Commons:Quality images candidates

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

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

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.


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.


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.

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.


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.


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 --~~~~ | }}


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 --~~~~ | }}


File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator's talk page - as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Grace period and promotion[edit]

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from review, the image becomes promoted or fails, according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 2014 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache



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]] 10:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

July 13, 2014[edit]

July 12, 2014[edit]

July 11, 2014[edit]

July 10, 2014[edit]

July 9, 2014[edit]

July 8, 2014[edit]

July 7, 2014[edit]

July 6, 2014[edit]

July 5, 2014[edit]

July 4, 2014[edit]

July 3, 2014[edit]

July 1, 2014[edit]

June 30, 2014[edit]

June 29, 2014[edit]

June 26, 2014[edit]

Consensual review[edit]


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:St. Mary's Church - Berlin.jpg[edit]

St. Mary's Church - Berlin.jpg

  • Nomination West facade with the tower of St. Mary's Church in Berlin. --MrPanyGoff 06:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    The camera position is not well chosen as the church tower melts with the tower behind --Uoaei1 14:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMO Christian Ferrer 04:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Uoaei1 has a point regarding the angle of view, but it’s still QI IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 19:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Negresco in Nizza in the morning 2014.jpg

  • Nomination Hotel Negresco in the morning in Nizza in France --Moroder 21:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The sky needs denoising. --Cccefalon 08:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    {{s}} I'm agree with Cccefalon (all the image needs a bit of denoising), but with 9,120 × 6,466 pixels it's QI for me--Lmbuga 10:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't see why it needs denioising. The only procedures I did was converting to jpg from RAW, merging and the correction of vertical lines? Thanks for the review --Moroder 05:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    BA candidate.svg Weak oppose It needs denoising. Not done: Discuss--Lmbuga 18:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

File:NDT 2014-07-05 Ben Rowland.JPG[edit]

NDT 2014-07-05 Ben Rowland.JPG

  • Nomination Ben Rowland with his M3-engined "Mpact" at last light, Norfolk Arena, 2014-07-05. --Lewis Collard 13:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Interesting action photo, but although the size of the photo is already comparatively small, the sharpness of the car is not sufficient (see e.g. the fonts on the car stickers) --Cccefalon 07:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    This is a hard shot to make and in my opinion the sharpness is more then enough. --Baykedevries 09:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support IMHO it's good enough. The car is not only driving, sliding and spinning as well, the it's normal that you lose some sharpness towards the back of the car. I agree Baykedevries. Enough sharpness. -- DerFussi 06:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "Das Bild hing schief."(tm) -- Smial 12:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Aus meiner Sicht erzeugt gerade der vermeintlich schiefe Horizont mehr Dynamik - besser als ein langweilig gerades gerücktes Bild... -- DerFussi 19:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Whats with everyones obsession with strait horizons and perspective correctness? This looks great! --Uberprutser 21:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great action shot. Tilt is obviously part of composition here --Kreuzschnabel 19:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Tawau Sabah Maha-Bodhi-Chinese-Temple-01.jpg

  • Nomination Tawau, Sabah: Sign in front of the Chinese Temple of the Maha Bodhi Society Tawau in Kampung Kinabutan --Cccefalon 21:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Why didn't you go closer - to the parking ground? The overhead lines are disturbing. -- DerFussi 10:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Because I wanted to have the sign in the foreground. A photo where only the temple is visible, is already available in the category. My camera position was intentional to cover the sign at the entrance to the temple. And as I often reiterate: In this country certain things are different to the neatly arranged Europe, and the chaos of power lines is omnipresent. --Cccefalon 13:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    I know Sabah (been there 5 times) and i know the omnipresent power lines in Asia very well. Anyway I dont understand why you apply with this one, because you have one without power lines. But if QI guidelines cover technical aspects only, then is ok. Did not know that. Sorry, I am new here in this part of commons: -- DerFussi 15:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe not a COM:FP, however QI IMO Christian Ferrer 05:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Silam Sabah SK-Silam-03.jpg

