Commons:Quality images candidates

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

Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский
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 September 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]] 15:49, 16 September 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.

September 16, 2014[edit]

September 15, 2014[edit]

September 14, 2014[edit]

September 13, 2014[edit]

September 12, 2014[edit]

September 11, 2014[edit]

September 10, 2014[edit]

September 9, 2014[edit]

September 8, 2014[edit]

September 7, 2014[edit]

September 6, 2014[edit]

September 5, 2014[edit]

September 4, 2014[edit]

September 2, 2014[edit]

August 31, 2014[edit]

August 29, 2014[edit]

August 27, 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:Basilika Seckau, Gnadenkapelle, Gotisches Glasfenster 3.jpg[edit]

Basilika Seckau, Gnadenkapelle, Gotisches Glasfenster 3.jpg

  • Nomination Gothic stained-glass window, Chapel of Grace, Basilica Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 16:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion We have assessed a lot of stained glass windows in the past which can be uses as reference what amount of sharpness is expected for a QI of that genre. Unfortunatly, this image does not meet the required sharpness. Sorry. --Cccefalon 17:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC) This is not my view of the things. --Dnalor 01 04:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. In my opinion sharpness can not be much better. I only had cropped the image at the dark lines. -- Spurzem 14:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Thank you, new version uploaded: cropped at the dark lines. ✓ Done --Dnalor 01 14:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-090.jpg[edit]

14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-090.jpg

  • Nomination ski jump "Holmernkollenbakken" in Oslo, Norge --Ralf Roletschek 14:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me. --Dnalor 01 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    dust spots --A.Savin 17:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done --Ralf Roletschek 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --A.Savin 10:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-089.jpg[edit]

14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-089.jpg

  • Nomination ski jump "Holmernkollenbakken" in Oslo, Norge --Ralf Roletschek 14:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me. --Dnalor 01 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    dust spots --A.Savin 17:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done --Ralf Roletschek 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --A.Savin 10:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-097.jpg[edit]

14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-097.jpg

  • Nomination ski jump "Holmernkollenbakken" in Oslo, Norge --Ralf Roletschek 14:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me. --Dnalor 01 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    dust spots; poor perspective --A.Savin 17:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done )Dust) but perspective ist normal at 10mm --Ralf Roletschek 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-104.jpg[edit]

14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-104.jpg

  • Nomination ski jump "Holmernkollenbakken" in Oslo, Norge --Ralf Roletschek 14:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me. --Dnalor 01 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    dust spots --A.Savin 17:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done --Ralf Roletschek 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --A.Savin 10:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Äußerer Klosterhof und Türme der Basilika Seckau 1.jpg[edit]

Äußerer Klosterhof und Türme der Basilika Seckau 1.jpg

  • Nomination Seckau Abbey courtyard, Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 14:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    noise, poor sharpness --A.Savin 17:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC) This is not my view of the things. --Dnalor 01 04:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As for A.Savin. Noise reduction often also reduces sharpness. -- Smial 13:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Basilika Seckau, Augustinus-Altar 3.jpg[edit]

Basilika Seckau, Augustinus-Altar 3.jpg

  • Nomination Augustinus-Altar, Basilica Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 14:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    noise, poor sharpness --A.Savin 17:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC) This is not my view of the things. --Dnalor 01 04:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Inappropriate lighting (direct flash) burns highlights and makes hard shadows. Also rather noisy. Please use a tripod instead of high ISO - church interior usually does not move too fast. -- Smial 13:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Abadía_de_Bath,_Bath,_Inglaterra,_2014-08-12,_DD_07.JPG[edit]

Abadía de Bath, Bath, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 07.JPG

  • Nomination Bath Abbey, Bath, England --Poco a poco 08:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad focus --A.Savin 11:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Agree that it could be crisper but still is over the threshold to me --Poco a poco 12:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tend to decline, but I do not know how to interpret the sharpness issues. In the down left corner the sharpness is ok, see persons and windows in the background. The blurring in the upper part of the image could be a consequence of a perspective correction. But the unsharpness at the right margin looks like motion blur, see bench and "information center". What has happened? -- Smial 13:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Paris,_Notre_Dame_--_2014_--_1484.jpg[edit]

Paris, Notre Dame -- 2014 -- 1484.jpg

  • Nomination House near Notre-Dame, Paris, France --XRay 03:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. Please cancel the car's number plate --Uoaei1 06:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for your advice. I made the car number plate unreadable, but IMO it's not necessary.--XRay 15:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, the pixelated faces destroyed a good image. --Cccefalon 18:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Stary_Waliszów,_dom_nr_112_02.JPG[edit]

2014 Stary Waliszów, dom nr 112 02.JPG

  • Nomination House number 112 in Stary Waliszów --Jacek Halicki 20:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wire (cable) is disturbing. Other of your pictures with this subject has not this wire--Lmbuga 00:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, I'm not sure. It's only my criteria. It's better "discuss", other users can think and I can Learn--Lmbuga 22:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)✓ Done
    I retouched the wire--Jacek Halicki 00:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File: Goggomobil Coupé (2014-09-03 7049) Heck.JPG[edit]

