Commons:Quality images candidates

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

Other languages:
čeština 41% • ‎Deutsch 100% • ‎English 100% • ‎español 77% • ‎français 93% • ‎日本語 34% • ‎македонски 86% • ‎Nederlands 17% • ‎polski 30% • ‎português 77% • ‎русский 41%
Gtk-go-down.svg Skip to nominations
float

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

Purpose[edit]

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

Guidelines[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators[edit]

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

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

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If 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 July 2014 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache


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]] 21:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

July 22, 2014[edit]

July 21, 2014[edit]

July 20, 2014[edit]

July 19, 2014[edit]

July 18, 2014[edit]

July 17, 2014[edit]

July 16, 2014[edit]

July 15, 2014[edit]

July 14, 2014[edit]

July 13, 2014[edit]

July 12, 2014[edit]

July 11, 2014[edit]

July 9, 2014[edit]

July 8, 2014[edit]

July 7, 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:Nationalpark_Jasmund_-_Insel_Rügen.jpg[edit]

Nationalpark Jasmund - Insel Rügen.jpg

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

File:Rosa_×_centifolia_21072014_(1).jpg[edit]

Rosa × centifolia 21072014 (1).jpg

  • Nomination Rosa × centifolia. --Joydeep 08:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too distracting background, could have been better with a lowed dof. --Averater 09:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't really see any problem with DoF here. --Joydeep 12:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good DOF IMO. Cropping, improve the photo because the door is less visible (see note and then delete it, please)--Lmbuga 11:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Cropped. Thank you! --Joydeep 12:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In any case, QI for me--Lmbuga 12:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Portsmouth MMB 25 Harbour.jpg[edit]

Portsmouth MMB 25 Harbour.jpg

  • Nomination Portsmouth harbour. Mattbuck 06:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion poor quality (very noisy), you seem to run out of ideas? "water of a harbour" isn't a valuable image for QI IMO --Taxiarchos228 06:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Doesn't seem too noisy to me. As for ideas, I thought it was pretty, and QIs do not need to be "valuable" in any manner. --Mattbuck 22:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise, colour banding. -- Smial 11:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Cannon Street station MMB 08 The Shard.jpg[edit]

Cannon Street station MMB 08 The Shard.jpg

  • Nomination The Shard. Mattbuck 06:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion noisy, strong and disturbing shadow in the upper area of the image --Taxiarchos228 07:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    There's some noise, but it's not very noticable. --Mattbuck 22:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Merfeld,_Wildpferdefang_--_2014_--_0798.jpg[edit]

Merfeld, Wildpferdefang -- 2014 -- 0798.jpg

  • Nomination Capturing the yearlings: Wildpferdefang 2014, Merfelder Bruch, Dülmen, Germany --XRay 05:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Red channel overexposure. --Mattbuck 09:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Red channel is improved.--XRay 06:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Merfeld,_Wildpferdefang,_Vorprogramm_--_2014_--_0499.jpg[edit]

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

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

File:St Pancras railway station MMB 76 406-585.jpg[edit]

St Pancras railway station MMB 76 406-585.jpg

  • Nomination 406-585 at St Pancras. Mattbuck 06:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Composition badly chosen. Could be shot at any train station. In fact "just" (no offence) a number on a train. Sorry. --Klaproth 18:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    You seem to mistake what QI is for - we do not care about value, we care about quality, nothing more. As an aside, this is valuable because it's the only time a German ICE train has come to the UK. Mattbuck 23:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 10:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Anthemis 'E.C. Buxton'.JPG

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

File:Neo-Riemannian Tonnetz.svg[edit]

Neo-Riemannian Tonnetz.svg

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

File:Río_Saigón,_Ciudad_Ho_Chi_Minh,_Vietnam,_2013-08-14,_DD_06.JPG[edit]

Río Saigón, Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 06.JPG

  • Nomination Saigon river, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam --Poco a poco 08:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion I find it rather messy and dark. --Mattbuck 22:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded, better now IMO, Poco a poco 20:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    Please, let's discuss, good enough to me now --Poco a poco 14:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, but I can't see the river. Image description needs some enhancement so we can learn what is depicted. -- Smial 21:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Poco a poco 19:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Balung_Tawau_Sabah_Sawit-Kinabalu-Seeds-Sdn-Bhd-01.jpg[edit]

