Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Jump to: navigation, search

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎українська
float

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

Purpose[edit]

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

Guidelines[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators[edit]

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

Image page requirements[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the Image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.


Creator[edit]

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technical requirements[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media.

This does not apply to vector graphics (SVG).

Image quality[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value[edit]

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

How to nominate[edit]

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

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

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the Image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.


Number of nominations[edit]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


Evaluating images[edit]

Any registered user, other than the author and the nominator, 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 February 2016 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]] 18:16, 12 February 2016 (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.

February 12, 2016[edit]

February 11, 2016[edit]

February 10, 2016[edit]

February 9, 2016[edit]

February 8, 2016[edit]

February 7, 2016[edit]

February 6, 2016[edit]

February 4, 2016[edit]

February 3, 2016[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:Kazan_Cathedral_Saint_Petersburg.jpg[edit]

Kazan Cathedral Saint Petersburg.jpg

  • Nomination Kazan Cathedral in Saint Petersburg 1905. --Moroder 18:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Badly posterized sky. A pity, as this could have been a wow motif --A.Savin 19:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd like some other opinion --Moroder 17:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 09:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:028_2014_08_04_Urlaub_Sulden.jpg[edit]

028 2014 08 04 Urlaub Sulden.jpg

  • Nomination New Parish Church of St. Gertraud. --F. Riedelio 16:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • {{o}} Too much noise for a quality image.--Rftblr 18:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not see an overabundance of noise, other than the mountains when very zoomed in. Please point to the areas that are too noisy. --Balon Greyjoy 15:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The whole shadow area of the church exhibits noticeable noise. Some of what at first glance appears to be stains on the facade, is actually horizontal banding noise (horizontal bright stripes above the windows on the apse). For me this is not quality. --Rftblr 23:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done New developed version (Lightroom V6.4) uploaded. Additional noise decrease in Corel PaintShop Pro X7.

Info: The photo was made in RAW-format (.cr2), converted in Lightroom to .dng. and exported to .jpg. --F. Riedelio 14:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I withdraw my opposition. However I think you overdid the noise reduction on the top half of the aspe. Everything else looks OK now. Still, another reviewer should decide. --Rftblr 14:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 15:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Eiffel tower (368).JPG[edit]

Eiffel tower (368).JPG

  • Nomination Eiffel Tower in Paris, France --Rijinatwiki 08:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Many chromatic aberrations. The tower is also leaning left a bit --A.Savin 17:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CAs and disturbing branches at the left. Composition could be better, dark area at the right.--XRay 18:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --XRay 18:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Jardín Botánico Olarizu 03.jpg[edit]

Jardín Botánico Olarizu 03.jpg

  • Nomination Botanical Garden of Olarizu. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country, Spain --Basotxerri 20:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, too dark for the real light situation --Hubertl 10:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Hubertl: Some s-curving might help to get better exposure, but the image is also blurred by noise reduction, not fixable. -- Smial 09:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 05:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2014_08_18_007_Weingut_Kimich_Deidesheim.jpg[edit]

2014 08 18 007 Weingut Kimich Deidesheim.jpg

  • Nomination Winery Kimich --F. Riedelio 13:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood quality. --Jacek Halicki 13:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSky overexposed and eating in to neighbouring detail, otherwise good. --Prosthetic Head 16:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 09:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Soodla jõgi. 03.jpg[edit]

Soodla jõgi. 03.jpg

  • Nomination Soodla river (by Aleksandr Abrosimov). Kruusamägi 09:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much noise reduction, has eaten fine detail. --C messier 15:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with C messier. --Rftblr 22:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 09:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2014_Otmuchów,_kościół_śś._Mikołaja_i_Franciszka_Ksawerego_01.JPG[edit]

2014 Otmuchów, kościół śś. Mikołaja i Franciszka Ksawerego 01.JPG

  • Nomination Saints Nicholas and Francis Xavier church in Otmuchów 1 --Jacek Halicki 00:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate light situation, with overexposed sky at the left of the church. --C messier 14:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 21:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Should be slightly turned anti-clockwise to make the church upright. --Rftblr 22:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image.-- Шухрат Саъдиев 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 09:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2014_Stary_Paczków,_kościół_Wszystkich_Świętych_02.JPG[edit]

2014 Stary Paczków, kościół Wszystkich Świętych 02.JPG

  • Nomination Church of All Saints in Stary Paczków 1 --Jacek Halicki 00:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --F. Riedelio 12:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky is nearly completely blown. Please discuss. --C messier 14:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry Jacek but I agree to Cmessier, the sky does not look nice --Michielverbeek 07:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 21:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cloudy sky is ok for me.--Ermell 09:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Burnt sky, not fixable. -- Smial 09:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 09:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 Rückansicht.jpg[edit]

Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 Rückansicht.jpg

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 --Basotxerri 18:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Background tilted cw. --Cccefalon 04:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Tilted CCW. Thank you. --Basotxerri 17:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose car is not centered, image does not look balanced --Rftblr 22:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop at the right -- Spurzem 23:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose-- Шухрат Саъдиев 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 09:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 Vorderansicht.jpg[edit]

Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 Vorderansicht.jpg

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 --Basotxerri 18:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok --Cccefalon 04:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose car is not centered, image does not look balanced --Rftblr 22:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop at the left -- Spurzem 23:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose-- Шухрат Саъдиев 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 09:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC))

File:Kamchatka_Brown_Bear_near_Dvuhyurtochnoe_on_2015-07-23.png[edit]