Goggomobil Coupé (2014-09-03 7049) Heck.JPG

  • Nomination Goggomobil Coupé, a very small car with 250-cm³-engine -- Spurzem 15:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the white car of the corner is disturbing. Not Qi for me.--Lmbuga 23:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. I saw promoted images of oldtimer meetings with much more disturbing things than a part of another car in the foreground or otherwise. --
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I understand you. It may be that I am wrong. Let others think: "discuss" --Lmbuga 22:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Kemabong_Sabah_Dataran-Daerah-Kecil-Kemabong-01.jpg[edit]

Kemabong Sabah Dataran-Daerah-Kecil-Kemabong-01.jpg

  • Nomination Shop rows in Pekan Kemabong, Sabah along Subdistrict Square --Cccefalon 13:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Can you brighten it a bit? --Tuxyso 14:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done brightened --Cccefalon 17:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Probably a bit too bright now, but imho QI now. --Tuxyso 08:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The photo is unmistakably wrong. See Notes. --Steindy 15:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I dont think so. When you dont stand exactly in front of a building and shoot a centered image, you won't have parallel lines. --Cccefalon 16:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Uwe is right, the non-straight horizontal lines of the building are due to the non-centered shooting position - no problem here. --Tuxyso 17:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Labuan_Malaysia_Airport-03.jpg[edit]

Labuan Malaysia Airport-03.jpg

  • Nomination Labuan, Malaysia: Front view of Labuan Airport --Cccefalon 07:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The roof is cut off on the right side. --Steindy 15:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    So what? Will you decline all buildings which are not 100% visible? --Cccefalon 16:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Falcon September 2014-1b.jpg[edit]

Falcon September 2014-1b.jpg

  • Nomination A Peregrine Falcon in captivity -- Alvesgaspar 22:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems tilted IMO. The head has overexposed areas (blown out). The resolution is not excellent. Too much space at top --Lmbuga 23:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC) -- A second opinion, please - Alvesgaspar 04:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Plate_on_fontaine_near_Porta_del_Popolo.jpg[edit]

Plate on fontaine near Porta del Popolo.jpg

  • Nomination Plate on fontaine near Porta del Popolo --Livioandronico2013 15:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cccefalon 17:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    {{o}} Sorry, right side is out of focus and noisy (see note). Too sharpened IMO and too much contrast. I don't like the detail--Lmbuga 23:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you check another time Lmbuga? Thanks --Livioandronico2013 07:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Better with the crop, but too sharpened and too much contrast IMO--Lmbuga 22:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Bognor Regis MMB 01 Aldwick Beach.jpg[edit]

Bognor Regis MMB 01 Aldwick Beach.jpg

  • Nomination Aldwick beach. Mattbuck 13:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Lewis Hulbert 13:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. I think the beach is too dark, and there is a big blob in the sky. Dont know if it is dirt or glare from the sun. Lets discuss. --Slaunger 14:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Tejo September 2014-3a.jpg[edit]

Tejo September 2014-3a.jpg

  • Nomination River Tagus, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 22:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Sorry. A nice image, but in the middle too dark. --XRay 08:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC) -- The dark silhouette is deliberate -- Alvesgaspar 22:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Japonaise au bain James Tissot 1864.jpg[edit]

Japonaise au bain James Tissot 1864.jpg

  • Nomination La Japonaise au bain, James Tissot. Painting in Musée des beaux-arts de Dijon --Yelkrokoyade 17:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry,no very sharp. --Livioandronico2013 20:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    Is it not? We should discuss. -- Spurzem 22:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Stiftskirche_Göttweig_Hochaltar_01.JPG[edit]

Stiftskirche Göttweig Hochaltar 01.JPG

  • Nomination High altar of Göttweig Abbey Church, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 13:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Bad CA at the stained glass, not sharp enough. --Mattbuck 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info I sharpened this image. Regarding CAs: for me there are just colorful reflections, but not CAs. I aks for more opinions and move it to discussion --Uoaei1 16:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kapliczka_w_Wolanach_02.JPG[edit]

2014 Kapliczka w Wolanach 02.JPG

  • Nomination Chapel in Wolany --Jacek Halicki 12:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion JPEG artifaction in the trees. --Mattbuck 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    QI for me. We should discuss. -- Spurzem 22:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014-09-03_15-05-34_monument-historique-PA00085439.jpg[edit]

2014-09-03 15-05-34 monument-historique-PA00085439.jpg

  • Nomination Couvent des dominicains (Guebwiller, France) --ComputerHotline 20:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Horizontal perspective correction required --Uoaei1 14:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 13:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    What could be better? -- Spurzem 22:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Catedral_de_Salisbury,_Salisbury,_Inglaterra,_2014-08-12,_DD_08-10_HDR.JPG[edit]

Catedral de Salisbury, Salisbury, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 08-10 HDR.JPG

