From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Quality images candidates in other languages:

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.

[edit] Purpose

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.

[edit] Guidelines

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

[edit] For nominators

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

[edit] Image page requirements

Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at COM:CT.
Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms.
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.

[edit] Creator

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).

[edit] Technical requirements

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

[edit] Resolution

Graphics located on Commons may be used not only for viewing them on a screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices would be used in the future either, so it is important that pictures being nominated have a reasonably large resolution. 2 megapixels is normally the lower limit, but for 'easy to take' images, reviewers may demand more. (Not applicable for SVG images).

[edit] Image quality

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.

[edit] Composition and lighting

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.

[edit] Value

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

[edit] How to nominate

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

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|1=Very short description --~~~~ |2=}}

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.

[edit] Evaluating images

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

[edit] How to review

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|1=Very short description --~~~~ |2=}}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|1=Very short description --Nominators signature |2=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|1=Very short description --~~~~ |2=}}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|1=Very short description --Nominators signature |2=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.

[edit] Grace period and promotion

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.

[edit] How to execute decision

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.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

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

[edit] Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

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 2009 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

[edit] Consensual review process

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.

[edit] How to ask for consensual review

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.

[edit] Consensual review rules

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page cache

[edit] Nominations

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]] 20:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 12, 2009

Nomination Image of an XBox 360 wired controller. --Asim18 18:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Cliffs Grain de sable near Bonifacio (France) BartekPtaszyński 14:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Cliffs near Bonifacio (France) BartekPtaszyński 14:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Old church in Mogielnica (Poland) BartekPtaszyński 14:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Universal Temple at Ramakrishna Mission, Chennai --Bgag 14:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Decline Good view, good light, but some CA and loss of detail, probably due to strong noise supression. -- Smial 16:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination West European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus). --kallerna 13:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Germany, Street in Beilstein at the river Mosel --Berthold Werner 10:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Anshunlang bridge and Ji river in Chengdu,Sichuan province,China. --Charlie fong 08:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion Comment Attractive view but too small. Do you have a bigger version? --Iotatau 08:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Comment --It's a great pity,I lost the bigger one in a netcafe,something wrong with this mechine. --Charlie fong 09:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
In spite of its insufficient size I promote this image due to exceptional documentary value. Please post more and try to preserve original size in future. --Iotatau 10:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
ContraSorry, but beside size is much too small, imho it's too dark and whitebalance is bad and the main object is nearly in the background. --Berthold Werner 12:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Deutschordensschloss in Mülheim/Möhne --Mbdortmund 04:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Promotion good --George Chernilevsky 10:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Stations of the Cross in Warstein-Sichtigvor, Germany --Mbdortmund 04:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Promotion Atmospheric view, the important parts are sharp, good composition. Missing geo coordinates. -- Smial 19:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 11, 2009

Nomination Deutschordensschloss in Mülheim/Möhne by User:Gnu1742 --Mbdortmund 23:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Promotion Attractive building, good sky. --Iotatau 06:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Fort l'Écluse, retouched by Carlotto. Yann 23:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Decline I like the view, but I dislike manipulations of that kind. The power lines are there, and I would support the original photo. -- Smial 19:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Organ of the Maccabees Chapel, St-Pierre cathedral, Geneva, Switzerland. Yann 23:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Review
Comment Beautiful instrument but barrel distortion ought to be corrected. --Iotatau 06:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Backlit Meconopsis 'Lingholm'. Maedin 20:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Promotion fine structures, nice Bukeh --Mbdortmund 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Westfälisches Freilichtmuseum in Detmold (Germany) -- MJJR 20:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Promotion Nice composition. --High Contrast 22:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Westfälisches Freilichtmuseum in Detmold (Germany) -- MJJR 20:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Promotion Good shot, description should have more detail. --Smial 22:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Landscape in Crete (Greece) -- MJJR 20:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Promotion Ok. --Berthold Werner 09:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Germany, Metternich Castle at the river Mosel --Berthold Werner 18:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Water Avens (Geum rivale). --kallerna 17:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination A Semi Citroën 2CV. --High Contrast 07:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Laufwasserkraftwerk Finsing, Germany Richard Bartz 16:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Promotion Nice, not technical problems, good shadows. #!George Shuklin 20:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Laufwasserkraftwerk Finsing, Germany Richard Bartz 16:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Promotion good --Mbdortmund 23:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 10, 2009

