Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Other languages:
čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский
Gtk-go-down.svg Skip to nominations

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.


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.


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.

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.


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.


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. Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is at least frowned upon or may even lead to immediate decline.

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 --~~~~ | }}


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 --~~~~ | }}


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 July 2014 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache



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]] 12:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

July 30, 2014[edit]

July 29, 2014[edit]

July 28, 2014[edit]

July 27, 2014[edit]

July 26, 2014[edit]

July 25, 2014[edit]

July 24, 2014[edit]

July 23, 2014[edit]

July 22, 2014[edit]

July 21, 2014[edit]

July 20, 2014[edit]

July 19, 2014[edit]

July 17, 2014[edit]

July 12, 2014[edit]

July 7, 2014[edit]

Consensual review[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 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:University of East London MMB 03 Royal Albert Dock.jpg[edit]

University of East London MMB 03 Royal Albert Dock.jpg

  • Nomination Royal Albert Dock. Mattbuck 06:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Non-existent subject, negligible EV. Yerpo 14:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Not a reason to decline at quality images. --Mattbuck 23:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Rode zonnehoed (Echinacea purpurea).JPG[edit]

Rode zonnehoed (Echinacea purpurea).JPG

  • Nomination Echinacea purpurea.
    Famberhorst 15:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Background a bit noisy, but QI overall --Poco a poco 18:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, In my opinion the background and the edges spoils the picture: Artifacts, noise, too sharpened IMO--Lmbuga 18:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO the photo is oversharpened, especially the background and edges. --Tuxyso 11:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


Paris, Litfasssäule -- 2014 -- 1169.jpg

  • Nomination Advertising column, Paris, France --XRay 07:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO it's QI. --Stegop 20:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    You should promote it then.
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I oppose because a) the lower part of the column is invisible, b) the flat background is disturbing (why not take the pic from the right or left side to gain some depth from central perspective?), and c) top side crop is too tight. Move to CR. --Kreuzschnabel 09:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I understand Kreuzschnabel's argument but it is imho no QI concern here. The column is well places between the two white window shutters. --Tuxyso 11:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


Balung Tawau Sabah Sawit-Kinabalu-Seeds-Sdn-Bhd-02.jpg

  • Nomination Entrance to the Seed Production Unit of Sawit Kinabalu Seeds Sdn Bhd in Kg Balung, Sabah --Cccefalon 11:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Imo the top background nedds to be generously cropped because it is distracting, even if blurred --Moroder 14:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is intentionally, to see the SAWIT logo in the background. Cropping would destroy the logo as well as the compo. --Cccefalon 21:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Than the logo in the back shöuldn't be blurred --Moroder 12:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Bad clipping top right. Mattbuck 18:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    Dear Mattbuck I already asked you at other occasions not to decline for reason of minor issues which are absolutely easy to fix. The missing constraint operation can be done easily. --Cccefalon 08:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC) and is ✓ Done now --Cccefalon 17:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion

File:Statua Giuseppe Mazzini aventino.jpg[edit]

Statua Giuseppe Mazzini aventino.jpg

File:Hydrangea macrophylla 005.JPG[edit]

Hydrangea macrophylla 005.JPG

  • Nomination Hydrangea macrophylla, with flattened umbels.
    Famberhorst 15:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too processed (see note as example)--Lmbuga 19:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that the shadow of the large leaves.
    Famberhorst 04:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    Perhaps I'm not right: "Discuss" is better--Lmbuga 19:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At first sight it is very good, but looking carefully at the full resolution I find the DOF inadequate, as only some parts of the pethals are sharp - IMO some of the centres should be sharp. --Stegop 13:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

File: Adansonia digitata_arbre_MHNT.jpg[edit]

Adansonia digitata arbre MHNT.jpg

  • Nomination , arbre of Baobab - arbre de Baobab --Ercé 13:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A little bit more contrast wouldn't hurt and that sky is kind of dull, but since I suspect that it is very realistic, maybe it is QI. --Stegop 00:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version. --Ercé 11:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA, strange colours, blurry bottom. Mattbuck 16:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done OK ! New new version. --Ercé 13:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok good now --Archaeodontosaurus 14:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Stegop 23:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


Club Alpino Italiano sign at the Langkofelhütte.jpg

  • Nomination Club Alpino Italiano sign at the Langkofelhütte in Val Gardena --Moroder 15:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Corners of the plaque are blurred. --Mattbuck 17:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree, sensless review --Moroder 22:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Have a look at the rock above the eagle, around the rusty dots. There’s definitely motion blur visible, resulting either from earthquake or camera shake. (I reckon that’s the price of high resolution.) --Kreuzschnabel 11:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It must be me with Parkinson's even at shutter speed 1/500 --Moroder 14:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