  • Nomination Sekolah Kebangsaan Kampung Silam (SK Kg Silam), a primary school in Lahad Datu District (shooting distance 3 km) --Cccefalon 19:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the power grid lines in the foreground spoils it. Otherwise nice. --Slaunger 11:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree Don't think a small composition issue should be sufficiant for a decline. Regarding the circumstances the image is otherwise good enough for QI. Perhaps somewhat high colour saturation. --Smial 11:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The power grid is not in the near but in the far. It is pretty impossibe to avoid power grids if you take photos of a bigger portion of a piece of country. --Cccefalon 06:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


AIB A380 F-WWOW 5jul14 LFBO-3.jpg

  • Nomination Tail of the first A380 prototype, at Toulouse Blagnac airport. --Gyrostat 05:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support ok --Cccefalon 06:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry but a completely blown out sky can not become Q.I. in my book. --Uberprutser 12:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    I am fully aware of that. I took it as a kind of studio shot of a single object. good enough for QI. --Cccefalon 13:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Uberprutser. --Iifar 18:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to the cut horizontal stabilizer, that is part of the aircraft's tail -- DerFussi 09:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Charlottenburg Town Hall fragment.jpg[edit]

Charlottenburg Town Hall fragment.jpg

  • Nomination Charlottenburg Town Hall fragment. --MrPanyGoff 17:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good--Jebulon 10:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Conditional oppose I think the perspective correction should be tweaked a bit more. It leans to the right in the LHS of the image. Otherwise nice. --Slaunger 11:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No really disturbing distortions. Very good, appropriate soft lighting. -- Smial 11:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


Sony A77 II - rear.jpg

  • Nomination Sony α 77 II A-mount camera - rear --Colin 21:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very nice photo but I don't like the compostion, black camera with black background Ezarate 21:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    Low-key lighting is a valid style of photography. Black-on-black is not a wrong option and used in educational, commercial and fine art ( See related photos on image-description page. -- Colin 19:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good low-key studio shot, nothing to complain. However, the crop feels a little bit too tight. Can you add some space? --Cccefalon 05:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll have a look. -- Colin 19:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support - Just had the same thought like Cccefalon and almost caused an edit conflict.. :) agree him 100% -- DerFussi 06:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Please avoid the use of {weak support} or {weak oppose} templates. The bot does not recognize them, and your vote may be invalid. Thank you.--Jebulon 10:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Cccefalon, DerFussi: I've increased the border. Doesn't look much more in the thumb but clear when you load full-size. -- Colin 18:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Great. Only some pixels, but a big improvement. Well done. --Cccefalon 18:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree... :) ... good work -- DerFussi 20:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The black on black is very nice. There is one little nit - on the bottom of the view finder is a row of a few bright pixels from the flash that could be cloned out. --Generic1139 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Dobrota, Bahía de Kotor, Montenegro, 2014-04-19, DD 07.JPG

  • Nomination Dobrota, Bay of Kotor, Montenegro --Poco a poco 13:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good IMO, but two dust spots (see notes)--Lmbuga 20:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Poco a poco 21:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Only sharp thing here is the green car. --Iifar 17:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)**Please avoid the use of {weak support} or {weak oppose} templates. The bot does not recognize them, and your vote may be invalid. Thank you.--Jebulon 10:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good IMO and good size--Lmbuga 16:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI agree Iifar -- DerFussi 06:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are two notes in the image about dust spots. Sp: Yo no he sido capaz de ver las manchas en ese sitio, pero he visto al menos una en un lugar próximo. He hecho una anotación con el texto "mancha"--Lmbuga 22:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC). Sp: La segunda mancha, definitivamente, no la veo. Me parece una exageración. Suerte y buena vista--Lmbuga 22:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    pues si que eran realizadas por mi, pero no habían sido borradas las notas, pero si las manchas. Fíjate en la nota que acabo de hacer (texto: "mancha") y borra las anotaciones todas pues pueden provocar que otros no voten a favor.--Lmbuga 23:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Ya he borrado las notas antiguas, borra tú la nueva.--Lmbuga 23:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dust spots are gone, declining for sharpness issues is maybe a bit tough Poco a poco 11:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Motion blur by horizontal camera shake. Or perhaps defective/badly working image stabilizer. Sorry, no-go for daylight landscape photography. -- Smial 11:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Sweet Pea-1.jpg[edit]

Sweet Pea-1.jpg

  • Nomination Sweet Pea at fence --Aftabbanoori 10:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Cccefalon 11:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, its very noisy - seems to be just a smartphone photo --Uoaei1 19:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree, too noisy at full size unfortunately. KTC 23:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


