Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 April 2015 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache


Contents

Nominations[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 04:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.
The new rule is effective now. Please nominate only a maximum of 5 images per day. [1]

April 1, 2015[edit]

March 31, 2015[edit]

March 30, 2015[edit]

March 29, 2015[edit]

March 28, 2015[edit]

March 27, 2015[edit]

March 26, 2015[edit]

March 25, 2015[edit]

March 24, 2015[edit]

March 23, 2015[edit]

March 22, 2015[edit]

March 21, 2015[edit]

March 20, 2015[edit]

March 19, 2015[edit]

March 18, 2015[edit]

March 16, 2015[edit]

March 15, 2015[edit]

March 9, 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:Industar_61_LD_58_f28.jpg[edit]

Industar 61 LD 58 f28.jpg

  • Nomination Industar 61 L/D 58 mm f/2.8 --Denis Barthel 15:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 15:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, see notes --Hubertl 17:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, as Hubertl. Several dust spots (see notes). Greenish IMO--Lmbuga 17:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree,--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Walhalla in Donaustauf bei Regensburg.JPG[edit]

Walhalla in Donaustauf bei Regensburg.JPG

  • Nomination Walhalla (Danube), Donaustauf near Regensburg, Bavaria, Germany Hilarmont 06:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too strong distortion. --Cccefalon 06:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree - I think it's dramatic and QI --Bsmalley 01:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Cccefalon --Code 05:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I will have a try with the image today... Hilarmont 14:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
    ich glaub nicht, dass es geht. Das war schon vom Architekten so beabsichtigt. Nur können wir ihn ja nicht mehr befragen. Aber jeder der da schon mal hochgegangen ist, hat genau diesen Eindruck bekommen, wenn auch durch sein eigenes Hirn korrigiert. --Hubertl 14:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Hubertl: Gehen tut es schon, nur mit recht aufwändigen Methoden weil dann auf gewissen Seiten etwas fehlt. ;o) Ich lasse das hier aber vorerst ins leere Laufen. :) Hilarmont 21:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Sesimbra March 2015-6a.jpg[edit]

Sesimbra March 2015-6a.jpg

  • Nomination 18th century pannel of azulejos in the Church of Nossa Senhora do Castelo, Sesimbra, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 09:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can you fill the bottom left corner? --C messier 11:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thank you for noticing Alvesgaspar 20:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Both sides leaning out. Mattbuck 09:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think that this type of detailed reviewing is useful. Maybe it is leaning but the angle is so small that it doesn't affect the overall quality of the image. To CR thus. Alvesgaspar 19:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Mattbuck.--Hubertl 09:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy and somewhat unsharp corners. Why ISO800 and f/4 with a non moving subject? -- Smial 10:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Colchicum montanum MHNT 2007.40.99.jpg[edit]

Colchicum montanum MHNT 2007.40.99.jpg

  • Nomination fruits and seeds of colchicum of Pyreneen - Fruits et graines de Colchique des Pyrénées --Ercé 16:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    Cut-out is way too jagged.Crisco 1492 01:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info new version --Ercé 10:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    Still really rough along the tendril. Crisco 1492 03:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality for me. --Bff 12:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cut-out is still disturbing.Crisco 1492 12:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Cardona March 2015-6a.jpg[edit]

Cardona March 2015-6a.jpg

  • Nomination View from the Castle of Cardona to north, Spain -- Alvesgaspar 10:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It feels a bit washed out - could you reduce the blue shadows and midtones? Also I think there are a couple of dust spots. Mattbuck 22:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Alvesgaspar 20:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't see any difference between the versions. Mattbuck 23:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There is some difference in the contrast and saturation. Anyway this is what the scene looked like when the shot was made. A careful exam of the detail will show that the colours are not washed up and that image quality is very good. Alvesgaspar 21:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sending the nomination to CR, as the above comment doesn't seem to help and has the practical effect of an oppose vote. Alvesgaspar 19:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion

File:Macaron_with_decoration.jpg[edit]

Macaron with decoration.jpg

  • Nomination A macaron with decoration. --Hangsna 20:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality for a single shot, maybe a bit too noisy at the bottom. Third opinion appreciated --Hubertl 22:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clearly visible dust spots. Sharpness below studio shot requirements. --Cccefalon 04:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clearly visible dust spots, way too noisy, motion and/or defraction blurr. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 13:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise (maybe improvable), dust spots (clearly fixable) and the light is bad for food photography (probably not fixable). I'm sorry, but this could be done better. --Code 05:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as for user:code. The reflections caused by the lighting lead to underexposure and dull colors of all other parts of the image. -- Smial 10:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination OK, thanks for good feedback! /Hangsna 20:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 09:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Pendrive_Kingston_32_GB.jpg[edit]

2015 Pendrive Kingston 32 GB.jpg

  • Nomination Pendrive Kingston DataTraveler Ultimate 3.0 G3 32GB --Jacek Halicki 09:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 10:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality could be beter in this kind of picture--Lmbuga 23:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Can't see anything wrong with that? --El Grafo 13:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ground plane is not the first choice but still fine --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 13:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 09:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Erywań,_Park_przy_Kaskadach_(10).jpg[edit]

2014 Erywań, Park przy Kaskadach (10).jpg

  • Nomination Park on the way to Cascade. Yerevan, Armenia. --Halavar 23:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)* Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment its tilted ccw. --Hubertl 07:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    ✓ Done New fixed version uploaded. Please take a look again. --Halavar 12:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me now. --Hubertl 08:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The left side is leaning out slightly. --Mattbuck 09:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 09:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Erywań,_Park_przy_Kaskadach_(11).jpg[edit]

2014 Erywań, Park przy Kaskadach (11).jpg

  • Nomination Park on the way to Cascade. Yerevan, Armenia. --Halavar 23:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)* Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment its tilted ccw. --Hubertl 07:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    ✓ Done New fixed version uploaded. Please take a look again. --Halavar 12:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me now. --Hubertl 08:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not quite convinced - the background focus is problematic - too sharp to not be distracting, too blurred to be the subject. --Mattbuck 09:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 09:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Reading railway station MMB 82 70802 43037 43172.jpg[edit]

Reading railway station MMB 82 70802 43037 43172.jpg

  • Nomination Reading railway station. Mattbuck 07:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good quality. --Cccefalon 08:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA along the platform edge. --Steindy 23:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Steindy: ✓ Done Mattbuck 09:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me --Rjcastillo 13:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

File:London MMB »0O0 Silwood Junction 378204.jpg[edit]

London MMB »0O0 Silwood Junction 378204.jpg

  • Nomination 378204 at Silwood Junction. Mattbuck 07:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA on two rails on the bottom right. --Steindy 23:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Steindy: I couldn't actually see any CA, but I have desaturated it anyway. Mattbuck 09:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate composition due to crop at the bottom --Moroder 20:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Echternach, Place du Marche = beschermd erfgoed positie1 foto6 2014-06-09 10.03.jpg[edit]

Echternach, Place du Marche = beschermd erfgoed positie1 foto6 2014-06-09 10.03.jpg

  • Nomination Echternach-Luxemburg, view to a street --Michielverbeek 20:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry unsharp,noise and need perspective --Livioandronico2013 22:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Repairable, IMO --Hubertl 08:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think,see note --Livioandronico2013 13:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose you are right Livioandronico2013, But why do we meet each other always at the gargoyle themes? ;-)

--Hubertl 09:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 07:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Erywań,_Park_przy_Kaskadach_(14).jpg[edit]