Nomination Centaurea macrocephala. Maedin 22:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Echinops bannaticus. Maedin 22:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination dangerous Bromine very good sealed chemical element sample --Alchemist-hp 21:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Promotion Mediocre sharpness and CA, but good lighting and composition. Request: Once you remove the slight left-tilt, it's certainly QI. --Afrank99 08:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Done --Alchemist-hp 10:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Argynnis aglaja --Böhringer 21:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Promotion Superb. --Iotatau 21:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Hydrangea macrophylla 'Endless Summer' --Captain-tucker 21:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Bonifacio (Corsica,France) --Bartek Ptaszyński 22:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Decline Too dark -- H005 10:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Rudna Droga (Mogielnica, Polska) --Bartek Ptaszyński 22:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Decline Noise, underexposed, lack of fine details. --Afrank99 08:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Agia Galini (Crete, Greece) -- MJJR 19:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Decline technically ok, but boring subject and composition. --H005 10:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination The entrance of Jinhuaguan, Chunxi street, Chengdu.--Charlie fong 15:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Promotion Well done, just that ad to the left is a pity. -- H005 16:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Hand holding a bar -- Rama 13:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Promotion Good idea and good quality -- H005 13:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Syrphidae sp. in a flower. --ComputerHotline 09:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Salt evaporation ponds in Sečovlje Salina, Slovenia. --Yerpo 08:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Lightnings. --ComputerHotline 07:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Promotion good Abigor 20:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Lightnings. --ComputerHotline 07:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Promotion Well done, albeit the overly long exposure. -- H005 16:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Panoramic of the Main river bank and old town wall in Frankfurt-Höchst --EvaK 01:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Decline Basically a very nice image, but just way too blurry. --Afrank99 08:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC) CommentEspecially for you I removed the birds and contrails from the sky. Now it's up to you to clean your display. --EvaK 18:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment What have you done? It's worse now with large areas of gaussian blur. Did you ever look at this image at pixel level? --Afrank99 21:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
CommentNot more than 100% I don't pitch on every pixel at 300+ percent. --EvaK 10:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 9, 2009

Nomination Old windmills on Crete (Greece) -- MJJR 19:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Snail (please, help me to recognise specie). #!George Shuklin 19:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Decline I like the neutral white backgroud with the waterdrops, but unfortunately way too shallow DOF -- H005 10:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination 15th Century Pieta in Senlis cathedrale -- Rama 13:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Decline Main object too dark -- H005 12:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination 15th Century Pieta in Senlis cathedrale -- Rama 13:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion Support Good -- H005 12:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Contra Head of Maria is cropped. --Berthold Werner 12:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Support This image is not about Maria but Jesus. I prefer this image to the one with the bright window in the background. --Iotatau 16:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Castello di Miramare. --Adiel lo 08:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Promotion Looks a bit tilted and geolocation ist helpful at photographs of buildings. --Berthold Werner 13:35, 9 July 2009
Comment Hmm.. The horizon looks straight to me. I added a geocode. Adiel lo 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The walls on the left side are tilted cw, needs perspective correction, otherwise good --Mbdortmund 00:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Perspective corrected. Would someone now promote? --Berthold Werner 15:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks good now. --Iotatau 17:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination A couple of Oxes at the traditional Sorochyns'ky fair, Ukraine by user Turzh --George Chernilevsky 05:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

[edit] July 8, 2009

Nomination Yoho National Park, Canada --Tupungato 21:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Macroglossum stellatarum --ComputerHotline 19:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Decline Comment Too small but too good for me for declining. --Iotatau 20:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Below size requirements, sadly. --Afrank99 18:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Cantharidae, Bastavales, Brión, Galicia.--Lmbuga 19:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Ascent of Helvellyn, by User:Diliff. —Maedin 18:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Kinbasket Lake and Monashee Mountains --Tupungato 18:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Orthodox church in Vinnytsia, Ukraine. The Southern Bug river bank. --George Chernilevsky 13:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Remains or armored vehicles in Sha'ar hagai, Israel. --Adiel lo 05:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Pavo cristatus (male) in San Francisco Zoo--Mbz1 03:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

