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 July 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]] 15:30, 5 July 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.

July 05, 2015[edit]

July 04, 2015[edit]

July 03, 2015[edit]

July 02, 2015[edit]

July 01, 2015[edit]

June 30, 2015[edit]

June 29, 2015[edit]

June 28, 2015[edit]

June 27, 2015[edit]

June 26, 2015[edit]

June 24, 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:Palacio_de_Nymphenburg,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2015-07-03,_DD_01-18_HDR_PAN.JPG[edit]

Palacio de Nymphenburg, Múnich, Alemania, 2015-07-03, DD 01-18 HDR PAN.JPG

  • Nomination Nymphenburg Palace, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 10:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support GQ --Palauenc05 11:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg I like this mood :) --Laitche 11:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    FP-worthy? Poco a poco 14:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)* Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don´t think that may be FP, there are too many blurred objects, due to the long exposure time. I´m even not sure, if this is even QI. We should discuss it. BTW: as Laitche, the mood is exceptional! --Hubertl 20:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't know how this picture can be moved to CR due to "motion blur". It has 117 megapixels, and the issue brought up is maybe covering and area of 0,5% of it, this is to me negligible, since those animals are not the main subject of the picture. To solve your concern I should have taken 10 long exposure photographs of each frame to get rid of everything moving, but the light would be changing, not a real option. I am really curious about what others say here. Poco a poco 08:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Answer: I am fully aware of the complexity making panoramas like this. Maybe it was 20 minutes too late to have enough light (without loosing the colors), if there is a "static" motion blur with wind in the trees, it would be ok IMO. Please don´t take it personal, the image is in the same deciding position as it was befor Palaunc give his pro. And there are a lot of other collegues who can decide. This picture (and the making) is worth, to talk about. --Hubertl 11:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 05:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

File:USO-ASR_-_20141108_-_Olivier_Missoup.jpg[edit]

USO-ASR - 20141108 - Olivier Missoup.jpg

  • Nomination USO-ASR - 20141108 - Olivier Missoup --Pleclown 10:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Any chance of reducing the noise a little?Crisco 1492 14:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Not done --Hubertl 08:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry I'm late, tried a new version --Pleclown 10:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me ok now. What about you, Crisco 1492? --Hubertl 15:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 05:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Берег_Весны.jpg[edit]

Берег Весны.jpg

  • Nomination Sayan Mountains, Yenisei river. By User:Александр Лещёнок. --ViseMoD 20:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Xicotencatl 21:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree: Artefacts in the sky. --Cccefalon 03:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Cccefalon, and not only in the sky. --Kadellar 09:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What do you expect from in-camera jpeg? --ViseMoD 07:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I expect people to shoot RAW if possible, and it's the case here. We are looking for Quality images, we don't mind the brand or the model, but obviously some cameras just can't give you enough quality (and the EM1 of course can, just shoot RAW). Btw, please write the name of the author in the nominations. --Kadellar 14:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 07:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Cynthia Barcomi Wikipedia.jpg[edit]

Cynthia Barcomi Wikipedia.jpg

  • Nomination Cynthia Barcomi --Denis Apel 13:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the image is too bright. -- Spurzem 14:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing burnt, easily fixable. Maybe acceptable as it is. Please discuss. --C messier 12:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hand crop in this kind of portrait not acceptable. --Cccefalon 04:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I withdraw my support, Cccefalon, is right about the bad crop. --C messier 14:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry too bad framing.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 12:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Tournoi_de_rugby_à_7_-_20141012_-_Genève_-_20.jpg[edit]

Tournoi de rugby à 7 - 20141012 - Genève - 20.jpg

  • Nomination Tournoi de rugby à 7 - 20141012 - Genève --Pleclown 10:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO too much empty space at the right.--XRay 16:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Not done

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Hubertl 08:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree, IMHO composition is acceptable as it is. --C messier 10:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose  Not done --Livioandronico2013 16:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support "Too much empty space at the right"? Do you want them get crashed on the edge? Let the poor people breath. (no problem in cropping a bit from bottom though. Jkadavoor 05:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • But the trahscan at the right could be cropped out ... --XRay 12:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. It can be cropped or cloned out. :) Jkadavoor 12:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Jkadavoor 05:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Σύνοδος Αφροδίτης Δία 2015 9594.jpg[edit]

Σύνοδος Αφροδίτης Δία 2015 9594.jpg

  • Nomination Venus-Jupiter conjunction, 30.7 June 2015. --C messier 10:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry,noisy and shake --Livioandronico2013 17:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment what you mean with shake is just the normal move of stars during a long time exposure (2.5sec). --Hubertl 18:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Jupiter and the satellites are double!?!
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Σπάρτακος 19:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Douple? I can see one Venus, one Jupiter (although, a bit elogated due to the relative movement of the sky - remember Galileo) and three satellites. Also, I can do some more denoising, around the planets. --C messier 10:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I used tripod and 6 s delay to avoid any shake. --C messier 10:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
      • If the subject are the planets you have to use a motor drive, it's like a motorcycle you have to follow --Livioandronico2013 11:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
      • But here there is no motion blur. Only a light pathway. --C messier 12:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
        • But discuss it as well? this thing for you is quality? two planets blurred and moved? are you kidding me ???--Livioandronico2013 13:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 12:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 12:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Core_Banks_-_fence_-_02.JPG[edit]