2014 Erywań, Park przy Kaskadach (14).jpg

  • Nomination Park on the way to Cascade. Yerevan, Armenia. --Halavar 23:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Not the best quality, but ok in my opinion. --Hubertl 07:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but it needs perspective correction and at least a bit sharpening. --Hockei 17:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Better. --Hockei (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Halavar, won´t you do this slight perspective correction? --Hubertl 17:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Sorry for the delay. I uploaded now new fixed version. Hope it's good now. --Halavar 23:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Lasiommata_megera_-_Wall_brown.jpg[edit]

Lasiommata megera - Wall brown.jpg

  • Nomination A sunbathing Wall brown (Lasiommata megera). Canyon Kapıkaya, Karaisalı - Adana, Turkey. --Zcebeci 11:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Hubertl 02:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not for me. Insufficient quality in my eyes. --Hockei 13:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for QI. --Code 05:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It needs be cropped IMO; and, ather cropped, the subject id too little and with poor detail.
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes? Code 05:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Christina_Novelli.jpg[edit]

Christina Novelli.jpg

  • Nomination Christina Novelli at Nextdoor in Honolulu, Hawaii, May 15, 2014 --Peterchiapperino 00:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy, this camera obviously doesn´t allow this high ISO rate, even with flash. --Hubertl 00:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A little noise is okay when it comes to concert photos taken in the dark, otherwise there would rarely be a quality concert photo unless taken in the day time. ~~~~
Its not only the noise, the only part, which has an acceptable sharpness, ist the left arm. --Hubertl 09:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like this picture but sorry, too much noise. --Billy 14:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy, and tattoo left arm is completely blurred.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice colours, and composition. Noise is absolutely acceptable, but the face is out of focus, sorry. -- Smial 09:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 17:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File: Ford A, Bj. 1929 (2011-09-24 3).JPG[edit]

Ford A, Bj. 1929 (2011-09-24 3).JPG

  • Nomination Ford A built in 1929 at Moselschiefer-Classic 2011 -- Spurzem 10:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. The part of the red car bottom left is too disturbing. --XRay 11:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    Glaub mir, ich habe hier ausgezeichnete Bilder von Autos mit weit mehr störenden Dingen als diesem gesehen. Aber was soll's. -- Spurzem 12:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Das glaube ich dir ohne Weiteres. Man bemüht sich immer um objektive Kriterien, aber das ist oft genug gar nicht einfach. Das Auto ist schön getroffen, aber ich finde schon, dass der rote Kotflügel ablenkt. Aber insgesamt bin ich doch sehr angetan von deinen Bildern.--XRay 13:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    This is not a German forum !!!--Jebulon 15:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Hahahahah I love you Jebulon Face-grin.svg--Livioandronico2013 16:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • To me the red fender isn't that disturbing, hence: Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 21:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Don´t worry about messing around in german, they just discussed, if a three-minute-egg really needs three minutes or in fact four. I suggest four and a half.--Hubertl 09:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Steindy: I've just fixed your review. Your review said "Good quality", so I replaced the template "o" by "s".--XRay 07:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 17:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Oachkatzlschwoaf_(Eichhörnchen).jpg[edit]

Oachkatzlschwoaf (Eichhörnchen).jpg

  • Nomination squirrel. By User:AnjaSuess --Neuroxic 07:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Billy69150 07:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, clearly visible dust spots. --Cccefalon 11:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lighting not QI --Charlesjsharp 18:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry! Poor little squirrel, he's very sad for IQ.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 17:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dustspot, squirrel blurred, looks like there is also posterisation. --C messier 19:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --C messier 19:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Dubiosis-17.jpg[edit]

Dubiosis-17.jpg

  • Nomination Dubiosis beim dark Munich Festival 2014 --Pistenwolf 08:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy and unsharp around head --Daniel Case 05:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    I do not agree with that, because it is not possible to shoot concerts under live conditions without some noisy, and in this case it is not much.--Pistenwolf 08:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too tight crop on top --Cccefalon 13:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment .... and please resolve redlink cat --Cccefalon 13:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose guitar and hands are too noisy.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent composition and good handling of difficult lighting. Noise is as to be expected. -- Smial 09:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 15:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Rapture-2.jpg[edit]