  • Nomination Salisbury Cathedral, Salisbury, England --Poco a poco 06:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Cccefalon 08:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    I really like the composition and the great details, but I dislike ghosts on the altar--Johanning 12:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support I especially promoted it because of the ghosts, because ghosts are less disturbing than people with ugly T-Shirts, standing around. Some locations are never empty and you cannot get shots without disturbing people. Furthermore, this is a long time exposure. Should we decline every ghost trace in bulb exposures? What about ghost cars in street shots during night? etc. etc. --Cccefalon 12:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Cccefalon has lifted the words from my keyboard --Livioandronico2013 14:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am completely happy with that. You won`t see a contra from me, since this is a really nice image. However, I do not understand, why ugly shirts are a question of technical image quality. Perhaps we should prefer blurry ugly shirts then? Ghosts, when present, should fit to the composition, which easily can be achieved in night views of streets. Ghosts gathering around a cathedral's altar are more of a problem to my taste. I have seen images being turned down here on the grounds of less visible problems. On the other hand images with less elaborate composition - and the compostion is really great in this case - are promoted at a significant rate. In case of promotion, there is another similar image by Poco a poco that of course should be promoted as well, then. --Johanning 18:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support QI to me, and really very impressive, even, in general, in don't like ghosts, but here .... --DKrieger 22:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_St-Kunibert-11.jpg[edit]

Cologne Germany St-Kunibert-11.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: Basilika St. Kunibert (east side) --Cccefalon 13:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The perspective correction in my opinion is not good. -- Spurzem 15:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sky is overexposed. --Ivar 17:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    I concur with Spurzem and ivar. Mattbuck 18:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @Spurzem: I uploaded another version. To overcome the problem, that some people have with the pure vertical depiction and the view of the tiltshift lense, I added a ratio correction. Don't complain about the verticals; I intentionally added a small incline to get a more natural view for you. @Iifar: Already before post processing, this photo was not overexposed and showed a regular histogram. What you complain is an original grey - and not a remapped to grey - sky. --Cccefalon 18:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    @Mattbuck: We had an edit conflict. I just uploaded a new version. --Cccefalon 18:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, then CR. --Cccefalon 18:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_St-Kunibert-10.jpg[edit]

Cologne Germany St-Kunibert-10.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: west transept with calvary in the Basilica St. Kunibert --Cccefalon 13:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Top is too unsharp due to perspective. --Mattbuck 18:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. And I swear, today was the last day I donated full size images to Commons. --Cccefalon 18:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It works for me, but the resolution is quite low --Uoaei1 16:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Face_of_ogre.jpg[edit]

Face of ogre.jpg

  • Nomination Face of ogre --Livioandronico2013 20:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not in focus. --Mattbuck 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Other opinions please --Livioandronico2013 07:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Focus point is not perfect, but there is stil enough detail. --MB-one 01:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Heads_of_lions_in_quartiere_coppedè.jpg[edit]

Heads of lions in quartiere coppedè.jpg

  • Nomination Heads of lions in quartiere coppedè --Livioandronico2013 20:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overexposed. --Mattbuck 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Is simple fixable,how do you decline for a simple thing like this??? Then,Mattbuck, do not complain that someone has problems with you,have a nice day Clin --Livioandronico2013 07:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Overexposure generally is not fixable. The problem is a loss of information, you can remap it to grey but that won't bring back the detail. As for my FP nomination, I think there's a difference - if you take a photo of a light source, it will be overexposed. Mattbuck 13:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ DoneYes, it is different, the problem, in my opinion, is your way to make hasty, I take the only sensible thing you've said "generally", in fact if it is possible to fix a photo, by at least a chance. --Livioandronico2013 14:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Gummer's How MMB 19 Lake Windermere.jpg[edit]

Gummer's How MMB 19 Lake Windermere.jpg

  • Nomination Lake Windermere. Mattbuck 06:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Sorry. It's too dusty. --XRay 08:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    I've done some recolouring, let me know if it's any better. --Mattbuck 13:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 11:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB «W5 Canary Wharf.jpg[edit]

London MMB «W5 Canary Wharf.jpg

  • Nomination Canary Wharf. Mattbuck 06:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Sorry. Nice image, but IMO the foreground is too dark. --XRay 08:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    I did that purposefully - the buildings look good as near-silhouettes IMO. --Mattbuck 13:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

File: Hansa 1100, Bj. 1959 (2014-08-31 6769).JPG[edit]

Hansa 1100, Bj. 1959 (2014-08-31 6769).JPG

  • Nomination Hansa 1100 from 1959 at spa gardens of Bad Neuenahr, Germany -- Spurzem 18:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The van in the background is too disturbing. --Mattbuck 23:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support In this case is possible ask a crop,anyway the van isn't so disturbing for me. --Livioandronico2013 07:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is enough separation (in this case by color and brightness), ok for me - the crop would be ok as well but not required. --Generic1139 16:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Kimanis_Sabah_Kimanis-Maritim-Traffic-Monitoring-Station-03.jpg[edit]

Kimanis Sabah Kimanis-Maritim-Traffic-Monitoring-Station-03.jpg

  • Nomination Kimanis, Sabah: Lighthouse and control tower of Kimanis Maritim Traffic Monitoring Station --Cccefalon 16:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Wire spoils it. --Mattbuck 23:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, a wire itself is not a reason for decline. especialle here it is not only a wire but also a pole and a bird on the wire. Do we have a new policy to decline every image with a visible wire? --Cccefalon 05:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 07:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Paris,_Sainte-Ursule_de_la_Sorbonne_--_2014_--_1660.jpg[edit]

Paris, Sainte-Ursule de la Sorbonne -- 2014 -- 1660.jpg

  • Nomination Chapelle Sainte-Ursule de la Sorbonne, Paris, France --XRay 03:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --JLPC 16:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I'm interested in a discution about perspective correction. --Jebulon 17:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 07:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Historisches_Rathaus_--_2014_--_6852.jpg[edit]

