Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский
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. 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 --~~~~ | }}

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 October 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


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]] 09:06, 22 October 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.

October 22, 2014[edit]

October 21, 2014[edit]

October 20, 2014[edit]

October 19, 2014[edit]

October 18, 2014[edit]

October 17, 2014[edit]

October 16, 2014[edit]

October 15, 2014[edit]

October 14, 2014[edit]

October 13, 2014[edit]

October 12, 2014[edit]

October 11, 2014[edit]

October 10, 2014[edit]

October 9, 2014[edit]

October 8, 2014[edit]

October 7, 2014[edit]

October 6, 2014[edit]

October 2, 2014[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:Paris - The Eiffel Tower in spring - 2307.jpg[edit]

Paris - The Eiffel Tower in spring - 2307.jpg

  • Nomination Eiffel Tower (by Jorgeroyan) --Paris 16 13:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The trees in front of the tower aren't nice. A few areas seem burned. Jakec 17:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    quality is good for me and composition is nice --Taxiarchos228 20:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB «C2 Canary Wharf.jpg[edit]

London MMB «C2 Canary Wharf.jpg

  • Nomination Canary Wharf. Mattbuck 06:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion too dark --Taxiarchos228 08:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    That would be because it was taken at night. --Mattbuck 23:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Ship_procession_fresco,_part_4,_Akrotiri,_Greece.jpg[edit]

Ship procession fresco, part 4, Akrotiri, Greece.jpg

  • Nomination Ship procession fresco, part 4, Akrotiri, Greece. --Yann 19:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Lacks sharpness, sorry --Poco a poco 20:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    New version. Please check. --Yann 13:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    Better, but not at QI level IMHO, sorry, Poco a poco 19:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Ford_Mustang_Convertible_de_1968,_Helsinki,_Finlandia,_2012-08-14,_DD_01.JPG[edit]

Ford Mustang Convertible de 1968, Helsinki, Finlandia, 2012-08-14, DD 01.JPG

  • Nomination Ford Mustang Convertible of 1968, Helsinki, Finnland --Poco a poco 13:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion I am not convinced of this image: very tight crop, disturbing advertising of Texaco in the background, lop-sided pillars. We should discuss. -- Spurzem 17:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version with a bunch of improvements (but the Texaco sign) Poco a poco 19:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014.06.21.-25-Mannheim Rheinau--Kleiner Sonnenroeschen-Blaeuling.jpg[edit]

2014.06.21.-25-Mannheim Rheinau--Kleiner Sonnenroeschen-Blaeuling.jpg

  • Nomination Kleiner Sonnenröschen-Bläuling - Aricia agestis --Hockei 20:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO not sharp enough for this kind of image. --XRay 15:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You forget that these butterflies are in hectic motions. Please another opinions. --Hockei 18:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Mont_de_Seuc_y_l_Saslong.jpg[edit]

Mont de Seuc y l Saslong.jpg

  • Nomination The Seiser Alm in South Tyrol, with the mountains of Langkofel group in the background --Moroder 09:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    Is there another opinion concerning the blur in the backround? --Ehsc 11:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Could you be more specific, please --Moroder 05:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


*Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. --Famberhorst (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Halavar 14:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not good, but excellent. Please go to support in FPC, thanks.--Jebulon 16:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good composition and atmospheric lighting. -- Spurzem 17:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Norwood Junction railway station MMB 03 377439.jpg[edit]

Norwood Junction railway station MMB 03 377439.jpg

  • Nomination 377439 at Norwood Junction. Mattbuck 07:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Much too dark. Far away from QI. -- Spurzem 11:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - IMHO contrast too high... --Ehsc 11:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure who set this to discuss, but ok. ✓ Brightened. Mattbuck 15:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose right part of the image simply to dark (equal shadowed). --Alchemist-hp 19:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    It was getting to evening, the sun was low, I contend this is a realistic portrayal of conditions. Mattbuck 23:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support realistic and QI, even good IMO --Christian Ferrer 04:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Olustvere mõisa peahoone, 1900-1915.a.a*.jpg[edit]

Olustvere mõisa peahoone, 1900-1915.a.a*.jpg

  • Nomination Olustvere manor main house (by A.palu) Kruusamägi 20:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good, but a bit tilted CCW--Lmbuga 20:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    Good quality, I cannot see tilted parts --Hubertl 12:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)It need description --Christian Ferrer 16:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • ok for description but 1 dustspot (see note) and both sides are leaning in a bit --Christian Ferrer 05:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ok, but it needs a little perspective correction. See notes. Vertical lines are not stright. Improvable--Lmbuga 20:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Garden_Lizard.jpg[edit]

