Monumento to the Portuguese Discoveries (Padrão dos Descobrimentos), Lisboa, Portugal.". Unfortunately I don't see any monument on this picture. I see blue areas and black areas. That's it. And I don't see which value the picture should have regarding the project scope. As I already said this picture may be nice from an artistic point of view. But that's not what we ask for in QI. Additionally I somehow don't really understand the last sentence of your last comment, but I hope you didn't want to call me stupid. --Code 09:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You certainly do not represent the community when you state but that's not what we ask for in QI (bold added), especially knowing that there are several - probably hundreds of - silhouette and contre-jour quality images in Commons (please see here and here). As for not seing which value the picture should have regarding the project scope, that is certainly a limitation of your own eyes, probably based on a short-sighted idea of what the project scope really is. Alvesgaspar 14:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • First: I never said that I represented the community. Second: None of these pictures contains as little information as the one we're talking about in this case. Third: The fact that other (different) pictures were promoted doesn't give you any entitlement to have this one promoted, too. For me, this discussion is over at this point. This is getting too personal. I want no quarrel with you and I like most of your pictures. Let's see what the others think about your nomination. --Code 14:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As a normal picture, obviously this wouldn't be QI as the subject is too dark. As a silhouette as intended, this doesn't work for me either. It's kinda stuck in between being a silhouette and an under-exposed picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTC (talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 February 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - As before, I think this is QI, the composition is clearly intentional. However I do think that renominating it so soon is bad form. Mattbuck 22:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 07:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Milseburg 12:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support as for mattbuck. -- Smial 10:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subject is too dark --Shansov.net 21:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as my first vote--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Can't we take silhouette pictures now? --Kadellar 16:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Wieża_widokowa_na_Borówkowej_04.jpg[edit]

2015 Wieża widokowa na Borówkowej 04.jpg

  • Nomination Lookout tower on Borówkowa 4 --Jacek Halicki 09:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 10:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective overcorrection, see FPC nomination for details --El Grafo 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 18:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for being pedantic here, but it's not done. Roof is still sliding backwards, there are still two different perspectives in one image. Details here. --El Grafo 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 12:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος 13:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bitte nichts für ungut. Aber die übertriebene Korrektur der Perspektive zerstört den Eindruck der Wirklichkeit. -- Spurzem 20:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see El Grafo and Spurzem --Dirtsc 11:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 21:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - seems ok to me, perspectives corrected. Mattbuck 20:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Thu 26 Feb → Fri 06 Mar
Fri 27 Feb → Sat 07 Mar
Sat 28 Feb → Sun 08 Mar
Sun 01 Mar → Mon 09 Mar
Mon 02 Mar → Tue 10 Mar
Tue 03 Mar → Wed 11 Mar
Wed 04 Mar → Thu 12 Mar
Thu 05 Mar → Fri 13 Mar
Fri 06 Mar → Sat 14 Mar