Balung Tawau Sabah Sawit-Kinabalu-Seeds-Sdn-Bhd-01.jpg

  • Nomination Sawit Kinabalu Seeds Sdn Bhd, locate at Balung Estate, tawau, Sabah --Cccefalon 04:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    Not sure I like the DOF - the background is rather distracting. Mattbuck 22:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    The trees are a little bit too dark to me, but I think it's ok. I would promote it. @Mattbuck: Ok for you? Or third opinion? -- DerFussi 07:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    Third opinion please. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mattbuck 20:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok for me --Christian Ferrer 11:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as stated above -- DerFussi 14:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Macaca_sylvanus_at_the_Ouzoud_Waterfalls_(5).jpg[edit]

Macaca sylvanus at the Ouzoud Waterfalls (5).jpg

  • Nomination Barbary macaque (Macaca sylvanus) at the Ouzoud Waterfalls, Morocco. --M0tty 11:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, perhaps FP but too noisy, not QI IMO: "discuss". Yellowish.--Lmbuga 12:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lmbuga and burned out background --Christian Ferrer 17:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Burgruine Hohenegg 8666.jpg[edit]

Burgruine Hohenegg 8666.jpg

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

File:Playa_de_Levante,_Benidorm,_España,_2014-07-02,_DD_06.JPG[edit]

Playa de Levante, Benidorm, España, 2014-07-02, DD 06.JPG

  • Nomination Levante beach, Benidorm, Spain --Poco a poco 10:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry. I guess you did very good with such a light and subject, but it lacks sharpness (not of that on PP, but the "natural" one) and it looks OE and tilt. --Stegop 23:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I disagree, I uploaded a new version with a tilt of 0,2 degrees and retouched the highs but sharpness is ok IMHO. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 18:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok IMO --Christian Ferrer 21:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Angkor_Wat,_Camboya,_2013-08-15,_DD_021.JPG[edit]

Angkor Wat, Camboya, 2013-08-15, DD 021.JPG

  • Nomination Bas relief in Angkor Wat, Cambodia --Poco a poco 08:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Mattbuck 22:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Sure? Too less contrast and maybe a bit overexposed (check curves and levels). IMHO In this case you can exxagarate a bit with the curves to carve out the relief. -- DerFussi 13:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Poco a poco 18:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Cnossos-stegop-53-1.jpg[edit]

Cnossos-stegop-53-1.jpg

  • Nomination Minoan Palace at Knossos. South House. --Stegop 04:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Declined for reason of flooding QIC. Please read the nomination rules and come again. Taking part in active review would be highly appreciated. --Cccefalon 04:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think this might be QI. --Mattbuck 22:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment a bit tilted on left --Christian Ferrer 21:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Tilt or slight perspective distortion? I never correct the perspective completely because it gives a rather unnatural look, as our eyes expect to see a point of fugue when looking up (or down). And note that some elements of the structure on the background are not straight. --Stegop 23:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Tilt and perspective distortion, it don't need a big correction, so you can correct completely without gives an unnatural look IMO --Christian Ferrer 04:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you are wrong, mistakenly lead by the various "false verticals", like the wall on the right, which is naturally inclined, or the columns, that are thinner below than they are on the top. But I am not the best analyzer after having done the PP. Anyway, can you explain "where" is the tilt and the perspective distortion? --Stegop 21:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I added notes --Christian Ferrer 11:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Mallorca_-_Leuchtturm_am_Kap_Formentor15.jpg[edit]

Mallorca - Leuchtturm am Kap Formentor15.jpg

  • Nomination Lighthouse at Cap Formentor --Taxiarchos228 12:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it's tilted Ezarate 14:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    it isn't --Taxiarchos228 20:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clearly tilted. The sky is dirty: Noise. Perspective distortion. A bit blueish IMO. --Lmbuga 17:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Slight CCW Tilt and some dust spots in the sky could easily be repaired. -- Smial 23:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Campus MMB X2 Newark Hall and International House.jpg[edit]

Jubilee Campus MMB X2 Newark Hall and International House.jpg

  • Nomination Jubilee Campus. Mattbuck 05:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    Needs more brightness IMO. -- Slaunger 20:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Mattbuck 22:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support The light is rather dull, but the shooter could do nothing about it, could he? --Stegop 04:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC) I must agree with the others on the blurr. --Stegop 23:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeYes, he could wait or chose another day... Anyway, I think that most of the picture is blurry, only the central part is sharp...--~~~~
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 1/4 right is blurred --Christian Ferrer 22:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as for Christian. -- Smial 23:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Caen - Rennes 20140709 - Mexer.JPG[edit]

