Commons:Quality images candidates

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

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska
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 June 2015 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]] 03:52, 2 June 2015 (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.

June 2, 2015[edit]

June 1, 2015[edit]

May 31, 2015[edit]

May 30, 2015[edit]

May 29, 2015[edit]

May 28, 2015[edit]

May 27, 2015[edit]

May 26, 2015[edit]

May 25, 2015[edit]

May 24, 2015[edit]

May 23, 2015[edit]

May 22, 2015[edit]

May 20, 2015[edit]

May 19, 2015[edit]

May 18, 2015[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:Abies_holophylla_lt.jpg[edit]

Abies holophylla lt.jpg

  • Nomination Manchurian fir (Abies holophylla). Photo taken in Vilnius university botanical garden, Vilnius, Lithuania. --Darius Bauzys 19:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfocused foregorund is disturbing. Poor composition IMO. Poor DOF: f/3.2--Lmbuga 19:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree. Symbol support vote.svg Support, good composition. --Ralf Roletschek 21:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Absolutely no! --Livioandronico2013 21:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 21:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Glaréole_à_collier_lac_de_Tunis@.jpg[edit]

Glaréole à collier lac de Tunis@.jpg

  • Nomination Glaréole à collier au lac de Tunis. By User:Elgollimoh --Touzrimounir 18:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See note: Chromatic aberrations. Poor DOF IMO. Underexposed IMO. Poor composition IMO--Lmbuga 19:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Disagree, repairable, DOF acceptable, the head is sharp. QI then for me. --Hubertl 22:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Definitely repairable. Repair and then nominate? Artemy Voikhansky 22:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 20:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 14:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC))

File:Dunas e lagoas dos Lençois Maranhenses (cropped).jpg[edit]

Dunas e lagoas dos Lençois Maranhenses (cropped).jpg {{/Discuss|Dunas e lagoas dos Lençois Maranhenses (by Heris Luiz Cordeiro Rocha). --ArionEstar 17:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)|

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but the water has not detail, blurry. Chromatic noise. Proposal not in English. --Lmbuga 19:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • to me its Symbol support vote.svg Support QI and prosposal can be in every language --Ralf Roletschek 21:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. I see no lacks. -- Spurzem 18:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit noisy but fine. --King of Hearts 23:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 06:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

}

File:Lucky_en_Panzerwiese,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2014-12-24,_DD_03.JPG[edit]

Lucky en Panzerwiese, Múnich, Alemania, 2014-12-24, DD 03.JPG

  • Nomination Lucky in the Panzerwiese, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 15:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lucky forever... --Hubertl 19:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
     :) Poco a poco 08:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find the shadow disturbing, and the light comes from the wrong direction. Sharpness is excellent, but I ask for a discution, please.--Jebulon 20:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's not glaringly bad; perhaps a valid concern at FPC, but fine for QI. --King of Hearts 04:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a little tighter framing would give a better rendering, but it's fine for QI.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not excellent but enough for QI. -- Spurzem 18:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 21:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Hafen,_Verkehrsschild_--_2015_--_5906.jpg[edit]

Münster, Hafen, Verkehrsschild -- 2015 -- 5906.jpg

  • Nomination Road sign in the port, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Barely QI: composition and light --Moroder 12:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but this is not QI. Chaos composition, overexposed upper left corner and underexposed rest of image --PetrVod 08:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    • ✓ Fixed Thanks. IMO it's better now, but is it good enough?--XRay 11:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course the upper left corner is too bright but composition, colors and sharpness make it QI for me. -- Spurzem 18:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 21:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Binnenhof,_The_Hague_1836.jpg[edit]