Vista de Kotor, Bahía de Kotor, Montenegro, 2014-04-19, DD 25.JPG

  • Nomination View of Kotor, Bay of Kotor, Montenegro --Poco a poco 16:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Verticals are leaning out. Magenta CA and considerable drop of sharpness at the left and right last 10%, especially on the left side. Two blurry bird spots. Sorry, to much photographic issues. --Cccefalon 05:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    New version uploaded addressing those issues, I think that it is acceptable now, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 21:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Still perspective issues. I made annotations. --Cccefalon 10:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version Poco a poco 20:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for QI. -- Smial 11:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


Kościół par. pw. NSPJ w Jastrzębiu-Zdroju2.JPG

  • Nomination Parish church of Sacred Heart of Jesus in Jastrzębie-Zdrój, Poland --Halavar 18:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion You have cut the church on the right side a little bit, but it looks there would have been space to catch the whole building. -- DerFussi 20:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


Joseh and Mary Sankt Rochus Altar Fonteklaus Lajen.jpg

  • Nomination Saint Roch chapel at Fonteklaus in Lajen 17th century --Moroder 05:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion I don’t like the arch framings partially cut by the image borders. Looks like a random shot. Got a slightly wider view of these? --Kreuzschnabel 05:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)✓ Done Thanks --Moroder 23:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    Much better framing, still I am not convinced by the sharpness. The "shell" behind the Maria statue looks considerably sharper than the statue itself. Shifted focus or too shallow DoF. Move to CR. --Kreuzschnabel 08:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

File:University Park MMB U2 Derby Hall.jpg[edit]

University Park MMB U2 Derby Hall.jpg

  • Nomination Derby Hall. Mattbuck 06:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Joydeep 08:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    Right side of the image is quite soft, CA on windows? --Lewis Hulbert 18:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lewis Hulbert. And at least three dustspots in the sky to be corrected before the nomination (as old and famous regulars here should do in order to provide a good example for newbies Clin) --Jebulon 10:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose false focus point (foreground: railing!?). --Alchemist-hp 07:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alchemist-hp, the handrail is much sharper than the building. --Kreuzschnabel 08:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Alchemist-hp 07:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB «13 Millennium Dome.jpg[edit]

London MMB «13 Millennium Dome.jpg

  • Nomination The Millennium Dome. Mattbuck 07:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Right side blurry, sorry --Poco a poco 17:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    It might not be quite as sharp as the left, but it's not blurry IMO. Mattbuck 21:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cannot find really disturbing blur. Nice lighting, good composition, acceptable sharpness. -- Smial 22:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --Christian Ferrer 17:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The sky is still noisy. Can see it even with 50%. I've tried to fix it with my (I have to admit, newer) Photoshop CC 2014 and it was a bit better. You used CS5. But I am new here in the QI discussion and have to get a feeling, how much noise is acceptable, how much not. Don't want to kick it just because I am new here. Besides that I agree Smial. So I am not sure right now... -- DerFussi 19:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not that sharp, and disturbing noise (IMO). Posterization in the sky at right. However, a very good light and impressive composition.--Jebulon 10:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Kuala Lumpur Malaysia Catholic-Church-St-Anthony-03.jpg

  • Nomination Altar of Catholic Church St. Anthony, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia --Cccefalon 21:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The top of the altar is out of focus and the bright band on the right is disturbing. Why not crop both off? The paliotto is interesting though --Moroder 12:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    • Thanks you for reviewing. Please take a second look: It's not the top of the altar but the tabernacle which is not standing on the altar but 4 metres behind. Cropping right side is leaving the image unbalanced with half a candle and/or a too tight crop. Eventually send it to CR. --Cccefalon 17:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I feel it unbalanced. If you crop you could retouch the stand. --Moroder 17:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Let's hear opinions from others --Moroder 17:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMHO not --Steinsplitter 09:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


Catedral de la Resurección de Cristo, Podgorica, Montenegro, 2014-04-14, DD 06.JPG

  • Nomination Cathedral of the Resurrection of Chris, Podgorica, Montenegro --Poco a poco 10:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    Oh ! You, Poco, you ? Such a tilt ! :))!--Jebulon 17:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    True, what's wrong with me? :P ✓ fixed Poco a poco 18:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Bottom is not sharp. --Mattbuck 22:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version: Bottom cropped and/or denoised Poco a poco 10:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, no feedback, please, let's discuss this one --Poco a poco 08:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