[edit] July 7, 2009

Nomination Blackberries in a range of ripeness. --George Chernilevsky 19:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Panoramic of the Großmarkthalle in Frankfurt am Main, May 2007 --EvaK 19:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Decline Subject too dark IMHO -- H005 10:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC) CommentHave a brighter display. Or explain what you exactly mean with "too dark" --EvaK 18:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Confluence of Nemunas River and Merkys River, Lithuania. --Hugo.arg 16:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Decline Sorry, the photo is definitely tilted Tupungato 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Excellent view, but unfortunately tilted, blurry and full of chromatic aberration. I'd love to see the same view in high quality. -- H005 10:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 6, 2009

Nomination Elks in Yellowstone NP --Mbz1 18:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination French marigold Tagetes patula, possibly a hybrid cultivar. Ukraine. --George Chernilevsky 13:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination Germany, Beilstein at the river Mosel, Altes Zollhaus --Berthold Werner 13:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Promotion Ok. Maedin 22:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Alexander Spring Creek --Ianare 03:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination A hot heron --Ianare 03:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Promotion It looks kind of dark on a thumbnail, but is good, when one zooms it. Very nice.--Tupungato 17:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 5, 2009

Nomination Germany, Herrstein, Timber-frame Building. --Berthold Werner 08:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Review Neutral or even weak oppose. Nice house, sharp and exposure are good, but the composition is very weak IMHO. -- H005 22:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 4, 2009

Nomination Elvis Presley's grave in Graceland. --Dschwen 23:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

Nomination View of Kokkini Hani, near Herakleion (Crete, Greece) -- MJJR 20:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Decline technical quality is ok, albeit not superb, but unclear composition, subject not overly exciting, telegraph lines. -- H005 10:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination University of Cologne, pano of the Main Building --S^[1] 16:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Review needed

[edit] July 2, 2009

[edit] July 1, 2009

Nomination Tor Corona observed near Saltholm, Øresund --Slaunger 23:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Decline Comment A more experienced reviewer ought to judge whether the blurring out of the water surface left and right of the ship reflections is within the allowed postprocessing limits. Otherwise good. --Iotatau 17:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
for me the border between reflections and water is not OK --Mbdortmund 09:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand why the left and right side were simply filled with blue color. Looks distracting and irrtating IMHO. -- H005 13:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 30, 2009

Nomination Military complex at the Salbert hill between 1953 to 1972. --ComputerHotline 16:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Review Please provide references --Ianare 05:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC) ----- Personals topography. --ComputerHotline 09:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[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. Or 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 - Promoted or Not promoted - will be registered at the end of the text 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 Oppose and 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".

[edit] Consensual Review

[edit] File:Agia_Galini_R01.jpg

Nomination Agia Galini (Crete, Greece) -- MJJR 19:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Oppose Technically ok, but boring subject and composition. --H005 10:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Boring? Perhaps. That's a personal appreciation, which I respect. But what about informative value? Commons is about more than aesthetics only. I'd like a second opinion here, if possible... -- MJJR 20:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Focus, colors, lighting are good, let's make it a "discuss". What's the street name? Are these public or private buildings? --Iotatau 07:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Info: This image is illustrative for the typical (private) houses along the narrow, steep streets in a Cretan village built on the rocky slopes of the southern coast. For the exact location: see the geocoding. -- MJJR 15:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Support --Iotatau 15:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Support Technically OK → QI. Lycaon 20:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (promote?) -- Lycaon 20:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Beilstein BW 0.JPG

Nomination Germany, Beilstein at the river Mosel, view from the Castle Metternich --Berthold Werner 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Support Good panorama. --Iotatau 18:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Too blurry, some chromatic aberrations -- H005 10:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (more votes?) --Iotatau 20:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (2).jpg

Nomination Hoverfly. --ComputerHotline 19:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Comment According to the guidelines two submissions per day are ok. I now see six in a row so I stop promoting. --Iotatau 20:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Not identified (tip: search in subfamily Syrphinae). Lycaon 07:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Identification is no criterion. --ComputerHotline 07:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (decline?) --Iotatau 21:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (7).jpg

Nomination Syrphidae copulation --ComputerHotline 19:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Oppose Not identified (tip: search in subfamily Syrphinae). Lycaon 07:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Identification is no criterion. --ComputerHotline 07:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (decline?) --Iotatau 21:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Diptera sp. (by) (6).jpg