Münster, Historisches Rathaus -- 2014 -- 6852.jpg

  • Nomination Historical town hall, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp in the upper part (hardly fixable), CAs, tilted --Uoaei1 06:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Thanks for your reviews. Some of your advices are fixed.--XRay 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    Still quite unsharp in the upper parts - I would like to ask for other opinions --Uoaei1 17:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Probably effect of perspective correction by software. This has limits. -- Smial 23:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp enough IMO --Christian Ferrer 07:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Valtice (Feldsberg) - Kostel Nanebevzetí Panny Marie.JPG[edit]

Valtice (Feldsberg) - Kostel Nanebevzetí Panny Marie.JPG

  • Nomination Valtice (Feldsberg) - Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary --Pudelek 09:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not sharp enough for this rather low resolution --Uoaei1 06:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    In my opinion is enough sharp --Pudelek 16:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good photo, sharp enough. -- Spurzem 10:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sharp enough for QI, indeed. More disturbing are the redlink categories. Why introducing a category when not linking to an appropriate superior category? --Cccefalon 17:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC) I will support, when the redlinks are removed or linked to a higher category. --Cccefalon 19:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 07:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:1. SC Sollenau vs. FC Red Bull Salzburg 2014-07-12 (083).jpg[edit]

1. SC Sollenau vs. FC Red Bull Salzburg 2014-07-12 (083).jpg

  • Nomination Marcel Sabitzer, FC Red Bull Salzburg. --Steindy 23:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Left side of the face out of focus (not enought depth of field) --MB-one 19:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, please discussion. --Steindy 00:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Somewhat low DOF, but not disturbing. Very good lighting for a non studio shot. -- Smial 23:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Eyepart is not sharp enough. Also, as a matter of courtesy, it is not polite, to show the bad teeth of people in a portrait photo. --Cccefalon 16:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Bad teeth? Want the professional player who is examined several times a year on health, offend? Quite apart from the fact that as a photographer I can not help you choose outrageous arguments to discredit just to my photo? If you is fun, then do so. Removed personal insults by User:Steindy --A.Savin 18:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC) --Steindy (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a possibility to bleach such a defect. I pointed out at several other portrait reviews, that a portrait shot has to obey some curtesy retouchments, e.g. pimple removal etc. Especially a portrait photo of a public person in WikiCommons has to follow higher requirements of respect, as this photo might be published in different media. --Cccefalon 18:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
So you think that I should make a fake photo?! Just incredible what turned out to take some users here. This makes your photos appear in a new light. And I thought it's about an encyclopedia here. For some, just the ego is important. --Steindy 19:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment guys, look what I've found here:SV Mattersburg vs. SK Rapid Wien 2013018 (49).jpg from about a year earlyer. He may or may not be examined several times a year on health. But what he does about it is still his own buisness.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 12:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough. And next time just ask the guy or his management if they like the picture. There are people proud of scars and I doubt german actor Jürgen Vogel or american actor Michael Dorn in Worf make up will have a problem showing so called bad teeth. There are also people with gold teeth.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 11:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:1. SC Sollenau vs. FC Red Bull Salzburg 2014-07-12 (085).jpg[edit]

1. SC Sollenau vs. FC Red Bull Salzburg 2014-07-12 (085).jpg

  • Nomination Valentino Lazaro, FC Red Bull Salzburg. --Steindy 23:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion not enough depth of field --MB-one 19:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, please discussion. --Steindy 00:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Somewhat low DOF, but not disturbing. Very good lighting for a non studio shot. -- Smial 23:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop on top. The border is cutting off a part of the hairs. --Cccefalon 16:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • So you know how long his hair is? Respect! Okay, and 12 pixels from the left and 45 from the top is also blurred. Look even sure if you still do not find something to discredit the photo. See also the comment one over it (Marcel Sabitzer). Removed personal insults by User:Steindy --A.Savin 18:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC) --Steindy 18:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Sender Donebach Sendemast.jpg[edit]

Sender Donebach Sendemast.jpg

  • Nomination Donebach transmitter station --Kreuzschnabel 17:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Could you crop out the wooden building on the left please? Mattbuck 09:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mattbuck 18:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Leaning tower, no QI --MB-one 00:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Matt: I didn’t want to lose too much of the feed wires so I cloned out most of the corner. @MB-one: Would you please have a look at this and delist all of the leaning ones? --Kreuzschnabel 20:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --Livioandronico2013 08:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Symbol_of_the_Barberini_family_with_children.jpg[edit]

Symbol of the Barberini family with children.jpg

  • Nomination Symbol of the Barberini family with children --Livioandronico2013 23:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Moroder 11:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Livio, is white balance ok? I feel it's too warm and yellow. --Kadellar 17:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for review. --Livioandronico2013 20:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Kadellar can you check another time? Thanks --Livioandronico2013 10:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks, better now! --Kadellar 16:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 11:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Berlin,_Alte_Bibliothek_--_2013_--_4564.jpg[edit]