Garden Lizard.jpg

  • Nomination A common animal of Bangladesh it is found bushes. --Aftab1995 13:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too blurred, noise, and missing species (+category) --A.Savin 15:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The face of the animal is sharp and impressive. Noise is due to the high ISO of 2000. QI for me. I see no reason for decline. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    Please do not overload the CR without necessity! This image is already automatically disqualified as QI because of missing categorization and species. Concerning the noise, you may want to read the third row on Commons:Image guidelines; the photographer's choice of ISO value is not my problem, but only those of the photographer. Thanks --A.Savin 00:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    OK! You are the great master and I the stupid apprentice. Nevertheless I ask for discussion. I think it is allowed. -- Spurzem 12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    Stupid? I don't know. Childish? For sure. --A.Savin 14:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Danke für die Beleidigung. Von Ihnen nehme ich so etwas gern hin. -- Spurzem 17:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality and description. Yann 16:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I read that it is an garden lizard of Bangladesh. Do we need the zoological name to judge the image? -- Spurzem 17:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others--Lmbuga 20:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For me it is not sharp enough. And it has overexposed parts.--Hockei 20:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Roundabout_September_2014_12.jpg[edit]

Roundabout September 2014 12.jpg

  • Nomination Roundabout Vällingbyvägen/Råckstavägen. --ArildV 07:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 10:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    could the exposure be optimized? Additional Opinions? --Ehsc 10:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Did you have a opinion? If so, please explain.--ArildV 19:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Hotel_The_Rubens,_Londres,_Inglaterra,_2014-08-07,_DD_001.JPG[edit]

Hotel The Rubens, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-07, DD 001.JPG

  • Nomination The Rubens hotel, London, England --Poco a poco 10:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Top too unsharp. --Mattbuck 22:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Poco a poco 08:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    I think it's acceptable now, please let's discuss, please --Poco a poco 20:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Bystrzyca_Kłodzka,_Brama_Wodna_11.JPG[edit]

2014 Bystrzyca Kłodzka, Brama Wodna 11.JPG

  • Nomination Wodna Gate in Bystrzyca Kłodzka 8 --Jacek Halicki 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Noisy and unsharp at the top. --Mattbuck 22:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    noise isn't disturbing here in the dark areas, good QI for me --~~~~
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good quality. I have no insight for the criticism above. -- Spurzem 10:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Penampang_Sabah_Kaamatan-Celebrations-2014-01.jpg[edit]

Penampang Sabah Kaamatan-Celebrations-2014-01.jpg

  • Nomination Penampang, Sabah: The male and female bobohizan - traditional priests and priestess of the Dusun people - perform the magavau, a ritual dance of the Harvest Festival Rituals. --Cccefalon 20:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Noticable noise and posterisation. --Mattbuck 18:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    I cannot second "posterization". I also think that there is not too much noise, considering the fact, that the photo was shot in a dimmed location with ISO 640 (which in fact causes a certain granulation). Also, the background perhaps on the fist glance looks like noise, but this is just the matrix of the projection of a nightly sky. --Cccefalon 12:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 10:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good quality. Ich kann die oben geäußerte Kritik nicht verstehen. Mehr will ich dazu nicht sagen, sonst handele ich mir möglicherweise einen Ordnungsruf ein. -- Spurzem 10:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Building_55_CEF_Ottawa.jpg[edit]

Building 55 CEF Ottawa.jpg

  • Nomination Horticulture Building (Building 55) at Central Experimental Farm in Ottawa --MB-one 11:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Unsharp, dark, perspective. --Mattbuck 18:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    Can we discuss please? --MB-one 09:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. Dass ausgerechnet jemand „dark“ beanstandet, der selbst sehr viele dunkle Bilder liefert – gewissermaßen Nachtaufnahmen bei Sonnenschein –, verstehe ich nicht. Außerdem erkenne ich nicht, was an der Perspektive zu bemängeln sein sollte, und die Schärfe erscheint mir ausreichend. Lediglich die leichten CAs an dem Laub sollten vielleicht reduziert warden. -- Spurzem 10:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment cropped to exclude CAs (thank @Spurzem:) --MB-one 21:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but for me it is not sharp enough. Only some parts. Maybe due to lack of dof? --Hockei 20:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Bazylika_Nawiedzenia_NMP_we_Frydku-Mistku_06.jpg[edit]

