Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This project page in other languages:

česky | Deutsch | English | español | français | македонски | 日本語 | polski | português | +/−

Skip to nominations Skip to nominations
float

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

Contents

Purpose [edit]

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

Guidelines [edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators [edit]

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

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

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

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.

Evaluating images [edit]

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

How to review [edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

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

Grace period and promotion [edit]

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

How to execute decision [edit]

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

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

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

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue) [edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 2013 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

Nominations [edit]

Due to changes in 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]] 21:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC). Thank you.


May 23, 2013 [edit]

May 22, 2013 [edit]

May 21, 2013 [edit]

May 20, 2013 [edit]

May 19, 2013 [edit]

May 18, 2013 [edit]

May 17, 2013 [edit]

May 16, 2013 [edit]

May 15, 2013 [edit]

May 14, 2013 [edit]

May 13, 2013 [edit]

May 12, 2013 [edit]

May 10, 2013 [edit]

May 6, 2013 [edit]

May 1, 2013 [edit]

April 29, 2013 [edit]

Consensual review [edit]

Rules [edit]

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 image will stay in Consensual Review for a maximum period of 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:Hyundai_-_i30_-_Mondial_de_l'Automobile_de_Paris_2012_-_202.jpg [edit]

Hyundai - i30 - Mondial de l'Automobile de Paris 2012 - 202.jpg

  • Nomination Une Hyundai i30 présentée lors du Mondial de l'automobile de Paris 2012. --Thesupermat 07:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Bad crop, bad light in the face of the girls, sorry --Moroder 12:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good with regard to the shooting conditions. Resolution is quite high. Good framing. DoF is also good. --Tuxyso 13:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technically OK, but bad crop and bad lighting of persons. --Dirtsc (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Hyundai_-_i30_-_Mondial_de_l'Automobile_de_Paris_2012_-_203.jpg [edit]

Hyundai - i30 - Mondial de l'Automobile de Paris 2012 - 203.jpg

  • Nomination Une Hyundai i30 présentée lors du Mondial de l'Automobile de Paris 2012. --Thesupermat 07:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Maybe with a better crop --Moroder 12:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Tuxyso 13:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This shot is good. --Dirtsc 10:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me but the incomplete texts in the top corners are a little disturbing--Dyolf77 15:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Bonner Münster.jpg [edit]

Bonner Münster.jpg

File:Philipp Wendler, Kapfenberger SV (01).jpg [edit]

Philipp Wendler, Kapfenberger SV (01).jpg

  • Nomination The footballplayer Philipp Wendler from Kapfenberger SV. --Steindy 19:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion How were your camera settings? The noise level is quite high for a still portrayal with good daylight. --Tuxyso 20:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    As always in sport mode, because it is also asked to no recording. The picture was taken during warm-up. A sports field is just not a photo studio. --Steindy 21:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    It makes no sense to discuss with users about quality, who have no experience with such photos. Sorry that I disturbed the operation here. Grounds --Steindy 22:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    It is a still photo under time pressure, not a shot during the game. It has nothing not do with sport photography but mastering the camera and autofocus. See my in detail comment in German on the discussion on my userpage. A very similiar situation as random shots of guests e.g. during a wedding - no studio lightning but also no ISO 2000 or more. --Tuxyso 05:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    Oh I understand. The speed ​​of movement from guests of a wedding is nearely the same, as the footballer during the warm up. Thank you for your qualified statements... --Steindy 08:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No movement at all, person looks directly into the camera - no need for short exposure and high ISO. --Tuxyso 13:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    The arguments are always curious. Tuxyso will make the picture clear intentionally bad. --Steindy 16:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Anthomyia May 2013-2.jpg [edit]