Male Ruby-Throated Hummingbird Hovering.jpg

  • Nomination Male Ruby-Throated Hummingbird --Pslawinski 21:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion {{s|weak support}} It's a picture hard to take, but I know your other exceptional picture. It's not a photo as good as another, but QI IMO--Lmbuga 00:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    It is too dark. Can you please brighten it? At least the background, so there's contrast. Once it's updated, I'll support. --Kadellar 12:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm agree with Kadellar--Lmbuga 20:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


Cova e xistos na praia de Augas Santas ou das Catedrais. Devesa. Ribadeo. Galiza-13.jpg

  • Nomination Cave and schist. Beach of Augas Santas or beach of the Cathedrals, Devesa, Ribadeo, Galicia (Spain)-13 --Lmbuga 00:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, "discuss": I want to konw the problem of this image: 5,616 × 3,744 pixels.
  • Discussion

File:Kirche Bruchenbrücken (1).jpg[edit]

Kirche Bruchenbrücken (1).jpg

  • Nomination Church in Bruchenbrücken --Hydro 18:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Needs perspective correction. Perhaps you can apply a crop that is avoiding the part of a roof at the right side. --Cccefalon 20:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    •  Not done Mattbuck 16:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I removed the part of the roof but don't see a need of perspective correction. --Hydro 17:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Perspective distortion fixed, vertical lines were clearly converging. --Kreuzschnabel 11:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Vientiane - Wat Chan - 0011.jpg[edit]

Vientiane - Wat Chan - 0011.jpg

  • Nomination Prayer hall at Wat Chan, Vientiane, Laos -- DerFussi 21:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavy noise reduction caused much loss of details. There are also strange halos in the image. There may be perspective problems too. Wrongly processed, otherwise a very nice image. --Joydeep 16:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI should not work at night after a bottle of wine... It was the Smart Sharpen Filter in Photoshop, that apllied a heavy noise reduction partly, not the processing - unfortunately not at the spots I checked. Normally I am not a fan of heavy noise reduction. Do I have any chance with a re-upload? Are there perspective problems or not? Can you give me a hint where? I used some guide lines to check it. -- DerFussi 17:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    You can surely reupload another version of this file. Sharper version would be very good. There are minor perspective issues, I have made some annotations. --Joydeep 19:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    I've checked the perspective issues. Look at my screenshots [1],[2] and [3]. Thats very slighty. Maybe 1,5px on the left side, if you look at 300%. OK. I'll kick the smart sharpen filter and rework it tonight. Upload a new one anyway and will decide whether its good enough - and never work at late night. Thanks. -- DerFussi 04:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)✓ Done reworked -- DerFussi 20:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are several optical illusions working against you here, the curved item over the central peak, the central columns get narrower as they go up, the wires crossing at an angle, and the left front wall's horizontal tilts, even though the vertical there is mostly vertical. Sharpness is improved, though. --Generic1139 21:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, it is a bit tricky. If I wanted to put it on my wall here, I would retouch it and remove all wires, but I lack in time. The QI is not a must have. I consider it as a part of a learning process, not as a contest. :) Thanks for the comments. -- DerFussi 08:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Ascensor del Monte San Pedro.La Coruña.005.JPG[edit]

Ascensor del Monte San Pedro.La Coruña.005.JPG

  • Nomination Elevator in San Pedro's Mount, in Corunna, Spain. --Drow male 13:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See note: Red and cyan CAs. Overxposed areas? If you fix the CAs, it's good for me--Lmbuga 14:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you can't fix the chromatic aberrations, I can fix CAs, but I don't have the RAW file--Lmbuga 15:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    *✓ Done by me. New version: Discuss--Lmbuga 01:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


Communication mast at åreskutan.jpg

  • Nomination Communication mast at Åreskutan in winter --Averater 06:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Rather noisy - why were you using ISO800 and f16? Mattbuck 06:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    To be honest I had that setting for a whole set where I did some photos with extreme DOF but of course, this photo could have been done with f8. --Averater 07:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but as Mattbuck and... dirty sky (see a note with four or five little dust spots). Too much chromatic noise. chromatic aberrations--Lmbuga 17:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Lmbuga. --Joydeep 06:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


Mallorca - Cap Figuera2.jpg

  • Nomination Figuera Bay, Majorca --Taxiarchos228 06:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --JLPC 14:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Nice, but there are areas with good contrast and clarity bordering areas with low contrast and clarity (see note). The horizon is a bit tilted--Lmbuga 17:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Lmbuga: the horizon is straight now, but the different contrasts are result of different angle of the plants and is not a fault auf my or the camera. There are also more of those areas with different contrast, but this is absolutley natural. --Taxiarchos228 19:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not agree, sorry--Lmbuga 21:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
if you agree or not, that are the facts. --Taxiarchos228 07:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good for QI, the contrast is naturally. --Ralf Roletschek 07:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Vientiane - Wat Chan - 0001.jpg[edit]