2014 Bazylika Nawiedzenia NMP we Frydku-Mistku 06.jpg

  • Nomination Basilica of the Visitation of Our Lady, Mariánské náměstí, Frýdek-Místek. Moravian-Silesian Region, Czech Republic. --Halavar 15:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    Lacking contrast, top very unsharp. Mattbuck 10:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion ✓ Done New version uploaded. Hope it's better now. --Halavar 18:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, but as with the other there's a strange horizontal graining. Mattbuck 20:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Fixed. New version uploaded. Please take a look again. --Halavar 17:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    Better, but there is still quite a bit of general noise/grain, and the top of the spire is not sharp. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Mattbuck 17:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not sure as well. --Hockei 15:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed. Yann 17:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's not true. Pleaae show us a printscreen from your software, showing us that this image has overexposed parts. I have 2, and both didn't show it. --Halavar 19:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Lądek-Zdrój,_rynek_03.JPG[edit]

2014 Lądek-Zdrój, rynek 03.JPG

  • Nomination Market Square in Lądek-Zdrój 2 --Jacek Halicki 21:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too strong shadow in the foreground for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Can you brighten the shadow area (or black level) a bit? --Hockei (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 22:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good, for me QI. --Hockei 17:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Bayon,_Angkor_Thom,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_27.jpg[edit]

Bayon, Angkor Thom, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 27.jpg

  • Nomination Documentation work at Bayon, Angkor Thom‎, Cambodia --Poco a poco 18:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient focus. Above all, the person is disruptive behind the statue. --Steindy 20:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness should be better but it is enough for me. The image is an impressive document of the painter. Please diskuss. -- Spurzem 10:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version with increased sharpening Poco a poco 15:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 17:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately, the main subjekt should be sharp enough but it isn't IMO. --Hockei 20:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:34_cours_Jean-Jaurès,_Pézenas,_Hérault.jpg[edit]

34 cours Jean-Jaurès, Pézenas, Hérault.jpg

  • Nomination Entrance of the 34 Cours Jean-Jaurès. Pézenas. --Christian Ferrer 17:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    Unfortunate lighting imo Poco a poco 18:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Poco a poco, it's a good light, I presume that you speak rather about shadows --Christian Ferrer 07:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion As discussed, due to the shadows not a QI to me --Poco a poco 15:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    Good quality and nice contrast between shadows and nice light, I ask to discuss, thank you Diego --Christian Ferrer 15:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Sorry. But for me this is not a good image. The shadows are very disturbing. -- Spurzem 21:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Kirchspiel_(Dülmen),_Rödder,_St.-Michael-Kapelle_--_2014_--_3070.jpg[edit]

Kirchspiel (Dülmen), Rödder, St.-Michael-Kapelle -- 2014 -- 3070.jpg

  • Nomination Saint Michael chapel, Rödder, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 05:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Moroder 13:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not convinced by this one - the top's a bit unsharp, and the perspective correction is IMO too great, making it look very unnatural. --Mattbuck 22:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Mattbuck --Jebulon 15:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014.06.21.-04-Mannheim Rheinau--Hufeisenklee-Widderchen.jpg[edit]

2014.06.21.-04-Mannheim Rheinau--Hufeisenklee-Widderchen.jpg

  • Nomination Hufeisenklee-Widderchen - Zygaena transalpina --Hockei 18:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me--Holleday 12:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems a bit unnatural to me - oversharpened maybe? Hard to say, but for me this is not QI. --Mattbuck 18:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support For me yes --Livioandronico2013 18:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014.06.21.-03-Mannheim Rheinau--Hufeisenklee-Widderchen.jpg[edit]

2014.06.21.-03-Mannheim Rheinau--Hufeisenklee-Widderchen.jpg

  • Nomination Hufeisenklee-Widderchen - Zygaena transalpina --Hockei 18:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me--Holleday 12:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems a bit unnatural to me - oversharpened maybe? Hard to say, but for me this is not QI. --Mattbuck 18:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support For me yes --Livioandronico2013 18:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Brixner_Dom_Orgel_4.JPG[edit]