Nomination Diptera enjoying with foam coming out of demijohn. --ComputerHotline 19:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Oppose Not identified (Diptera??). Tip: Search in family Calliphoridae. Lycaon 07:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Identification is no criterion. --ComputerHotline 07:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose "Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms." --Mbdortmund 09:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> (decline?)  --Iotatau 06:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ship_M_I_Pirogov_Vinnitsa_2006_G2.jpg

Nomination Vinnitsa, Ukraine. View from a bridge to the Southern Bug river. --George Chernilevsky 13:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Oppose Technically average, value for Wikimedia? -- H005 16:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment read more about en:Southern Bug value. It is a river 806 km long --George Chernilevsky 18:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Support IMHO OK --Mbdortmund 01:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (more votes?) --Iotatau 20:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kosciol sw Katarzyny w Korczewie.jpg

Nomination Church of St. Catherine in Korczew, Poland --Chrumps 00:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Comment I'd say it's good, but it seems to be a little tilted to the right.--Tupungato 17:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Good shot. I've reduced some CA, tilt, and distortion. Please review. -- Smial 10:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment For an unknown reason the thumbnail of this image and two other ones don't show up for me, on two different PCs, with two different browsers, after repeated purges and page refreshs. --Iotatau (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
just like here --Mbdortmund 15:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> (more votes?)  --Iotatau 06:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bytom - Muzeum Górnośląskie 02.jpg

Nomination Upper Silesian Museum in Bytom --Yarl 10:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Comment Darker spots on the sky. Sensor dust, probably. It can be easily removed. I don't think it should be "quality image" with sensor spots.--Tupungato 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> (more votes?)  --Iotatau 06:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bytom - Państwowe Szkoły Budownictwa.jpg

Nomination Building high school in Bytom --Yarl 10:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Comment Darker spots on the sky. Sensor dust, probably. It can be easily removed. I don't think it should be "quality image" with sensor spots.--Tupungato 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> (more votes?)  --Iotatau 06:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:01 Ovis orientalis aries portrait.jpg

Nomination Ovis orientalis aries Richard Bartz 11:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Oppose Lack of sharpness, diffuse light -- H005 21:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Support I like it --Mbdortmund 00:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Lack of sharpness ?? Can you show me a non-oversharpened example with the same resolution please ? Richard Bartz 15:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant for QI whether there aren't any better pictures, that argument is only valid for COM:VI. The sharpness of the face is excellent, just the body isn't. But my oppose is only weak, if Mbdortmund or others support it, ok. -- H005 12:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me what do you mean with diffuse light ? Is it underexposed or overexposed ? Is direct sunlight a quality feature ? Available light and to shadow my subjects is part of my photographic style/preference. Richard Bartz 14:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support For me it's a "portrait", as the file name says, and body sharpness is not important. Overcast light and no sun help to keep the dynamic range in check. I am not a fan of the fence in the background but overall I consider it to be a QI. --Iotatau 17:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Support When background is sharp, I would change to 'oppose'; I like it this way. Sumurai8 20:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (promote?)  --Iotatau 20:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:02 Ovis orientalis aries portrait.jpg

Nomination Ovis orientalis aries, lambs Richard Bartz 11:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Oppose Too low DOF, diffuse light -- H005 21:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Frage: Stimmt das leicht Rötliche im Fell oder ist das ein Farbstich? --Mbdortmund 00:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Es muß das Fell sein, sonst wäre der Rest ja auch Rotstichig. bg Richard Bartz 14:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (decline?)  --Iotatau 17:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Chainsaw.JPG

Nomination Chainsaw in action. (One of the first photos with my new camera.) --kallerna 17:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Support Good. I like how you caught the sawdust. --Iotatau 17:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose not sharp, possible saw vibration result. I'm sorry, idea really great --George Chernilevsky 18:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose it is sharp but the saw is out of focus! And for wikipedia is the picture bed, because of safty reasons, don't saw in this way! HBR 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The saw is in focus. The motor isn't as sharp the saw, but IMO it's sharp enough. Why would it be unsafe to saw like this? --kallerna 17:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> (decline?) --Iotatau 20:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bug June 2009-5.jpg

Nomination A weird bug (Syromastes rhombeus) -- Alvesgaspar 23:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Support Location would be nice --Mbdortmund 23:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose DOF is very shallow. #!George Shuklin 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (more votes?) --Iotatau 20:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cygnus columbianus bewickii.JPG