Berlin, Alte Bibliothek -- 2013 -- 4564.jpg

  • Nomination Alte Bibliothek, Berlin, Germany --XRay 06:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Left side leaning out and there is a green halo around the whole building silhoutte on the top Poco a poco 07:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    ✓ Fixed Thanks for your advice. Green CAs removed and perspective improved.--XRay 09:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Half of the sky is overexposed. --Ivar 17:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, the sky isn't voerexposed. A value of 98.5 percent is a very, very bright gray.--XRay 17:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not agreed. --Ivar 05:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Lądek-Zdrój,_rynek_02.JPG[edit]

2014 Lądek-Zdrój, rynek 02.JPG

  • Nomination Town hall in Lądek-Zdrój --Jacek Halicki 19:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Sorry. The image is tilted CW and the shadow in the front is very disturbing. --XRay 12:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, please discussion --Jacek Halicki 17:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Frank Dhont of the International Indonesia Forum at the 7th IFF Conference, 2014-08-20.jpg[edit]

Frank Dhont of the International Indonesia Forum at the 7th IFF Conference, 2014-08-20.jpg

  • Nomination Frank Dhont, chairman of the International Indonesia Forum. Crisco 1492 09:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    I think there's too much space on the left. Mattbuck 09:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 13:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    As my initial comment infers, I disagree with the promotion. --Mattbuck 17:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Some very slight cropping on the left side could be made, but this is only a matter of taste. Clearly QI, regardless if cropped or not. -- Smial 10:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MB-one 19:18 11 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Camden Road railway station MMB 04.jpg[edit]

Camden Road railway station MMB 04.jpg

  • Nomination Camden Road railway station. Mattbuck 09:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO very dark.--XRay 12:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol neutral vote.svg NeutralInsufficient quality. --Taxiarchos228 13:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    Care to actually give a reason? ✓ Brightened btw. --Mattbuck 17:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    I didn't oppose any more (because it was brightened) but I didn't unterstand the image and what exactly it should show. For me not a suitable detail shot. --Taxiarchos228 11:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For me is too dark --Livioandronico2013 08:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Netherfield railway station MMB 07.jpg[edit]

Netherfield railway station MMB 07.jpg

  • Nomination Netherfield railway station. Mattbuck 09:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO the image needs perspective correction. Please have a look to the ligths.--XRay 12:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    too dark --Taxiarchos228 13:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Brightened. --Mattbuck 17:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment both sides are leaning out --Christian Ferrer 17:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, I didn't notice the perspective correction comment. I disagree however - the streetlamp on the left is pretty clearly leaning - even if there were perspective distortion it would be nowhere near enough to make it that bad. The right side of the shelter looks pretty much vertical and the signal box in the background was likely where I took my reference point from. Further, if there were any perspective distortion it would have been the other way - leaning in, not out. Mattbuck 23:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the right and the middle of the image are straight however the left wall of the bridge is leaning, it was where I took my reference point from because I know that the streetlamp on the left is maybe not a good reference. So I correct my sentence : both side are not leaning out, only the left is leaning out. --Christian Ferrer 05:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Stratford International station MMB 20.jpg[edit]

Stratford International station MMB 20.jpg

  • Nomination Stratford International station. Mattbuck 09:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO it's titled CCW. Please have a look to the escalators.--XRay 12:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
     Not done Insufficient quality. --Taxiarchos228 13:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    25 hours before declining as not done? I hadn't even seen the comment! Taxiarchos, your passive-aggressive behaviour towards me is getting tiresome. I don't know why you dislike me so much, but the fact that you barely ever make a review which isn't to decline my nominations or disagree with my reviews speaks volumes. If you can't be reasonable to me, please don't review my images.
    Regarding the initial comment, I was not facing straight up, and you are right there is a significant amount of perspective distortion. This is intentional, I do not think the image would look anywhere near as good if it were corrected. --Mattbuck 17:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    the not-done-tag here was my fault, the evaluation for this image wasn't. please spare us with your tirades, thank you. --Taxiarchos228 19:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice view, but tilted. -- Smial 10:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Burghof_Lörrach_-_Abendansicht3.jpg[edit]