Brixner Dom Orgel 4.JPG

  • Nomination Organ of Brixen Cathedral --Uoaei1 06:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion slightly tilted and quite dark. --MB-one 10:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ fixed --Uoaei1 20:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    Now, it has weird effects at the window part. Maybe you want to ask for discussion. --MB-one 22:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done CAs removed at the window. More opinions please! --Uoaei1 07:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Bettingen_-_Fernsehturm_St._Chrischona_-_Tag_der_offenen_Tür3.jpg[edit]

Bettingen - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona - Tag der offenen Tür3.jpg

  • Nomination TV Tower St. Chrischona --Taxiarchos228 05:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    Could you crop/paint out that little blue thing at the bottom left? Mattbuck 16:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Not done --Mattbuck 21:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support. The "little blue thing" can not be a reason to decline a very good image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Bettingen_-_Fernsehturm_St._Chrischona_-_Tag_der_offenen_Tür11.jpg[edit]

Bettingen - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona - Tag der offenen Tür11.jpg

  • Nomination TV Tower St. Chrischona, view from operating pulpit --Taxiarchos228 05:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    Noticable barrel distortion. Mattbuck 16:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Not done --Mattbuck 21:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • QI for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    The left side quite clearly bends out. Taxiarchos has had 10 days to fix this. Mattbuck 23:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Bettingen_-_Fernsehturm_St._Chrischona_-_Tag_der_offenen_Tür10.jpg[edit]

Bettingen - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona - Tag der offenen Tür10.jpg

  • Nomination TV Tower St. Chrischona, view from operating pulpit --Taxiarchos228 05:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    Perspective/tilt issues. Mattbuck 16:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective/tilt issues --Mattbuck 21:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. QI for me. Please diskuss but not decline! -- Spurzem 22:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Championnat_de_France_de_cyclisme_handisport_-_20140615_-_Contre_la_montre_68.jpg[edit]

Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport - 20140615 - Contre la montre 68.jpg

  • Nomination Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport - 20140615 - Contre la montre. --Pleclown 11:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 12:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor image description. No indication who the athletes pictured. This image use is impossible. Also the face is not to see. --Steindy 18:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    @Steindy: I really don't understand the point you're trying to make.... Pleclown 20:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Livioandronico2013 08:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Steindy and the guidelines.--Jebulon 17:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI -- Spurzem 21:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Championnat_de_France_de_cyclisme_handisport_-_20140615_-_Contre_la_montre_84.jpg[edit]

Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport - 20140615 - Contre la montre 84.jpg

  • Nomination Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport - 20140615 - Contre la montre. --Pleclown 11:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion *Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 11:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor image description. No indication who the athletes pictured. This image use is impossible. --Steindy 18:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK. Yann 16:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Steindy and the guidelines.--Jebulon 17:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 21:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Castle Combe Circuit MMB C7 Castle Combe Saloon Car Championship.jpg[edit]

Castle Combe Circuit MMB C7 Castle Combe Saloon Car Championship.jpg

  • Nomination Saloon car racing at Castle Combe. Mattbuck 07:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment QI? The main object is not very sharp. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 11:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • was this a opposing vote? --LC-de 09:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support focus is on the car, it's ok IMO, in more weather conditions were not the best. --Christian Ferrer 10:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I know better images of racing cars which were declined. Therefore no QI for me. Sorry. -- Spurzem 22:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Spurzem --Livioandronico2013 00:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --LC-de 09:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Championnat_de_France_de_cyclisme_handisport_-_20140614_-_Course_en_ligne_handbike_37.jpg[edit]

Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport - 20140614 - Course en ligne handbike 37.jpg

  • Nomination Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport - 20140614 - Course en ligne handbike. --Pleclown 16:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Poor image description. No indication who the athletes pictured. This image use is impossible. --~~~~ I don't feel like searching the right user for this comment.... --LC-de 08:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor image description. No indication who the athletes pictured. This image use is impossible. --Steindy 21:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not agree. The description is accurate, it's a participant of the race during the french disabled cycling championship. This is not a superstar, just a normal person. Pleclown 11:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 13:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LC-de 08:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Kreuzkapelle_--_2014_--_2713.jpg[edit]

Dülmen, Kreuzkapelle -- 2014 -- 2713.jpg

  • Nomination Holy Cross chapel, Dülmen, Germany --XRay 06:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed --Christian Ferrer 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • ✓ Fixed The image is now darker (except the shadows). Please check the image again. Thank you.--XRay 17:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --LC-de 08:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Championnat_de_France_de_cyclisme_handisport_-_20140615_-_Contre_la_montre_58.jpg[edit]

Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport - 20140615 - Contre la montre 58.jpg

  • Nomination Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport - 20140615 - Contre la montre. --Pleclown 15:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor image description. No indication who the athletes pictured. This image use is impossible. --Steindy 23:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not agree. The description is accurate, it's a participant of the race during the french disabled cycling championship. This is not a superstar, just a normal person. Pleclown 11:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Pleclown, every athlete has a starting number and the start lists and result lists can these names read. If you write that it is insignificant athletes, where should because then the images so well these are also used in Wikipedia? --Steindy 20:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
        • The fact that the person depicted is not named is not relevant here.
        • As for the educational value, and the possible use in Wikipedia, if this is relevant, use your imagination. A disabled person on a trike... Where can this kind of picture be used in Wikipedia ? Pleclown 20:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 13:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good and impressive photo. This we should have to judge and not the description. -- Spurzem 22:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A good file description and categorization is an essential prerequisite for QI - See the guidelines --Moroder 21:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose to Spurzem's affirmation. This person should be identified.--Jebulon 17:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Why will you know the name of this woman? I see absolutely no reason. Perhaps soon we will get the telephone number too? -- Spurzem 21:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --LC-de 08:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Fontana_alla_Bocca_della_Verità-Rome.jpg[edit]

Fontana alla Bocca della Verità-Rome.jpg

  • Nomination Good composition with quite good quality, made by Yair-haklai, nominated by --Hubertl 19:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeOverexposed areas --Livioandronico2013 19:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    • obviously a return-foul. --Hubertl 20:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Hubertl Try to be more respectful of the work of others, however, the base is overexposed it is easily seen --Livioandronico2013 20:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not overexposed, but not drawn areas. Maybe when editing something was going wrong. --Steindy 21:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Please check annotations--Jebulon 15:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LC-de 08:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Royal_Park_of_the_Palace_of_Caserta,down_view.jpg[edit]

Royal Park of the Palace of Caserta,down view.jpg

  • Nomination Royal Park of the Palace of Caserta --Livioandronico2013 21:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Blurry at the sides --Uoaei1 14:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am afraid that the lighting is unfortunate: the sky is overexposed and the subject underexposed (the latter is correctible, but the sky is gone...) Poco a poco 19:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LC-de 08:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kościół_w_Idzikowie_02.JPG[edit]

2014 Kościół w Idzikowie 02.JPG

  • Nomination Church of the Assumption in Idzików 2 --Jacek Halicki 19:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me --Halavar 19:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A good photo, but the power wires are too disturbing. For a QI, the compositions should fit. --Steindy 23:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 23:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Steindy --Uoaei1 07:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't like it when people oppose over power lines. They're very common it's almost impossible to take certain pictures without some getting in the picture. Also, this recently promoted QI has telephone wires. Jakec 18:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per STeindy --Hubertl 20:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per others. Yann 20:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --LC-de 08:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Championnat_de_France_de_cyclisme_handisport_-_20140615_-_Contre_la_montre_83.jpg[edit]

Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport - 20140615 - Contre la montre 83.jpg

  • Nomination Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport - 20140615 - Contre la montre. --Pleclown 16:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor image description. No indication who the athletes pictured. This image use is impossible. --~~~~
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not agree. The description is accurate, it's a participant of the race during the french disabled cycling championship. This is not a superstar, just a normal person. Pleclown 11:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Pleclown, every athlete has a starting number and the start lists and result lists can these names read. If you write that it is insignificant athletes, where should because then the images so well these are also used in Wikipedia? --Steindy 20:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I don't understand you. We have a lot of files and QI that are depicting "nobodies" (see File:4ème manche du championnat suisse de Pony games 2013 - 25082013 - Laconnex 50.jpg for example). The fact that the person depicted is not named is not relevant here.
          • As for the educational value, and the possible use in Wikipedia, if this is relevant, use your imagination. A disabled person on a handbike... Where can this kind of picture be used in Wikipedia ? Pleclown 06:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 12:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive! -- Spurzem 21:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LC-de 08:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Championnat_de_France_de_cyclisme_handisport_-_20140615_-_Contre_la_montre_66.jpg[edit]

Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport - 20140615 - Contre la montre 66.jpg