Anthomyia May 2013-2.jpg

  • Nomination Little fly on the trunk of a tree -- Alvesgaspar 23:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. File descr.: I've put 'sp.' into regular font. --Cayambe 07:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Sorry, good image, but I think that it needs better identification--Lmbuga 12:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that is not possible from the image only. Might be Anthomyia pluvialis but that is not certain Alvesgaspar 12:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm very much in favour of identifying organisms to species level or beyond. However sometimes one needs microscopic study of genital organs or other such minute structures and then a generic ID might do. Biopics 13:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have identified the fly as Anthomyia cf. quiquemaculata after submitting it to [1]. But it is only a guess -- Alvesgaspar 09:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me. --Christian Ferrer 18:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC).
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral--Lmbuga 19:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Daslook (Allium ursinum).JPG [edit]

Daslook (Allium ursinum).JPG

  • Nomination (Allium ursinum) along a path in the shade garden.--
    Famberhorst 15:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Proper categorization is mandatory for a QI. Biopics 19:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would you explain what you mean? Because I do not understand you The plant is called: Allium ursinumIk snap niet wat ik verkeerd doe. De Latijnse naam staat er bij.Allium ursinum--
    Famberhorst 17:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done
    De categorie is Allium ursinum --
    Famberhorst 18:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Église_de_Vals_-_Fronton.jpg [edit]

Église de Vals - Fronton.jpg

  • Nomination Pediment of the church of Vals les Bains --Marianne Casamance 06:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the coat of arms is out of focus + there's some tilt --A.Savin 18:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Just for your information, the coat of arms was built 250 year ago. This is not a out of focus. --Marianne Casamance 20:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The right side of the image is not sharp, the left side is. Maybe thats the reason, why some parts looks as if out of focus. --Dirtsc (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose artifacts with low details (most probably due to the compact camera) --Carschten 12:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is some detail loss due to noise reduction, but quality is acceptable. If tilt & shift are corrected imho QI. -- Smial 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Sankt_Peter_am_Bichl_in_Völs_am_Schlern.jpg [edit]

Sankt Peter am Bichl in Völs am Schlern.jpg

  • Nomination Sankt Peter am Bichl church in Völs am Schlern --Moroder 15:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --A.Savin 19:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Too distorted, please compare with other images of the church e.g. this one. --Dirtsc 21:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lichtsituation suboptimal, die Horizontalen sind nicht gerade. Die Qualität ist aber gut, nach einer Perspektivkorrektur würde ich mit Pro stimmen. --Carschten 12:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Passer_domesticus_-_10.jpg [edit]

Passer domesticus - 10.jpg

  • Nomination House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) in Madrid, Spain. --Kadellar 19:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Why hello there. --Mattbuck 19:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    Very shallow DOF. Biopics 12:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Globo_da_Mesa_pola_Normalización_Lingüística._Correlingua._Silleda_2013-2b.jpg [edit]

Globo da Mesa pola Normalización Lingüística. Correlingua. Silleda 2013-2b.jpg

  • Nomination Balloon. Table for Linguistic Normalisation of the Galician language. Correlingua 2013, Silleda, Galicia (Spain) --Lmbuga 20:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me.--S. F. B. Morse 05:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    Should be crisp. Biopics 11:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose blurry. --Carschten 12:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Auer_Dult_Mai_2013_-_Antiquitäten_und_Topfmarkt_026.jpg [edit]

Auer Dult Mai 2013 - Antiquitäten und Topfmarkt 026.jpg

  • Nomination Glassware at a market stand at Auer Dult in May 2013. --Mummelgrummel 19:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Moroder 14:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    Snapshotty, poor crop/framing and rather soft. Biopics 11:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Auer_Dult_Mai_2013_-_Antiquitäten_und_Topfmarkt_024.jpg [edit]

Auer Dult Mai 2013 - Antiquitäten und Topfmarkt 024.jpg

  • Nomination Aerostats at a market stand at Auer Dult in May 2013. --Mummelgrummel 19:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Moroder 14:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    Snapshotty, poor crop/framing and rather soft. Biopics 11:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Nassauer_Haus,_Núremberg,_Alemania,_2013-03-16,_DD_01.jpg [edit]