Lörrach - Burghof Lörrach - Abendansicht3.jpg

  • Nomination "Burghof Lörrach" --Taxiarchos228 04:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too blurry --Diana Ringo 15:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    don't agree and maybe you sign next time? --Taxiarchos228 14:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    The 'Burghof' sign, the ground and the trees are unclear, in comparison with the other photos taken in daylight. If these things are not important, then the image is good. --Diana Ringo 15:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't know what you mean with the Burghof-sign. The Burghof-sign is sharp and clear and is placed over the entrance door. If you mean the poster: this is flaunting like a flag so this can't be shap and clear with long exposure. This image shows the Burghof building and I see not a significant reason agsinst QI. --Taxiarchos228 06:57, 9 September 2014
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. QI -- I don't see any lack. -- Spurzem 07:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC) (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK, then I support--Diana Ringo 08:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please see annotations.--Jebulon 10:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose pretty much per all Jebulon's annotations. Mattbuck 17:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Buck: the blurring edge of your daylight image File:University Park MMB «E2 Lenton & Wortley Hall.jpg is similar to my blurring edge of my evening light image. May you answer me why you oppose here but nominate the mentioned image? --Taxiarchos228 19:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Leute, ihr fangt an, hier Ansprüche zu stellen, als ginge es darum, dass jedes QI dafür geeignet sein müsse, Hochglanzwerbung in Größe A0 zu bebildern. Klar, man könnte die leichte(!) Schräge auf der linken Seite noch etwas gerader ziehen, aber um welchen Preis? Jede Perspektivekorrektur führt zwangsläufig zu zusätzlichen Pixelinterpolationen, und dafür sind die minimalen Schrägen da links einfach nicht bildwichtig genug. Außerdem ist die Turmspitze möglicherweise nicht ganz vertikal, das Himmelsrichtungskreuz hängt jedenfalls definitiv schon mal schief am Mast. Die Flecken im Himmel könnten evtl. Reste von weggestempelten Staubflecken sein, es könnten aber ebenso gut durch die Langzeitbelichtung verwischte Wolkenfetzen sein, das kann man wirklich nicht anhand des veröffentlichten JPGs entscheiden. Das Mopped ist scharf genug, wenn man das mal mit anderen Bildern vergleicht, die bei strahlendem Sonnenschein mit Blende 11 und 1/2000s geknipst wurden. Klar ist das wackelnde Plakat etwas störend, aber es ist auch völlig plausibel. Man könnte auch die Lichtstreifen fahrender Autos oder englischer Vorortbahnen bei Nachtaufnahmen bemängeln - immerhin sind die noch viel böser unscharf, verwischt, in der Regel überbelichtet und obendrein oft auch noch bildbestimmend. Kurz: Kommt mal wieder alle auf die ursprüngliche Intention der QIC runter. Das war mal ein Projekt, um aus all dem in den Commons-Kategorien versenkten Bilderschrott diejenigen herauszupicken, die einigermaßen vorzeigbar sind, und um Wikiknipser zu animieren, bei der Aufnahme auf einige grundlegende Fotografierregeln zu achten, damit sich das Qualitätsniveau auf commons ein wenig bessern möge. Dieses Projekt war nie dazu gedacht, eine FPC-Version für Arme zu entwickeln. -- Smial 10:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support and Amen to Smial’s comment. A QIC doesn’t need to be perfect, being good is sufficient. And this image certainly is. --Kreuzschnabel 20:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Is here looking for pins in a haystack? QI for me. --Steindy 23:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Building_in_Avenida_Paulista.jpg[edit]

Building in Avenida Paulista.jpg

  • Nomination Building in Avenida Paulista --Wilfredor 11:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The perspective distortion at the right side is disturbing. Could you please try to get the verticals rectilinear? --Cccefalon 09:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I think there's some pincushion distortion too. Mattbuck 19:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
      •  Not done Mattbuck 08:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • IMHO I think so this image is QI --Wilfredor 20:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • That doesn’t surprise me too much since it was you to nominate it. But there really is pin-cushion distortion which should be taken care of. --Kreuzschnabel 22:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    • lol, authomatic comment IMHO is QI. I uploaded another version, let me see if the verticals are fixed, thanks --Wilfredor 00:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      It's a bit better, but still clear pincushion distortion - the left side vertical bends inwards at the middle. Mattbuck 23:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-05-barcelona-RalfR-053.jpg[edit]

14-08-05-barcelona-RalfR-053.jpg

  • Nomination Barcelona, El Peix (sculpture by Frank Gehry) --Ralf Roletschek 15:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion CW tilt. --Ivar 16:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg SupportI see no lack. For me QI. -- Spurzem 17:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC) all lamps in the picture are correct. --Ralf Roletschek 12:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    No, they're pretty clearly tilted. Note added. Mattbuck 10:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 08:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree - its correct. --Ralf Roletschek 22:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until tilt is corrected and this is easy to fix. --Ivar 05:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI, no significant leaning here --Taxiarchos228 06:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose adjectives are not relevant and useless IMO. "Significant" or not, there is a leaning, please see note by Mattbuck. So, per Ivar.--Jebulon 23:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gerade genug. Solche kleinen Korrekturen führen ohne großen Gewinn nur zu unnötigen Pixelinterpolationen. -- Smial 11:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Is here looking for pins in a haystack? QI for me. --Steindy 23:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, improvable: Tilted and it needs, after, a bit of perspective correction--Lmbuga 23:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Mallorca_-_Cap_de_Capdepera1.jpg[edit]

Mallorca - Cap de Capdepera1.jpg

  • Nomination Cap of Capdepera --Taxiarchos228 06:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please have a look to the horizon. It looks like a barrel.--XRay 08:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 08:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree , its correct --Ralf Roletschek 22:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Barrel distortion is not ok. --Iifar 05:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a wide angle shot. The earth is not flat. -- Smial 11:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until it's fixed (easy to fix) --Christian Ferrer 17:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks as spherical as it does on google earth (I guess)--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 20:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Komisch: Panoramaaufnahmen mit Kurven, wo in Wirklichkeit Geraden sind, werden an anderer Stelle als exzellent ausgezeichnet. Und hier soll die leichte Biegung des Horizonts ein gravierender Mangel sein? -- Spurzem 10:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See [1], you need to be around 35,000 feet (10.6km) to hope to see the curvature of the horizon. The first report of seeing it was 51,783 ft in Germany(1931), the first photo was from a trip up to 72,395 ft. Pilots report seeing it around 50,000 ft. This image, on the other hand, has barrel distortion which is easily corrected. --Generic1139 16:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Canon_EF_35-70mm_F3.5-4.5.jpg[edit]