Binnenhof, The Hague 1836.jpg

  • Nomination Binnenhof, The Hague --Hubertl 05:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion There's a lot of colour noise in the image; I left two notes as example. --Cccefalon 08:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC) I hope it´s ✓ Done, I was able to reduce some parts, but I´m afraid, not eliminating it completely. If it´s not enough for your pro decision, I will withdraw it.--Hubertl 08:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
    Honestly, the colour noise on the top left side is beyond my acceptance level. Should we move it to CR, perhaps there are different opinions? --Cccefalon 15:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC) * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment nein, Uwe, es ist leider das einzige Bild von dieser Ansicht, aber auch mit einem Crop werden die anderen Probleme (abgeschnittene Turmspitzen) überdeutlich. Danke für dein Bemühen! --Hubertl 16:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC) * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ich habe nun doch einen Ausschnitt genommen, der diesen Teil des Ritterhauses zeigt. Danke trotzdem --Hubertl 16:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 22:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Autumn in Caucasian mountains1.jpg[edit]

Autumn in Caucasian mountains1.jpg

  • Nomination Autumn in Caucasian mountains. Caucasus Biosphere Reserve --Sergei Kazantsev 09:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough. Jpeg artifacts. --Halavar 10:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree - it´s oversharpend, try a reprocessing with less sharpening. Waiting for new version --Hubertl 11:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC).
  • New version uploaded.--Sergei Kazantsev 06:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Still over-sharpened. --El Grafo 17:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 15:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Langwies Ammenegg Rheintal Bodensee.jpg[edit]

Langwies Ammenegg Rheintal Bodensee.jpg

  • Nomination Panorama Lake Constance --Böhringer 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 15:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, there are IMO two small and one severe stitching problem. See notes. Unconditionally, it needs reprocessing. --Hubertl 15:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not done Schade! --Milseburg 18:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 18:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Orchis Ustulata.jpg[edit]

Orchis Ustulata.jpg

  • Nomination Neotinea ustulata --PetrVod 08:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    *Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. But, I think f/8 or f/11 and ISO200 or ISO400 would give a better DOF and retained quality. Also, it is often helpful to depict the basal leaves, but they are frequently obstructed and the result may not be as pleasing as in this image. --Wsiegmund 16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    *Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good composition but for QI must be a bit more quality IMO. Not sharp, noisy, overexposed and I think to shallow DOF. --Hockei 17:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    **Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good points, but I see no evidence of overexposure in the histogram and stretching the image reveals ample detail is retained on the white petals. Wsiegmund 19:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the inflorescences are out of focus --Llez 10:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 05:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Friedhofsmauer (Eppishausen) 02.JPG[edit]

Friedhofsmauer (Eppishausen) 02.JPG

  • Nomination Figure of Saint Michael in the cemetery wall and tower, Eppishausen, Landkreis Unterallgäu, Bavaria --Mogadir 06:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK, IMHO, given the angle of the camera. Maybe a bit more space needed to the right. --C messier 08:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • {o} Sorry, composition issue. Distortion could be acceptable, but it needs to be centered. By the way, what about the identification of the CoA ?--Jebulon 19:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I centered the picture now. --Mogadir 04:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. Better.--Jebulon 20:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. Good sharpness, good colors, appealing photographed. -- Spurzem 18:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 20:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Bolshoy_Zelenchuk_river.jpg[edit]

Bolshoy Zelenchuk river.jpg

  • Nomination Bolshoy Zelenchuk at fall --Nino Verde 16:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The water at the bottom left looks like a pastel painting. Can you fix it? --C messier 17:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is motion blurred and sharpened. I can try, but it will become less artistic from my point of view --Nino Verde 17:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentIs it better now?--Nino Verde 17:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK. --C messier 18:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Because in the current version has been raised the tone mapping and looks a bit like the dramatic tone filter from Olympus. --C messier 08:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed IMO. Looks unnatural, please discuss.--Jebulon 19:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What exact is unnatural from your point of view? --Nino Verde 05:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sky looks darker than the water reflecting it. -- Smial 12:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good image --Christian Ferrer 11:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed. -- Smial 12:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A very good composition. The quality is much better than the first version for me. --Hockei 19:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit unnatural but very beautiful. -- Spurzem 18:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 21:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Solenoe_aerial.jpg[edit]