Rapture-2.jpg

  • Nomination Rapture Beim dark Munich Festival 2014 --Pistenwolf 08:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy --Daniel Case 05:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not agree with that, because it is not possible to shoot concerts under live conditions without some noisy. In this case i dont see much noisy.--Pistenwolf (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable noise for concert photo. One of the good ones of this kind here in QI from view of composition. Please resolve the redlink category. --Cccefalon 11:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very poor quality in my opinion. A concert photo does not necessarily has to be like this. Alvesgaspar 21:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor quality --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Steindy 23:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you very much for the Review. For me the term "Poor Quality" or "Very Poor Quality " alone is not really meaningful and sould be justified. --Pistenwolf (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The same like Cccefalon Hilarmont 14:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice. Noise could be artistic, but I don't like the composition. Guitarrist and right area are too disturbing IMO--Lmbuga 17:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 15:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Trostburg_Stiegenaufgang_innen.JPG[edit]

Trostburg Stiegenaufgang innen.JPG

  • Nomination The castle Trostburg in South Tyrol - Interior --Moroder 19:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 23:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree. I don´t see Insufficiency, except some understandable noise in the dark areas. --Hubertl 05:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Perhaps it should not be so bright but it is QI for me. -- Spurzem 12:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry,but too blurry for me--Σπάρτακος 12:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too unsharp and noisy. Alvesgaspar 21:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me.- All black and white shades are good --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 17:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy 23:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Half the ISO and double the exposure Time would have made this image come out in a better quality. --Ilmfoto 14:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't understand the subject of the picture (Seeing dates of the picture). As Alvesgaspar is too unsharp and noisy IMO. --Lmbuga 23:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not sure I understand your question: the subject is the interior (architecture) of a castle probably 700 years old as written in the file description. I don't see anything wrong with the dates?! --Moroder 08:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I just wanted to ask more accurate description. I also have inaccuracies in my pictures, because English--Lmbuga 17:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC). Sorry, perhaps an inopportune comment--Lmbuga 17:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 15:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Spotted_eagle_owl_(Bubo_africanus)_chick.jpg[edit]

Spotted eagle owl (Bubo africanus) chick.jpg

  • Nomination Spotted eagle owl (Bubo africanus) chick, Tswalu Kalahari Reserve, South Africa --Charlesjsharp 09:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion

* Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's pity that fingers disturb the picture.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps I should have explained that this wild chick was found on the ground having fallen out of its nest. The game ranger picked it up and replaced it in its nest and two days later we confirmed that the parent had accepted the chick back, which is quite unusual. --Charlesjsharp 18:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think it should be rejected without an opinion following my explanation above. --Charlesjsharp 18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it´s not rejected right now. But you need additional other opinions in fact! --Hubertl 20:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the fingers gives you a sizedimension, therefore for me its not disturbing that much.--Hubertl 09:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor dof, sorry, Poor composition IMO; Too tight at bottom --Lmbuga 22:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 07:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) cock.jpg

  • Nomination Common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) cock, Otmoor RSPB Reserve, Oxfordshire --Charlesjsharp 23:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no good crop, the feathers are cut.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's not actually cropped. I left out a small portion of the tail as it allows the main body and head of the bird to be more in close up
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good, but the tail, cropped out, is disturbing--Lmbuga 17:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 02:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Trostburg_Bergfreid_Ostseite.JPG[edit]