  • Nomination Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport - 20140615 - Contre la montre. --Pleclown 11:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood quality. --Livioandronico2013 12:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor image description. No indication who the athletes pictured. This image use is impossible. --Steindy 23:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not agree. The description is accurate, it's a participant of the race during the french disabled cycling championship. This is not a superstar, just a normal person. Pleclown 11:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Pleclown, every athlete has a starting number and the start lists and result lists can these names read. If you write that it is insignificant athletes, where should because then the images so well these are also used in Wikipedia? --Steindy 20:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
        • The fact that the person depicted is not named is not relevant here.
        • As for the educational value, and the possible use in Wikipedia, if this is relevant, use your imagination. A disabled person on a handbike... Where can this kind of picture be used in Wikipedia ? Pleclown 20:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 21:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LC-de 08:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Championnat_de_France_de_cyclisme_handisport_-_20140614_-_Course_en_ligne_handbike_20.jpg[edit]

Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport - 20140614 - Course en ligne handbike 20.jpg

  • Nomination Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport - 20140614 - Course en ligne handbike. --Pleclown 11:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood quality.--ArildV 13:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor image description. No indication who the athletes pictured. This image use is impossible. Also the face is not to see. --Steindy 23:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 23:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not agree. The description is accurate, it's a participant of the race during the french disabled cycling championship. This is not a superstar, just a normal person. Pleclown 11:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Pleclown, every athlete has a starting number and the start lists and result lists can these names read. If you write that it is insignificant athletes, where should because then the images so well these are also used in Wikipedia? --Steindy 20:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good photo! -- Spurzem 22:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LC-de 08:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB »0D4 City Canal.jpg[edit]

London MMB »0D4 City Canal.jpg

  • Nomination Reflections in the City Canal. Mattbuck 09:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Color noise at right especially at bottom --Christian Ferrer 17:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Mattbuck 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Missing sharpness. I can only detect a narrow sharp area in the lower third of the photo with the best intentions. --Steindy 23:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp enough IMO --Christian Ferrer 04:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LC-de 08:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:ExCeL Centre MMB 37 Thameslink Desiro City Mockup.jpg[edit]

ExCeL Centre MMB 37 Thameslink Desiro City Mockup.jpg

  • Nomination Thameslink "Desiro City" mockup. Mattbuck 07:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Too much magenta. --Cccefalon 07:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    Actually that was the lighting in the venue. Mattbuck 22:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    I trust this. However, isn't it the good right of a photographer to tweak the WB to remove such disturbing colour effects? I just think, this photo could have a fine EV but everyone will think: "Why all this magenta?". For me, it is rather disturbing Face-sad.svg --Cccefalon 14:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Mattbuck 20:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I disagree, I consider the tone disturbes for a QI --194.39.218.10 09:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Onlöy registered reviewers allowed --LC-de 08:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Whitebalance not very well --Ehsc 10:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --LC-de 08:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2011_Ochryda,_Twierdza_cara_Samuela_(03).jpg[edit]

2011 Ochryda, Twierdza cara Samuela (03).jpg

  • Nomination Samuil's Fortress, Ohrid. Ohrid, Macedonia. --Halavar 20:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 21:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unsharp --A.Savin 09:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's not true. I've added sharpness before. We need more opinions. --Halavar 12:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, you can see the unsharpness and the noise especially on the right site. --Hockei 20:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Support removed. Yann 20:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 09:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Unsharp, oversharpened, noisy, blurry, perspective issues. Mattbuck 11:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Yann 16:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2011_Ochryda,_Cerkiew_św._Jana_Teologa_w_Kaneo_(11).jpg[edit]

2011 Ochryda, Cerkiew św. Jana Teologa w Kaneo (11).jpg

  • Nomination Church of St. John at Kaneo. Ohrid, Macedonia. --Halavar 20:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor quality: artefacts everywhere but esp. on the water --A.Savin 09:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment These are not artifacts, but sharpness added by me. We need more opinions. --Halavar 12:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Support removed. Yann 20:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: Please, elaborate what should be "quality" on this image. Have you looked at it in full view? Your POINTy votes on QIC and on RfD's damage Commons! --A.Savin 09:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I checked it in full size. I think it is very inappropriate to link QIC votes and opinions in RfD. I expect better from an experienced user like you. Regards, Yann 09:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've noted that you cannot explain what qualifies this image for QI, thanks. --A.Savin 09:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The composition and exposition are good, and sharpness is acceptable. Is that enough? Yann 09:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Wrong! The sharpness is not acceptable here. But it's useless, I give up. --A.Savin 10:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Jacek Halicki 11:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - per A.Savin, no way is this QI. Mattbuck 11:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 15:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Not enough that you spam QIC daily with your low-quality shots, you also consider it necessary to promote low-quality shots by other people in order to buy their support for future nominations. People like you are the real gravediggers of this project. --A.Savin 16:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC
Are you talking to me? --Livioandronico2013 12:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The photo is massively overprocessed. But A.Savin, is such a personal attack really necessary? I do not know if there is a case history I am not aware of. But if you think Livioandronico2013 is wrong you can just argue against his opinion instead of attack his photos and reviews in such a personal way. --Tuxyso 13:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Tuxyso (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Bettingen_-_Fernsehturm_St._Chrischona_-_Tag_der_offenen_Tür16.jpg[edit]