Canon EF 35-70mm F3.5-4.5.jpg

  • Nomination Old Canon EF 35-70mm F3.5-4.5 Objective. Had to choose between diffraction blur and sharpness. Loosing a bit out on featureless edges. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 18:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 20:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry but two problems (see notes, please) : blown out higlights and blurry lower right part of the lens. --JLPC 21:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment By adjusting the exposure for an 18% greycard, I get 97% / RGB 247 for the infinity wall. Which by accident matches the checkmate requirements for the product background on turbosquid.com. And the complaint is for going over 94% / RGB 240 ? It is true that the lens CAP isn't sharp. But the area in the rectangular note is just part of the shadow!--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 03:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness, DOF, and colours are ok. RGB(f8f8f8) is not blown. Noise level somewhat high, but acceptable. Why ISO800 with a still shot? I don't like the artifical looking shadows and the soft edges at the lens cap, but these are minor issues and unimportant for QI standards. -- Smial 15:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The setup worked well for the Camera
    Concord Eye-Q 1M Camera card slot usb rs232 view.jpg
    Do you like this one better?
    Headbands brown with comb and red with dots.jpg
    Note that this setup has over all less scharpness and will also introduces a nasty highlight on the ring with the lens name.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 02:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Reshoot with lower ISO due to lower flash gun position. Note reflection around EF letters. Had to add a couple of graduation filters to even out the light fall off and sharpening the bottom. Still missed the cap which isn't the subject anyway.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 19:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Now it is a completely different image. Why uploaded with the same name? The central reflection is very distracting now. Noise is much better, sharpness again nice. -- Smial 11:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
      • It is same view of the same Item. Unless the old one gets deleted, it makes no sense to upload under another name. Btw. did a lokal adjustment on the highlights. Also trie to lit it with an improvised V-Flat. Almost no shadows or reflections and looking somewhat boring and unnatural. So I did not bother to upload. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 20:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
        • The last version is the best, but, no, it is not exactly the same setup like the first version, it has a slightly different view. My supporting vote from above remains active. -- Smial 10:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Angoulême_16_Toits_végétalisés_2014.jpg[edit]

Angoulême 16 Toits végétalisés 2014.jpg

  • Nomination Tiled roofs and green roofs, Angoulême, Charente, France. --JLPC 17:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion DOF to shallow or focus to far on the close side. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 19:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    I don't agree : let's ask someone else. --JLPC 21:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Excuse me Tobias but i don't agree with your objections --Livioandronico2013 21:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support QI. --P e z i 08:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014-08-23 NADT Josh Phillips Mpact 1.JPG[edit]

2014-08-23 NADT Josh Phillips Mpact 1.JPG

  • Nomination Josh Phillips + Mpact with the Norfolk Arena Drift Team, 2014-08-23. --Lewis Collard 15:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Blur in all the right places but the cars rear. Hate to write it down.Insufficient quality. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 19:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    In my opinion it is an interesting photo. We should discuss please. -- Spurzem 21:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support difficult and succesful shot at 1/80 to get a more blurred and impressive background. --Kadellar 16:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 19:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 10:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment While I understand why the blur towards the back might be disturbing to some, it was part of the reason I nominated my shot. There is a point in a transition to a drift where the rear is visibly motion blurred and the front of the car is not (due to trigonometry, not depth of field); capturing this split second is always my goal because 1) the motion blur makes the transition into a drift apparent 2) it brings the attention to the "face" (headlights and grille) of the car. But you're definitely not unreasonable for differing, Tobias. \o/ Lewis Collard 19:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Kreuzkapelle_--_2014_--_2708.jpg[edit]

Dülmen, Kreuzkapelle -- 2014 -- 2708.jpg

  • Nomination Sculpture in front of Holy Cross chapel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 06:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Bad angle. Villy Fink Isaksen 07:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Which angle? If it's not a good composition, please decline. Otherwise please give me an advise. Thank you.--XRay 14:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    I would prefer a better look behind the bars. Villy Fink Isaksen 19:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment May be it's better to see another opinion too. Do you agee?--XRay 09:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technical quality is ok. The composition is non standard, but this image shows the relationship between the sculpture and the surroundings and the chapel in a nice manner. This is certainly not the only possible view on that object but clearly legitimate. -- Smial 15:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 11:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 11:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Baphuon,_Angkor_Thom,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_07.jpg[edit]

Baphuon, Angkor Thom, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 07.jpg

  • Nomination Cows in Baphuon, Angkor Thom‎, Cambodia --Poco a poco 16:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please check for CAs top left and top right.--XRay 14:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Poco a poco 07:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    To me this seems a bit distorted/stretched. I don't think this is QI. Mattbuck 08:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For me it's QI - if CAs are fixed. Still they are not fixed. (Upload of the fixed image is missing. ;-) ) Mattbuck has another opinion. So I put this review to discussion.--XRay 09:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Uploaded now, sorry, Poco a poco 18:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO it's OK now.--XRay 16:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Basílica_de_Santa_María,_Elche,_España,_2014-07-05,_DD_08.JPG[edit]