Trostburg Bergfreid Ostseite.JPG

  • Nomination The castle Trostburg - Tower with clock east face --Moroder 13:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please check for halos at the top.--XRay 17:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't know how to fix them provided they need to be fixed. --Moroder 17:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment May be it's oversharpened?--XRay 06:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No I never sharpen my images, I like them smooth. I had already long discussions on QIC about the halo between hi contrast interfaces, typically the roofs against the sky, there is always a halo in digital Photography of the size of 3-5 pixels which is 1/1000 compared to the whole image which has a huge size. Therefor imo the halo is irrelevant. Thanks for the review, cheers --Moroder 09:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective correction overdone IMO at the top (see the globe), and not enough on sides. Tight crop. Blown sky at left. Halo. Light not optimal. Not a QI (my taste), sorry.--Jebulon 10:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    I accept everything which is opinable but the "overblown sky " is not true, please look at the histogram. --Moroder 16:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me it´s QI, the castle is seen from this position as it is seen on the picture. --Hubertl 19:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me --Isiwal 00:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a good framing, which is a fundamental component of Photography. Alvesgaspar 21:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question Whats wrong with the framing? --Moroder 18:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The crop is too tight and the shooting position is not the best: not only extreme distortion results but also is makes unclear what the subject is: only the tower? Alvesgaspar 19:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Since I can't afford a chopper, I take the pictures from the bottom where I access on foot between different constraining walls. Yes, the subject is the tower as described.
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 09:36, 28 March 2015 (UT

File:Red-billed_tropicbird_(Phaethon_aethereus_mesonauta)_with_chick.jpg[edit]

Red-billed tropicbird (Phaethon aethereus mesonauta) with chick.jpg

  • Nomination Red-billed tropicbird (Phaethon aethereus mesonauta) with chick, Little Tobago --Charlesjsharp 10:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Large area of overexposure in the centre. --Mattbuck 22:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    New version uploaded reducing over-exposure --Charlesjsharp 09:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good for me now.--Hubertl 19:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor framing (too tight crop), most of subject is unsharp. Alvesgaspar 21:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Alvesgaspar and too tight crop--Lmbuga 22:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Münster,_St.-Paulus-Dom,_Skulptur_-Kardinal_von_Galen-_--_2014_--_3985.jpg[edit]

Münster, St.-Paulus-Dom, Skulptur -Kardinal von Galen- -- 2014 -- 3985.jpg

  • Nomination Sculpture “Clemens August Graf von Galen” (Toni Schneider-Manzell, 1978) at St. Paul's Cathedral, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 06:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overexposure in the sky. --Mattbuck 22:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed I just fixed the small overexposed parts (and CAs). Thanks for your advise.--XRay 06:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok now.--Hubertl 19:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 22:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor lighting, subject unsharp. Alvesgaspar 22:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy 23:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor lighting, subject unsharp. As Alvesgaspar--Lmbuga 22:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 01:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Iguana iguana, Gembira Loka Zoo, Yogyakarta, 2015-03-15 03.jpg[edit]

Iguana iguana, Gembira Loka Zoo, Yogyakarta, 2015-03-15 03.jpg

  • Nomination Captive Iguana iguana, Gembira Loka Zoo, Yogyakarta --Crisco 1492 02:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Head does not seem to be in focus. --Charlesjsharp 13:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree, focus is more on the creature's belly, but I think it's enough. Crisco 1492 09:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yes for me too --Christian Ferrer 19:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overall unsharpness. Alvesgaspar 21:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Out of date clock icon 2.svg Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 15:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Carcharodus_alceae_-_Mallow_Skipper.jpg[edit]

Carcharodus alceae - Mallow Skipper.jpg

  • Nomination A Mallow Skipper (Carcharodus alceae) feeding nectar of Ground pine (Ajuga chamaepitys) flowers. Canyon Kapıkaya, Karaisalı - Adana, Turkey. --Zcebeci 11:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not a great composition, but the subject is focussed. Therefore QI for me. Even when weak. Third opinion appreciated --Hubertl 11:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not really QI for me. --Charlesjsharp 13:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition: The picture needs a crop (composition) and, with the crop, is too litle--Lmbuga 17:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Hubertl 02:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Head of dead fish.JPG[edit]