Bettingen - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona - Tag der offenen Tür16.jpg

  • Nomination TV Tower St. Chrischona, view to Rührberg --Taxiarchos228 05:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Pleclown 16:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until a more accurate description --Christian Ferrer 18:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LC-de 07:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Metro_SPB_Line2_Udelnaya_Platform.jpg[edit]

Metro SPB Line2 Udelnaya Platform.jpg

  • Nomination Udelnaya subway station in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 09:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lacks sharpness --MB-one 20:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Strangely, it seemed to me that sharpness is enouth for such dark hall, shooting without a tripod. Sadly, I was wrong. --Florstein 17:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp enough --Christian Ferrer 16:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 20:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to high iso rather noisy - whitebalance could be overworked ? --Ehsc 10:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me.--Hubertl 12:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Somewhat low DOF, noise level is acceptable. -- Smial 11:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LC-de 07:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Canada Water station MMB 12.jpg[edit]

Canada Water station MMB 12.jpg

  • Nomination Canada Water station. Mattbuck 07:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeToo much noise. --Livioandronico2013 07:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's that bad... --Mattbuck 19:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. --Steindy 10:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. --Hubertl 20:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case 15:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Yann 20:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2011_Butrint_17.JPG[edit]

2011 Butrint 17.JPG

  • Nomination Ruins, Buthrotum, Vlorë County, Albania. --Halavar 12:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 06:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 1/3 top is blurred + unsharp areas --Christian Ferrer 16:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Christian. Mattbuck 11:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Mattbuck 11:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

File:African Monarch (Danaus chrysippus) 1.JPG[edit]

African Monarch (Danaus chrysippus) 1.JPG

  • Nomination Wing upperside of a female African monarch (Danaus chrysippus). --Zeynel Cebeci 17:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Like the wing and lower body but the non repeating features are too unsharp. But I will consider it QI if you rename it to "African Monarch (Danaus chrysippus) Wing upperside"--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 18:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Name and quality OK. --Yann 15:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the unsharp head. Otherwise I would support it. I wonder where it was sitting. --Hockei 18:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose perhaps you can reprocess to get better sharpness? --Ehsc 10:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LC-de 07:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Lac de Moiry, (2250 m) Grimentz, Stuwdam.JPG[edit]

Lac de Moiry, (2250 m) Grimentz, Stuwdam.JPG

  • Nomination Lac de Moiry, (2250 m) Grimentz, Barrage.
    Famberhorst 15:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Over sharpened, leading to odd artifacts in the water --Generic1139 21:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. Less sharp.
    Note: the lake is known for its ever changing colors of the water.--Famberhorst 15:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me --Livioandronico2013 20:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is not sharp enough for QI, and I think there's some perspective distortion too. Mattbuck 19:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too obvious artifacts in the water and barrage. Interesting composition though. -- Alvesgaspar 12:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LC-de 21:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Steckfrisur.JPG[edit]