Basílica de Santa María, Elche, España, 2014-07-05, DD 08.JPG

  • Nomination St Mary Basilica, Elche, Spain --Poco a poco 09:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood quality. --Uoaei1 12:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposePlease correct straightness (see note), and symmetry of the two sides, thanks.--Jebulon 13:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Poco a poco 17:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Looks ok to me. Mattbuck 23:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version uploaded (following a note of Wilfredo) to reduce the noise in the shadow Poco a poco 12:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent --Wilfredor 12:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Aerial_view_-_Lörrach_-_Rosenfels_Campus1.jpg[edit]

Aerial view - Lörrach - Rosenfels Campus1.jpg

  • Nomination Aerial view of "Rosenfels-Campus" in Lörrach --Taxiarchos228 18:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Perspectives : both sides are leaning out --Christian Ferrer 10:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Also clipping issue bottom left. Mattbuck 20:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    nothing is leaning, look note --~~~~ Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not done --Christian Ferrer 05:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    here is n.th. to be done --Taxiarchos228 04:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well how about getting rid of the clipping error for a start... Mattbuck 20:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Make clear what should be wrong with this picture. --Taxiarchos228 04:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

    1. Perspective distortion - both sides are leaning out
    2. The crop exceeds the bounds of the photo at the bottom left. -mattbuck (Talk)

(1) As I already said there is no significant distortion (see image notes) (2) The crop shows exactly what it has to show, the Rosenfels Campus. Your arguments are not clear. Please proof againt or explain in a reasonable way what should be here the problem for a QI. --Taxiarchos228 07:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Regarding the crop; I suppose that Mattbuck are refering to the lower left corner (see note).--ArildV 07:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, this I see now, I'll correct this soon. But the distortion is not relevant IMO for a aerial view. --Taxiarchos228 10:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you please explain why ?--Jebulon 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
because it's minor and doesn't effect the image impression --Taxiarchos228 06:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
lol --Jebulon (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolutely natural view just as it is expected by the average viewer. This is aerial photography, not a drawing by an architect. I've tried a 100% correction at home - this looks more amusing instead of more natural. -- Smial 11:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    Smial, the bottom left corner crop exceeds the image limits - an image with that cannot be QI, surely. Mattbuck 23:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Left vertical lines are tilted. Right vertical lines seems Ok. Improvable and perhaps QI if you want--Lmbuga 07:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version. -- Smial 10:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --Generic1139 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps is the cache, but left vertical lines are tilted CW and right vertical lines are straight--Lmbuga 22:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Certina 1888 DS Podium Chronograph.jpg[edit]

Certina 1888 DS Podium Chronograph.jpg

  • Nomination Certina 1888 DS Podium Chronograph. --Dnalor 01 11:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not very sharp. --Mattbuck 10:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I can't find any problem with the sharpness. --Dnalor 01 07:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality! What against sharpness? Sharpness is good. -- Spurzem 21:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Magenta/green CA. A lot of noise which contributes to the fuzziness --Generic1139 21:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment And compare to this File:Taschenuhr Omega 1900 - H3463.jpg and File:Montre revolutionnaire-IMG 4629-black.jpg at 1:1 to see sharp watch faces and hands --Generic1139 21:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC) And this one didn't show up in my first search because it was too new to have the quality image assigned, but the recently promoted File:Omega Genève Handaufzug, Cal. 613.jpg by User:Dnalor 01 is also a nice sharp image --Generic1139 21:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for your statement, you're right, I've seen the differences! But I've uploaded a new version now, so the problem could be solved ... --Dnalor 01 07:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The new version is much better. Looks good to me. --Generic1139 (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, for a studio shot not sharp enough and too much noise --Berthold Werner 17:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness is not overwhelming, but acceptable. Yet noise is too high for a studio shot and some areas are clipping. -- Smial 12:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me is good --Livioandronico2013 19:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Smial --Lmbuga 07:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Basilika Seckau, Habsburger Mausoleum, Wappen der Wittelsbach auf Kenotaph.jpg[edit]

Basilika Seckau, Habsburger Mausoleum, Wappen der Wittelsbach auf Kenotaph.jpg

  • Nomination Putti on cenotaph holding coat of arms of Wittelsbach, Habsburger mausoleum, Seckau basilica, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 09:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion This one lacks sharpness --Poco a poco 09:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, I can't find any problem with the sharpness ... --Dnalor 01 09:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    I do, compare it with the head of Charles II. If you don't agree go ahead and put it on discussion, no problem with that Poco a poco 10:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)For me there are no problems with the sharpness. --Dnalor 01 10:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness is OK IMO. Yann 11:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sharpness is ok, but noise is too strong, especially in the background (ISO 1600!). Can you try to reduce it? --Uoaei1 16:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC) I'm very sorry, but unfortunately I'm not able to do that by myself ... --Dnalor 01 18:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise --A.Savin 11:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Mon 08 Sep → Tue 16 Sep
Tue 09 Sep → Wed 17 Sep
Wed 10 Sep → Thu 18 Sep
Thu 11 Sep → Fri 19 Sep
Fri 12 Sep → Sat 20 Sep
Sat 13 Sep → Sun 21 Sep
Sun 14 Sep → Mon 22 Sep
Mon 15 Sep → Tue 23 Sep
Tue 16 Sep → Wed 24 Sep