Kamchatka Brown Bear near Dvuhyurtochnoe on 2015-07-23.png

  • Nomination A Kamchatka Brown Bear (wild) near Dvuhyurtochnoe Kamchatka taken on July 23rd, 2015. --Rftblr 17:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Cccefalon 20:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have now uploaded a JPG version and linked it to the PNG version. I will do this for my other candidates as well. Do I have to retract the PNG version from QI and nominate the JPG version? --User:rftblr 8:03, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment you can keep it as it is, in fact, it´s the same picture. --Hubertl 08:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 08:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can you explain, A.Savin, why this picture should be uploaded as jpg and not in png? --Hubertl 10:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I also do not understand this request. Our QIC rules explicetly suggest a resolution for Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF). So what is the problem with png (which also is a FREE format)? --Cccefalon 10:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
See my comment at #File:Mischek_Tower_Vienna_from_W_on_2013-06-14.png. --A.Savin 16:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
You might start a request for changing the rules and find enough supporters for such a motion. But as long as our rules allow png, you cannot just start a mass oppose for png format images of user RftBlr. Sorry to say so, but it is kind of disruptive. --Cccefalon 09:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
+1 -- Smial 11:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good for me. -- Spurzem 08:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good work. -- Smial 11:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A beautiful, well balanced and composed picture. I see no reason for the objection the grounds of format, in fact many consider PNG to be a 'freer' format than JPG (patent concerns). --Prosthetic Head 12:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 09:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Ares_Tower_Vienna_from_SW_on_2015-07-10.png[edit]

Ares Tower Vienna from SW on 2015-07-10.png

  • Nomination The Ares Tower in Vienna seen from the south-west on July 10th, 2015. --Rftblr 17:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality although photographs should rather be saved as JPG. --Code 17:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment add a jpg for previewing purposes. rftblr --Hubertl 08:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 10:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have now uploaded a JPG version and linked it to the PNG version. --User:rftblr 19:34, 8 February 2016(UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 08:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support certainly well above the average quality -- Smial 11:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp photo, good perspective a Q1one and a warm welcome to Rftblr --Michielverbeek 08:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 09:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Museu da inconfidencia.JPG[edit]

Museu da inconfidencia.JPG

  • Nomination Museum of the Inconfidência, Ouro Preto, Brazil (by Ricardotakamura) --ArionEstar 21:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. The overall quality is very bad. Nearly all details are gone. I don't know what happened in the postprocessing but this looks like upscaled ore somewhat. Hard to say. This cannot be QI in my eyes. --Code 14:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} CA, noise, posterisation. Sharpening and noise reduction fight against each other. Somewhat too high colour saturation. striked, because without signature --Hubertl 09:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC),br/>
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would say that for a 30 second exposure the loss of detail is not too bad, if it were downscaled until the detail loss was imperceptable it would still be a large enough image. It is only when viewing at original (very high) resolution that the flaws become very visible. --Prosthetic Head 13:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Severe CAs, perspective not corrected. At full resolution the quality is not acceptable, but downsized at nearly 6 Mpix, the level of detail is OK. And some overexposure on the walls near the lamps. --C messier 15:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavily processed (sharpened?), real image quality is not high enough at this resolution. --Shansov.net 02:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Шухрат Саъдиев 13:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nothing to add. --Carschten 10:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 10:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:May2015 Volgograd img06 View from Mamaev Hill.jpg[edit]

May2015 Volgograd img06 View from Mamaev Hill.jpg

  • Nomination Volgograd: view from Mamaev Hill --A.Savin 15:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality: An unfavourable image section (too much foreground), right edge of the image is out of focus. --F. Riedelio 08:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry please other opinion: it is the view as it is at this point, and where do you see any blurred areas? --A.Savin 14:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @A.Savin: Please see annotations. --F. Riedelio 13:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand your issues very well, but I don't get the problem. --A.Savin 16:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@A.Savin: Please see annotations for my preferred cropping. --F. Riedelio 09:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would say too much sky, but the horizon is at the one third of the image. The composition actually lies at thirds (one sky, one city, one foreground). The lack of sharpness descripted isn't something worth declining (or mentioning). --C messier 15:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me is good --Livioandronico2013 21:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Шухрат Саъдиев 13:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overall somewhat weak sharpness, blurred details at margins. No double standards, please. -- Smial 18:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I never nominate pictures without looking if they are sharp enough. That you ape my comment is just stupid, however quite your usual level (Deutsche Wikipedia as it is). --A.Savin 19:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly your double standards. q.e.d. ;-) -- Smial 08:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Ps: In other words: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? ;-)
Matthaeus 7:3, wenn schon, denn schon.. ;-) --Hubertl 09:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@Smial Once again: where do you see double standards by me? This picture I nominated IS sharp enough! Where did you see me ever nominate or promote pictures below QI standard? Is it not rather your best friend Ralf Roletschek who usually does this? Why then, if you are such a big fan of high-quality standards, do you tolerate it - only because he is your friend, yeah? Let me guess... Double standards? And could you please stop lying? Otherwise, we also may continue discussing on COM:ANU, if you prefer... --A.Savin 11:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
...except for your Moscow metro series? :) This image is sharp enough for an OOC jpeg from a camera with Bayer sensor (which is not sharp enough for my PERSONAL taste) --Shansov.net 13:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
You must have confused me with s/o else, I have no "Moscow Metro series" and did just a very few photos in Moscow Metro. --A.Savin 13:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done 16:9 --A.Savin 13:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Smial and F. Riedelio. And of course our utmost best friend Ralf Roletschek. If you cannot accept critical, but well-meaning reviews, this is maybe not the right project for you, A.Savin. --Hubertl 13:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you also have your own opinion, or is it just because Smial said so? --A.Savin 13:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Stop arguing, you can do it on your discussion page. This is not the place for your private conflicts. --Hubertl 13:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
That's surely not your business. --A.Savin 13:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 13:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

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