Vientiane - Wat Chan - 0001.jpg

  • Nomination The meeting and prayer room of Wat Chan, Vientiane -- DerFussi 19:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Cayambe 11:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It looks wee tilted to the right (0.001 deg? :), which wouldn't be ok if the angled POV and the natural inclination of the trees didn't increase the tilt appearance. Otherwise it is great, despite the dull sky which can't be changed. --Stegop 23:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


Nationalpark Jasmund - Insel Rügen.jpg

  • Nomination Chalk cliffs of Rügen, Jasmund National Park, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany. By User:Hrauk --Frank Schulenburg 14:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Composition and lighting (sky, contrast, colours)) --Steinsplitter 14:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything with the composition or colours, but the low levels need brightening. Mattbuck 07:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Somewhat oversharpened and small compression artifacts. @Mattbuck: Yes, the dark side of the tree ;-) is a bit too dark and shows no detail, but thats at the margin and imho not really an issue. Lacking geo coordinates. -- Smial 11:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI to me --DKrieger 15:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


Merfeld, Wildpferdefang -- 2014 -- 0798.jpg

  • Nomination Capturing the yearlings: Wildpferdefang 2014, Merfelder Bruch, Dülmen, Germany --XRay 05:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Red channel overexposure. --Mattbuck 09:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Red channel is improved.--XRay 06:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Severe problems with composition (the head is hidden and it's impossible to see what the middle guy is doing. Also hard to see value of this photo among the other better images of the same happening. --Averater (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


Merfeld, Wildpferdefang, Vorprogramm -- 2014 -- 0499.jpg

  • Nomination Preliminary Program (unknown actor); Wildpferdefang 2014, Merfelder Bruch, Dülmen, Germany --XRay 05:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    Red channel blown on jacket. --Kreuzschnabel 14:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Red channel is now improved. It's better. Thanks for your advice.--XRay 06:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, much better. Generic1139 16:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Anthemis 'E.C. Buxton'.JPG[edit]

Anthemis 'E.C. Buxton'.JPG

  • Nomination Anthemis 'E.C. Buxton'. Chamomile.
    Famberhorst 15:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion At first sight it is good, but looking carefully, I think that the DOF should cover the center of the flower and not only the foreground. Sorry, I imagine how difficult it can be shooting this kind of photo. --Stegop 23:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Have to disagree with Stegop. Think focus is well chosen. Object well represented and sharp. --Klaproth 23:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DoF a bit small indeed, but acceptable here IMO --Christian Ferrer 10:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Essential parts are sharp enough. -- Smial 21:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting background, especially the flower to the left. --Averater 07:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Averater and poor DOF--Lmbuga 02:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Neo-Riemannian Tonnetz.svg[edit]

Neo-Riemannian Tonnetz.svg

  • Nomination The Neo-Riemannian Tonnetz, showing relations between triads --Mate2code 02:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • A useful image, however, the small annotations denoting secondary operations are too small to read except at higher res. Can you make them a larger font, or a darker grey?--Generic1139 12:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done The gray letters are now readable on the description page. In my opinion only the letters N, S and H need to be readable from articles, the gray letters are just auxiliary information. Mate2code 12:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Generic1139 16:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Burgruine Hohenegg 8666.jpg[edit]

Burgruine Hohenegg 8666.jpg

  • Nomination Burgruine Hohenegg, Austria --Hamster28 13:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too much softening (fine details in the wall structure are extinguished). Magenta CA bottom right. --Cccefalon 13:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness and colours look just right to me. --Stegop 23:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe softened details look nice, like a kind of drawing. Was it intentionally? As an artwork? Then describe it on the description page, and I give a "pro". If not and it should be a "normal" photo, I agree Cccefalon. -- DerFussi 14:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too processed, perhaps Featured picture, but not Quality Image IMO--Lmbuga 02:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Tue 22 Jul → Wed 30 Jul
Wed 23 Jul → Thu 31 Jul
Thu 24 Jul → Fri 01 Aug
Fri 25 Jul → Sat 02 Aug
Sat 26 Jul → Sun 03 Aug
Sun 27 Jul → Mon 04 Aug
Mon 28 Jul → Tue 05 Aug
Tue 29 Jul → Wed 06 Aug
Wed 30 Jul → Thu 07 Aug