Nomination She was sleeping, I took the picture :D Abigor 20:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Support Good.--Mbz1 22:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Underexposed and head OOF. Lycaon 07:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Too much shadow --H005 22:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Support Sumurai8 20:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> (more votes?)  --Iotatau 20:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Berlin_Central_Station_opening_(2006).jpg

Nomination Berlin main station opening. --Iotatau 09:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Support I wish the hand in the lower left corner was not there, but otherwise a good image.--Mbz1 12:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Not really sharp, overexpoed, bad crop, hand in the left corner --Pro2 15:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Exposure: check histogram, if anything the image is on average underexposed. Sharpness: the tripod was 3 m from a loudspeaker with maybe 110 dB → vibrations. But still at least as sharp as other recently promoted images. Framing/hand: tight crowd (half a million people). --Iotatau 23:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Support Exposure is quite right, sharpness ok, can't see an issue with the crop. The hand is a pity, agreed, but overall a great picture. -- H005 22:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Support as H005 -- MJJR 19:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please add your vote over the QICtotal box -- Pro2 23:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose As Pro2 (without the overexposure). Lycaon 20:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> (promote?) Lycaon 20:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Oberflaechenpiercing IMGP8092-2.jpg

Nomination piercing by Smial --Mbdortmund 20:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
~~weak oppose~~ Nice quality, but small size: 1.5 Megapixels only --George Chernilevsky 21:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
the picture is strictly reduced to the important elements, it would be easy to bring it over the 2 MP by adding some unimportant elements; everything is sharp and shows good details as far as I see. I think it's acceptable --Mbdortmund 11:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment if promotion for 1.5 Mp possible, then i can to change my vote. Photo really nice --George Chernilevsky 13:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment The strictly reduced picture should just have a higher resolution. This is not a reason to promote undersized images, sorry. Lycaon 20:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Support Albeit the low resolution, everything is clear and sharp and, as the subject is very simple, the resolution is good enough to show all objects in sufficient detail. -- H005 22:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, i now Neutral. Rules can be broken in this case --George Chernilevsky 07:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Support ack, H005 --EvaK 08:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose below 2 megapixels --High Contrast 17:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose below 2 megapixels, size mitigation is not an option on QI. Lycaon 20:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> (more votes?)  Lycaon (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Middelgrunden wind farm 2009-07-01 edit filtered.jpg

Nomination Middelgrunden offshore wind farm (40 MW) on in glossy sea state --Slaunger 09:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Comment I spot a few spots. Lycaon 09:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for noticing. I've cloned out five spots. Hope I got'em all - gee I am surprised my sensor is already dirty. --Slaunger 10:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Support Very beautiful.--Mbz1 03:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There is noise and the windmills are not straight. Estrilda 05:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
the noise could IMO be accepted because of the composition and the graphical effect but the perspective should be corrected --Mbdortmund 11:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per author's remark. Lycaon 21:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment If skewness (horizon, poles) is removed, I'll support it. -- H005 22:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment I'd like to support this if there was dust removal, less skewness and less JPG compression and therefore less artefacts and noise. --EvaK 09:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (more votes?) George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fly and bug June 2009-1.jpg

Nomination A fly and a bug preparing to take off -- Alvesgaspar 23:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Support nice --Mbdortmund 09:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose seams blurry in full resolution --LC-de 15:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Pretty good and interesting. --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Very small DOF, not QI :-(. Nice composition. --George Chernilevsky 06:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Support very interesting composition. i think it would be hard to get it sharper by that size of objects-LadyofHats 09:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - per George Chernilevsky -- Pro2 11:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Difficult case. But I think on balance that the lack of depth of field is mitigated by the fact that there is little alternative. Very difficult to persuade two bugs to not move at all while you take multiple exposures to do focus stacking. --Tony Wills 11:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose not a good depth. --Estrilda 05:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Support nice --ComputerHotline 08:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Support DOF is ok in my opinion. I like the composition. --High Contrast 17:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose -> (promote?) --Iotatau 20:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

Sat 04 Jul → Sun 12 Jul
Sun 05 Jul → Mon 13 Jul
Mon 06 Jul → Tue 14 Jul
Tue 07 Jul → Wed 15 Jul
Wed 08 Jul → Thu 16 Jul
Thu 09 Jul → Fri 17 Jul
Fri 10 Jul → Sat 18 Jul
Sat 11 Jul → Sun 19 Jul
Sun 12 Jul → Mon 20 Jul

Commons:Quality images candidates