Nassauer Haus, Núremberg, Alemania, 2013-03-16, DD 01.jpg

  • Nomination Nassauer Haus, Nuremberg, Germany --Poco a poco 17:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Bit dark and maybe a bit red? Mattbuck 11:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Poco a poco 19:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm currently unable to review images due to a very slow connection. Broadband is coming next week, I promise to review then. Sorry for the delay. Mattbuck 16:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm honestly not sure, it's better certainly, but the slow shutter speed means there is some blur in the people, and the top is a bit unsharp... Symbol neutral vote.svg Bleh, sorry. Mattbuck 17:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sharpness problem in the top half, overall felling of blur (cf. street sign "Karolinenstraße") --Carschten 12:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Cimetière Américain Colleville-sur-Mer.JPG [edit]

Cimetière Américain Colleville-sur-Mer.JPG

  • Nomination Normandy American Cemetery, France. --Clément Bardot 17:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    Poor framing. Biopics 13:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What is the problem with "framing"? No trouble with that. Good quality. -- Smial 20:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality and composition. --Dirtsc 20:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As Dirtsc and Smial -- Arcalino 19:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Boehmeria nivea 02.jpg [edit]

Boehmeria nivea 02.jpg

  • Nomination May 16. Young leaf of the relatively unknown Boehmeria biloba.--
    Famberhorst 05:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion GA candidate.svg Weak support OK for QI --A.Savin 15:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    Wrong species. B. biloba has no serrated leaves. Biopics 13:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentWe bought the plant as Boehmeria biloba! It will bolgens Google Boehmeria sieboldiana are.--
    Famberhorst 07:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Graag in Nederlands antwoorden. Uw Engels is onverstaanbaar. Dank u. Biopics 20:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
    We kochten de plant als Boehmeria biloba! Het kan volgens Google de Boehmeria sieboldiana zijn. Ik beheers de Engelse taal niet. Sorry.--
    Famberhorst 18:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Je kan altijd de taal gebruiken op Commons die je best beheerst. De anderen passen zich wel aan... Wat de foto betreft is een correcte determinatie een vereiste voor een QI. Soms is de soort niet echt nodig (of zelfs mogelijk, zie het vliegje een paar plaatsen hoger), maar in de meeste gevallen is een (gestaafde) identificatie toch wel nodig. Het is ook erg handig om dit te doen alvorens te nomineren. Mvg, Biopics 09:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ik ben er achteraan gegaan. Het blijkt Boehmeria nivea te zijn. Ze zijn op de kwekerij verwisseld. Moet ik nu de foto opnieuw uploaden onder de goede naam? Mvg.--Famberhorst 17:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Nee hoor, die hernoeming doe ik wel voor je. Biopics 22:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

File:ДВОРЕЦ "БЕЛЬВЕДЕР" на Бабигонском холме 2006 09.jpg [edit]

ДВОРЕЦ "БЕЛЬВЕДЕР" на Бабигонском холме 2006 09.jpg

  • Nomination ДВОРЕЦ "БЕЛЬВЕДЕР" на Бабигонском холме 2006 09--Anna Anichkova14:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Здорово. Только Бабигонский, а не Бибигонский. ;) --Florstein 15:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Jpeg artifacts. Please add English descriptions to your candidates, if it is Бабигонский, it should be renamed too. --Kadellar 15:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support please dont rename it. and i dont need english description, russian is for me better. --Ralf Roletschek 16:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is a very good image. An English description would be highly appreciated but renaming this image is not necessary. --High Contrast 21:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - not because of the file name, but per Kadellar + unsharpness. --A.Savin 23:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not opposing because of the filename, but if it should say Бабигонском холме, it should be renamed, because it's not correct. Русский язык - красивый и важный, но сейчас люди в мире нормално не изучают его, а англисский язык. Я понимаю описание ;) I'm opposing because the lack of sharpness and detail due to compression artifacts. The colour of the image is very nice. --Kadellar 00:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Спасибо, я всё учту, я пока не очень разобралась... --Anna Anichkova 19 May 2013
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition but very blurry and lack of detail (look at the trees), i suspect too heavy noise reduction. Not a QI for me due to technical reasons. --Kreuzschnabel 04:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Nice composition, but also lack of fine detail. --Iifar 09:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per A.Savin and Iifar. --Carschten 12:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Царицын остров и вид на Храм Петра и Павла 2008 07.jpg [edit]