Stars 01 (MK).jpg

  • Nomination starry sky near Brandenburg an der Havel (Germany), close to midnight. --Leviathan1983 14:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too much artefacts. Sorry, no QI. --Cccefalon 14:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    I don't see so much artefacts. I guess it's kind of usual to see some of the on a well exposed starry sky. --Anıl Öztaş 09:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC) Pictogram voting info.svg Info I´ve uploaded a new, completly reworked version with a much more natural look and better quality. --Leviathan1983 13:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think, that the problem is tackled sufficiently. I won't expect miracles from a starred sky photo with long time exposure. --Cccefalon 10:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info II Selimabner was so kind to link many stars and constellations as annotations in the image. This raises the ev a lot I think. Thanks to Selimabner!! --Leviathan1983 07:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


Río Ibar, Ribarice, Serbia, 2014-04-15, DD 01.JPG

  • Nomination Ibar river, Ribarice, Serbia --Poco a poco 10:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Left side shows shake. --Mattbuck 22:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    The "shaky" area was minimal, I cropped that out, should be OK IMHO, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 10:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


Baphuon, Angkor Thom, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 18.jpg

  • Nomination Baphuon, Angkor Thom‎, Cambodia --Poco a poco 17:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Corners show distortion. --Mattbuck 22:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Corrected + new crop, Poco a poco 10:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's OK after correction --Llez 11:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support The corners are fine now.--Generic1139 20:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Malaysia Traffic-signs Warning-sign-04a.jpg

  • Nomination Traffic signs in Malaysia: Warning sign "Falling rocks" --Cccefalon 04:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too much out of focus. --Mattbuck 22:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    Thats a ridiculous review for a pinsharp focussed photo of a traffic sign. And as the title and the categorization and the description tells: It is a photo of a traffic sign. The whole series of malaysian traffic sign deals with that DoF. --Cccefalon 04:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support since the sign is the main subject. However, I would prefer more bokeh on background, i.e. shallower DoF, for this kind of shot. (Und das Wort „Schutzrechtsberühmung“ kannte ich auch noch nicht.) --Kreuzschnabel 19:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Mattbuck and too tight at bottom (sign)--Lmbuga 01:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


Sepilok Sabah Bornean-Sun-Bear-Conservation-Centre-02.jpg

  • Nomination Sepilok, Sabah: Bornean Sun Bear Conservation Centre --Cccefalon 08:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed sky. --Mattbuck 22:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
What the hell? It's just a white cloud! There is blue sky left and right of the cloud and the histo dosn't show any #FFFFFF. Proof view of LR even shows different values within the white. --Cccefalon 03:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good enough for QI. Better than a lot of dark shadow images. --Alchemist-hp 06:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The white cloud is unfortunately placed, and while not blown out, does draw the eye. I assume the subject is the sign, the image could be cropped to remove much of the bright spot in the upper left while still leaving sufficient sharp greenery. The foreground objects are in soft focus, but, again, the subject is the sign....--Generic1139 20:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ok guys, I reworked the sky part and uploaded a new version. Ok for you? --Cccefalon 20:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Alchemist-hp 06:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)



  • Nomination Exposition halls in Pereslavl museum. --PereslavlFoto 21:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Leaning in. Mattbuck 21:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Made with digital level, aligned with the vertical lines of the building. --PereslavlFoto 06:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Still leaning in. --Kreuzschnabel 19:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
        • You may speak about the glass box at the right side. It is really leaning in, for the glass box is not straight and direct. Compare with this file to be sure that 40 years old showcases are curve ones. My aim was not to make an ideal direct sketch but to show a real room with real showcases. --PereslavlFoto 11:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Cayambe 13:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Sat 05 Jul → Sun 13 Jul
Sun 06 Jul → Mon 14 Jul
Mon 07 Jul → Tue 15 Jul
Tue 08 Jul → Wed 16 Jul
Wed 09 Jul → Thu 17 Jul
Thu 10 Jul → Fri 18 Jul
Fri 11 Jul → Sat 19 Jul
Sat 12 Jul → Sun 20 Jul
Sun 13 Jul → Mon 21 Jul