Head of dead fish.JPG

  • Nomination head of dead fish, senegal --Jjgodox 19:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Please identify fish --Charlesjsharp 11:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC) identification done Jjgodox 17:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK now, though sharpness could be better. --Martin Falbisoner 12:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not quite convinced as to the general JPEG quality. I'd like a few more opinions. --Mattbuck 22:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Mattbuck. Alvesgaspar 22:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I really like this pic. It seems plenty sharp to me and it has a lot of cool insect activity. Bsmalley 03:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It needs more identify (not only Sphyraena sp.) IMO. Not categorized as Sphyraena or Category:Unidentified Sphyraena. Detail could be better and oversharpened IMO--Lmbuga 17:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Hubertl 17:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Jürgen_Treyz_Cara_FaN_2013_618.jpg[edit]

Jürgen Treyz Cara FaN 2013 618.jpg

  • Nomination Jürgen Treyz of the german/irish band Cara, appearance at the festival "Folk am Neckar" 2013 in Mosbach-Neckarelz, Germany --Rs-foto 22:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please remove CAs and zombie pixels. --C messier 17:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not sure about the composition - glasses are problematic IMO. Mattbuck 18:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What's wrong with the glasses? --Palauenc05 22:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Zombie pixels/CA not fixed. As for what's wrong with the glasses they're just the wrong angle for me that they half obscure the eye. Mattbuck 22:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Steindy 23:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 17:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Erywań,_Armeńska_Akademia_Nauk_(02).jpg[edit]

2014 Erywań, Armeńska Akademia Nauk (02).jpg

  • Nomination Armenian National Academy of Sciences. 24 Marshal Baghramyan Avenue. Yerevan, Armenia. --Halavar 09:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The wires, while unavoidable, prevent this being QI. --Mattbuck 19:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support The picture is GQ despite the wires. --Palauenc05 18:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The wires are the reality, I don't understand any issues here. --Christian Ferrer 05:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Christian got a point about the fact, that a photographer has all the right to depict the real world. By that, wires cannot prevent QI status a priori. However, sometimes wires are destroying the composition, especially when they are overlaying the main motif in an intrusive way. IMHO, in the above image, the wires are a compositional issue, as tjhey affect one third of the photo . --Cccefalon 12:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see a way to compose this picture without the wires and therefore Christian is correct. GQ Bsmalley 15:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    Christian Ferrer, Bsmalley - I don't believe extenuating circumstances are relevant to QI. Some things will never be QI - like trying to photograph a moving cat in a pitch black coal cellar. It doesn't matter to me that the photographer has done nothing wrong here, that reality is at fault, the wires ruin the photo. Part of technical quality is choosing a good composition, and if that's just not at all possible it's unfortunate but not really relevant to the quality of the photo they take. Mattbuck 12:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can not find severe technical issues. The image composition is not completely messed, there are just some inevitable wires. They belong to the scene like traffic signs. Small composition issues like these should not be the only reason for declining. -- Smial 13:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wires. It's a good picture, but it's not QI to me. sorry, in spanish: Se puede tomar la foto desde más cerca, sin ser captados los cables. La calidad de los detalles podría ser mejor. No veo motivo para considerar alta calidad.--Lmbuga 23:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Terrible quality: overall noise and lack of detail, too tight crop. I just don't understand the support votes. Alvesgaspar 22:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Steindy 23:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 09:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Tue 24 Mar → Wed 01 Apr
Wed 25 Mar → Thu 02 Apr
Thu 26 Mar → Fri 03 Apr
Fri 27 Mar → Sat 04 Apr
Sat 28 Mar → Sun 05 Apr
Sun 29 Mar → Mon 06 Apr
Mon 30 Mar → Tue 07 Apr
Tue 31 Mar → Wed 08 Apr
Wed 01 Apr → Thu 09 Apr