Steckfrisur.JPG

  • Nomination Headdress, cosplayer at Leipzig book fair 2014. By User:Lesekreis --Brateevsky 10:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • While the overall quality is ok, there is too few space left on the right side. Is it possible to widen the crop? --Cccefalon 12:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, composition. Too tight (as Cccefalon)--Lmbuga 22:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In my eyes the composition is good because the object are the hairs. --Ralf Roletschek 08:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Ralf. -- Spurzem 19:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong crop --Cccefalon 04:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The subject is the headdress, which includes the lace on the flower, which is partially cropped off on the right. --Generic1139 (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Crop is tight but this is focusing on the headdress so that's permissible. I assume User:Lesekreis doesn't have a larger crop. -- Colin 15:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If the subject was the hair, hair should be complete. The hair is cropped at bottom and the face is too tight--Lmbuga 17:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I suggest Cccefalon, Lmbuga, Generic1139, Mattbuck do a Google Images search for "portrait photography", "hair photography" or even "fascinator photography" and look at the number of professional photographs where the crop is tight and not all the subject is there. We are perhaps on Commons, too used to some kind of encyclopaedic requirement that a subject must be whole and isolated all round. I'm not saying this image is perfect, but goodness me, it is far better than many dull QI on this page, where we seem to have forgotten that good light and an interesting subject is necessary. -- Colin 19:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
      I don't require that a subject be whole and with significant border - composition is an art rather than a science, and in some cases a tight crop looks good. Here it does not. Mattbuck 20:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
@Colin, I took your advice. I did look in google. Yes, cropping off parts of the head are sometimes suggested in modern times. I didn't see anything, however, that suggesting running your model's nose into a wall. I saw several articles that suggest leaving even more room in the direction the model is looking. Yes, QI is more of a technical category than a fine art category and is somewhat more "rules" based. I've uploaded a version File:Steckfrisur-ps.jpg of the file to show what even a little improvement in the crop of the left (and some blurring) can do for this image. I'm not very good at this, I'd need to spend some time refining the mask, I'm just trying to make a point. --Generic1139 21:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Generic1139, I agree with you that the space in front of her nose isn't ideal but most of the comments concerned the crop on the right/hair/fascinator, which I think is reasonable to crop. Your idea of extending the left is a good one, and pretty well done. Note: per CC rules, you should mention this is your modification of Lesekreis's image and say what you changed -- it isn't acceptable to claim Lesekreis created this alone [consider if you made a change he would be embarrased to be credited with]. You can also use the other versions field to link them both. -- Colin 07:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Colin, I made the changes to the credits you suggested. I'm not intending that my version be used for anything other than this discussion. --Generic1139 13:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The crop as is is a too-tight portrait shot which happens to contain a fascinator, it's not focussed on the fascinator. Mattbuck 18:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As for colin. Very good snap shot. Only the background could have been somewhat more blurred. -- Smial 20:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The hairstyle is mapped perfectly. If something bothers me, it's the almost severed nose. --Steindy 17:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop too tight. --Hockei 20:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 21:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry but Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Cccefalon and Mattbuck--Livioandronico2013 12:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per the other pros --CHK46 21:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because of the crop. --Kadellar 23:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate crop -- Alvesgaspar 12:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not that sharp (flower, lower part of the picture), tight frame, unfortunate crop, maybe chromatic noise.--Jebulon 15:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 9 oppose → Decline?   --Kadellar 23:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Tarucus balkanicus - Balkan kaplanı - Little Tiger Blue.jpg[edit]

Tarucus balkanicus - Balkan kaplanı - Little Tiger Blue.jpg

  • Nomination Little Tiger Blue (Tarucus balkanicus). Mersin - Turkey.--Zeynel Cebeci 19:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 09:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, this is not QI to me. --P e z i 10:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 21:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark! Improvable.--Lmbuga 17:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Strange color, but OK for me. --Hockei 20:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lmbuga, and blueish cast. --Kreuzschnabel 09:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others, far from the QI bar for insects -- Alvesgaspar 12:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --LC-de 14:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

File:JasperCountyCourthouse_retouched.jpg[edit]

JasperCountyCourthouse retouched.jpg

  • Nomination Jasper County courthouse in Carthage, Missouri. --Kbh3rd 03:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood quality. --Ralf Roletschek 15:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad time of the day, wrong light direction, IMO. One side is in full shadow, the other in half shadow.--Jebulon 11:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support technical quality ok for QI. --MB-one 11:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --Livioandronico2013 22:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jebulon--Lmbuga 16:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If the clock isn't wrong, we look at a north facade, which will all time of the day be in shadow if the sun shines. Some very small overexposed spots, but ineglible. High contrast well handled, good detail also in shadows. The lighting shows the structures of the facade clearly. Good sharpness. -- Smial 18:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Hubertl 09:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --LC-de 21:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Tue 14 Oct → Wed 22 Oct
Wed 15 Oct → Thu 23 Oct
Thu 16 Oct → Fri 24 Oct
Fri 17 Oct → Sat 25 Oct
Sat 18 Oct → Sun 26 Oct
Sun 19 Oct → Mon 27 Oct
Mon 20 Oct → Tue 28 Oct
Tue 21 Oct → Wed 29 Oct
Wed 22 Oct → Thu 30 Oct