Царицын остров и вид на Храм Петра и Павла 2008 07.jpg

  • Nomination Царицын остров и вид на Храм Петра и Павла 2008 07--Anna Anichkova14:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support CA a bit, but composition is nice. --Florstein 15:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition, but neither the island nor the temple of Peter and Paul are really sharp. There's slight CA too. Please add English descriptions to your candidates and don't add so many nominations at one time. --Kadellar 15:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unsharp --Carschten 12:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Cigogne_et_deux_poussins,_Tunisie_mai_2013.jpg [edit]

Cigogne et deux poussins, Tunisie mai 2013.jpg

  • Nomination Ciconia ciconia (nests) in Tunisia --Dyolf77 15:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, chromatic aberrations (see note), owerexposed areas, too tight at right and a bit blurry IMO--Lmbuga 17:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tried to fix CA, the cropping and sharpness. Anyway thanks for reviewing! --Dyolf77 18:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Better, but I'm not sure if it may be QI--Lmbuga 19:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not that obvious, but there are still strong CA; I have feeling of blur, too; underexposed (missing contrast), wrong white balance, too much empty space around the cornered nest. --Carschten 12:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Brilon,_Keffelker_Kapelle,_Barockaltar.JPG [edit]

Brilon, Keffelker Kapelle, Barockaltar.JPG

  • Nomination Keffelker Kapelle, Barockaltar, Brilon, Germany --Malchen53 08:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok --Poco a poco 13:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sry to disagree but the image is not crisp, has low contrast and suffers from harsh flashlight shadows --Manuela61 15:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some areas are too bright, shadows are harsh, color is a bit unnatural. The use of the flashlight should better have been avoided. --Dirtsc 11:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe 11:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy 21:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - the quality is rather on the poor side here. --A.Savin 19:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dirtsc and A.Savin. --Carschten 12:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 12:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Wasserturm Biebrich.jpg [edit]

Wasserturm Biebrich.jpg

  • Nomination Water tower Wiesbaden-Biebrich, Germany --Arcalino 22:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Tilted? --Ikar.us 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    it is not tilted, the tower narrows to the top, the mast of the street lamp is upright --Arcalino 14:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    The left edge has 4° inclination, the right 3°. The Blitzableiter in the center 0,5°. This is enough deviation to be visible. The lamp post isn't a better vertical reference than the tower, because of reality, and perspective correction. --Ikar.us 17:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I am convinced! Rotated the tower. Better now?--Arcalino 09:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Looks good. Can't examine details here, setting back to nomination. --Ikar.us 12:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    I´d like further opinions and setting to discuss -- Arcalino 07:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • for me its too strong distortet. --Ralf Roletschek 15:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment needs a CA correction (see annotation), otherwise ok for me. --Carschten 12:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    Although I had already removed CA it is still in the leaves on the left. I tried again to get rid of it but it didn´t succeed. The only chance would be a crop that destroys the format (2:3). I think I can leave it as it is. CA appears at a magnification of 2:1 in an insignificant part of the image. The main motive is free of CA. Suggestions?--Arcalino (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination) [edit]

Wed 15 May → Thu 23 May
Thu 16 May → Fri 24 May
Fri 17 May → Sat 25 May
Sat 18 May → Sun 26 May
Sun 19 May → Mon 27 May
Mon 20 May → Tue 28 May
Tue 21 May → Wed 29 May
Wed 22 May → Thu 30 May
Thu 23 May → Fri 31 May