Solenoe aerial.jpg

  • Nomination Вид с горы Куцай на Соленое озеро, Петровский район --Nino Verde 15:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 16:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Horizon distorded. Dustspot in the top left part of the sky. To be corrected before promotion, please.--Jebulon 19:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ok, about dust point. Missed it. Do not understand what is wronmg with horizon, it should not be plain in case there are hills. --Nino Verde 05:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment distorion, if there is, is acceptable as there is no buildings here, however it seems tilted on left --Christian Ferrer 11:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You can check trees, they are mostly vertical. I think, that tilt efect come from ground which is not flat. --Nino Verde 14:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perhaps somewhat oversaturated, but all in all acceptable. -- Smial 12:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me it is quite good. --Hockei 19:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 05:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Недалеко_до_пика_г._Нинчурт,_вид_на_Сейдозеро,_Рукотворный_сейд.JPG[edit]

Недалеко до пика г. Нинчурт, вид на Сейдозеро, Рукотворный сейд.JPG

  • Nomination Seid near the lake Seydozero. By User:Elleelize --Insider 09:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSorry but unsharp,the focus is only on the rocks in the left. --Livioandronico2013 14:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportOf course, it's part of the composition. --Kadellar 15:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeForeground unsharpness (see bottom right) is a deal-breaker for me. --King of Hearts 17:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support. Please don't search for detail sharpness in such compositions, where playing with DoF is part of it. -- Smial 11:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Hä? -- Smial 07:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as King of Hearts. --Hubertl 06:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good composition. --Brateevsky 07:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Brateevsky 07:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Francois_Hollande_Carcassonne-1089.jpg[edit]

Francois Hollande Carcassonne-1089.jpg

  • Nomination The President of the French Republic François Hollande, May 19, 2015 in Carcassonne. Aude - Languedoc Roussillon --Pablo029 14:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentVignetting very sharp in the right corner.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI imo. Vignetting not only caused by lens, also caused by uneven stage light. --Kadellar 14:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough IMO. A discussion is needed, please.--Jebulon 19:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy background. If you clean noise - i'll support it. --Nino Verde 09:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm curious about colours. The face, but also the glasses, the eyes and the hair have a reddish tint, but the clothes and all other areas in that image do have not. Overprocessed, appears like hand-coloured. -- Smial 11:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perfectly sharp if scaled down to a reasonable resolution for viewing. --King of Hearts 01:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support From my point of wiev QI. Sharpness is sufficient and noise is low. --PetrVod 08:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The right side (of the picture) is very disturbing. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question IMO, the centered composition is a bit boring. Try a serious crop at right, you will see it looks better balanced with the flags at left. I should support if done.--Jebulon 19:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 05:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Fields Messara plain from Phaistos Crete Greece.jpg[edit]

Fields Messara plain from Phaistos Crete Greece.jpg

  • Nomination Fields in the Messara plain, as seen from Phaistos, Crete, Greece.--Jebulon 16:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a QI to me, it lacks detail --Poco a poco 18:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I strongly disagree, it don't lack details. I normaly don't discuss negative votes, but in this case I need other opinions.--Jebulon 20:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support no lack of details and sharp enough --Christian Ferrer 05:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Plants are inherently unsharp. This is far beyond the minimum requirement I have for plants. --King of Hearts 09:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as poco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubertl (talk • contribs) 10:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC) (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK IMHO, sharpness is acceptable. --C messier 16:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For poco --Σπάρτακος 10:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Details lost. May be too agressive noise removal. --Nino Verde 16:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness good enough in 100% view. Lacks a bit contrast. -- Smial 11:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for QI --Milseburg 12:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry,sharpness no good enough in 100% view --Livioandronico2013 18:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Do you think it could be better with a slight downsampling ?--Jebulon 19:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why do you try to ridicule me...--Jebulon 20:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I do not understand these your delusions of persecution .... I just answer...--Livioandronico2013 22:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 12:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Mon 25 May → Tue 02 Jun
Tue 26 May → Wed 03 Jun
Wed 27 May → Thu 04 Jun
Thu 28 May → Fri 05 Jun
Fri 29 May → Sat 06 Jun
Sat 30 May → Sun 07 Jun
Sun 31 May → Mon 08 Jun
Mon 01 Jun → Tue 09 Jun
Tue 02 Jun → Wed 10 Jun