Caen - Rennes 20140709 - Mexer.JPG

  • Nomination Association football player Mexer (Edson André Sitoe), in Vire, France. --Buffoleo 13:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion With another crop, you could avoid the disturbing other persons. I made a proposal, see my annotation. --Cccefalon 14:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for your advice ! Buffoleo 16:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Cccefalon 18:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a sharp image. Very fuzzy lips or blurred lips. Not QI for me, sorry--Lmbuga 18:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Underexposed IMO--Lmbuga 18:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lmbuga. Focal shift – left ear is sharp, lips and nose aren’t. --Kreuzschnabel 20:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others.--Jebulon 14:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Joydeep 06:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Marennes_17_Coin_de_rue&cour_2014.JPG[edit]

Marennes 17 Coin de rue&cour 2014.JPG

  • Nomination Street corner with old building and closed courtyard, Marennes, Charente-Maritime, France. --JLPC 13:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am sorry, anything really noteworthy: Out of scope IMO--Lmbuga 17:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Let's ask someone else. --JLPC 21:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI imo. --P e z i 09:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe a bit confusing, but technically very good. In scope: it remembers me my birth country, (normal: it is.). Typical architecture of the departement of Charente-Maritime.--Jebulon 14:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The pespective correction is "overdone", giving an unreal look. In such cases, a wee "convergence of verticals" should be kept to keep the image natural and here ther are "divergent verticals", like the photo was taken from up looking down. --Stegop (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lmbuga 18:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support due to the aspect ration. (@Lmbuga: I move the weak. This confuses the bot :) ) -- DerFussi 19:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks--Lmbuga 20:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. --Joydeep 06:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Joydeep 06:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Francia_vs_Portugal_-_2014_CERH_European_Championship_-_07.jpg[edit]

Francia vs Portugal - 2014 CERH European Championship - 07.jpg

  • Nomination France vs Portugal, 2014 CERH European Championship. --Kadellar 23:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The head of the blue person is crossing the image border. --Cccefalon 05:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    But he is not the main subject. --Kadellar 09:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    He is interacting with the main person, so he is part of the topic "France vs. Portugal". Feel free to send to CR. --Cccefalon 10:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    I'd like to read more opinions if you don't mind. I understand yours, but imo the crop isn't so severe. File names are all in a row so I don't go crazy :P (but they're precise enough imo). --Kadellar 11:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Of course I don't mind. I cannot be right all the time Clin Of course it was not the name of the file, but in my perception, the motif is about a duel between the two opponents. So in my understanding, the opponent in blue clothing should not touch the image border with his head. Yes, let's hear other reviewers, it might be interesting to listen their opinion. --Cccefalon 13:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Cccefalon. a little less below = a little more above... This is a composition issue, IMO.--Jebulon 14:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Either the player in blue is part of the main subject, in which case his head should not be cut off, or he isn't part of the main subject, in which case he is too sharp and distracting. Unlucky composition. --Generic1139 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Somewhat overexposed, composition is ok, it's sports... -- Smial 21:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Porta_del_Carmine_Salo.jpg[edit]

Porta del Carmine Salo.jpg

  • Nomination City gate "Porta del Carmine" in Salò --Moroder 18:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 05:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    {{weak oppose}} The top half is too bluish. The color of the sky is not vivid because the sky was darkened IMO (underexposed). Too tight at left--Lmbuga 11:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The crop can be an opinion and a taste but if it does not take away something I don't see why it should not make the image eligible for QI. Underexposure is a fact and this sky is NOT underexposed --Moroder 14:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • {{o|Strong oppose}} See what has been said before. I'm not sure how to say this (es: El edificio está cortado) in English, perhaps "leaning out at left (SEE NOTE)". --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 18:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Changed crop, I got your point, thanks for the hint--Moroder 11:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks and sorry. Better now Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me--Lmbuga 23:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Sarah_Chepchirchir_-_Paris_Half_Marathon_-_5222.jpg[edit]

Sarah Chepchirchir - Paris Half Marathon - 5222.jpg

  • Nomination Sarah Chepchirchir, 3rd of the Paris Half Marathon 2014, crossing the arrival line --PierreSelim 14:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm pretty sure it's tilted to the left.--Tupungato 08:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think it's ok. Mattbuck 21:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is a QI for me. Very nice "capture" and composition.--Jebulon 14:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice and good IMO--Lmbuga 18:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Joydeep 06:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

po 14 7. → Tue 22 Jul
út 15 7. → st 23 7.
st 16 7. → čt 24 7.
čt 17 7. → pá 25 7.
pá 18 7. → so 26 7.
so 19 7. → ne 27 7.
ne 20 7. → po 28 7.
po 21 7. → út 29 7.
Tue 22 Jul → st 30 7.