Core Banks - fence - 02.JPG

  • Nomination Sand dune stabilization fence near Long Point Cabins at North Core Banks, North Carolina. By User:Jarekt --Jarekt 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks like a random composition. I understand the idea, but I think the achievement is not good enough (Unfortunate crops). The rest (light, sharpness etc... is good. I oppose, but I wish other opinions, I think a discussion could be interesting.--Jebulon 15:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Symbol support vote.svg Support The quality is ok and this is the key criteria. I regard the fence and its wave shaped shadow on a grey sandy background as the main elements of the composition, which I would not qualify as random.--CHK46 16:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it´s worth to discuss it. --Hubertl 17:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it succeeded to explain the topic sand dune stabilization so not a fully random composition. Crop: It looks unfortunate on top; but there will be a cut as the fence is long. Jkadavoor 05:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Jkadavoor 05:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

File:ESC2013_-_Denmark_03.jpg[edit]

ESC2013 - Denmark 03.jpg

  • Nomination Danish singer Emmelie de Forest performs the song "Only Teardrops" in the first dress rehearsal of the first semi final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2013. --abbedabb 19:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It has a watermark --Ezarate 23:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Watermark? Where? However, it's not very sharp. --C messier 11:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 08:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

File:10818 Λιθουανία 4Χ400 γυναικών.JPG[edit]

10818 Λιθουανία 4Χ400 γυναικών.JPG

  • Nomination The Lithuanian team at 4x400 women's relay at 2015 European Team Championships First League. --C messier 16:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposesorry,too much noisy --Livioandronico2013 17:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the noise is acceptable here. At least, it needs a discussion, please.--Jebulon 21:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Jebulon Je comprends que cela est votre ami, mais sommes sérieux ...--Livioandronico2013 18:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I don't understand when you try to write in "french", please explain your meaning in another language.--Jebulon 20:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much noise, lack of details --Σπάρτακος 19:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. A bit noisy but a good photo, nice, sharp enough, good colors -- Spurzem 13:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Imo it's not noise, it's quite big compression artifacts. --Kadellar 09:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Spurzem --Palauenc05 14:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Palauenc05 14:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Lestes elatus female in Kadavoor.jpg[edit]

Lestes elatus female in Kadavoor.jpg

  • Nomination Lestes elatus, female --Jkadavoor 02:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent --Moroder 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but it is not sharp enough and too noisy. For me not QI. --Hockei 14:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Hockei --Σπάρτακος 19:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Moroder --Palauenc05 14:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Palauenc05 14:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Двухэтажка.jpg[edit]

Двухэтажка.jpg

  • Nomination Canyon of the Tsitse river in Caucasian Biosphere Reserve, Russia. By User:Synaps-s --Ilya 11:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 11:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I could agree, but for an easy to take landscape photo, this is much too small resolution imo. --Cccefalon 15:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    @Cccefalon: higher resolution uploaded --Antanana 21:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    It is significantly overprocessed. Please have a look at the mountain ridges, for example. --Cccefalon 09:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, IMHO.--Sergei Kazantsev 08:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp and oversharpened, sadly the higher resolution isn't any better than the previous version --A.Savin 12:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    @A.Savin:You are right, the previous version was better.--KSK (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hans Haase 11:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with A. Savin in full resolution the current version shows lots of artifacts. --C messier 14:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice mood, but image is overprocessed. --Iifar 17:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 17:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Statue_of_Lion_in_Norcia.jpg[edit]

Statue of Lion in Norcia.jpg

  • Nomination Statue of Lion in Norcia --Livioandronico2013 08:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good quality. , but please clear the clipped parts with the jpg artefacts on the forehead --Hubertl 10:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment jpg artefacts Hubertl ? do you mean the holes? --Livioandronico2013 17:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No, not the holes, see notes, please! White, high quality marble, especially when polished together with full sunlight is always difficult --Hubertl 19:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand...I don't see nothing...boh. Thanks. --Livioandronico2013 19:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)::: I set it to discuss. It´s a good picture, it needs more opinions.--Hubertl 20:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me --Σπάρτακος 19:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I see what Hubertl means, but it is acceptable for me.--Jebulon 22:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --C messier 06:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Rathinda amor 07772.JPG[edit]

Rathinda amor 07772.JPG

  • Nomination Rathinda amor closeup --Vengolis 12:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No categories. Unfortunate species crop. --Cccefalon 09:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Categories fixed now. I disagree with "unfortunate crop" argument. This is purely intentional to show head details. Otherwise we end up with full body portraits only where we can capture littile details of the head. And what about head shots and tight face crops of homosapians? --Jkadavoor 02:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To say it with Sergio Leone: We need more face details. But in cinemascope. I have nothing against a detail shot. But the cropped butterfly occupies only a small part of the upper left of the image. That's the whole truth about "unfortunate crop". --Cccefalon 20:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    I agree; here the subject is only a small part of the image. We need some intentionally tighten frames too; that's my only argument. Jkadavoor 01:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    Your example deserves the QI seal of course. --Cccefalon 09:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Cccefalon--Σπάρτακος 19:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Hubertl 05:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Pagoda_Xa_Loi,_Ciudad_Ho_Chi_Minh,_Vietnam,_2013-08-14,_DD_03.JPG[edit]

Pagoda Xa Loi, Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 03.JPG

  • Nomination Xa Loi Pagoda, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam --Poco a poco 19:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, converging vertical lines. --F. Riedelio 10:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If perspective fully corrected, the building would look really distorted, and I doupt if the walls are vertical for real. But feels a bit tilted to the right. Sky could be better. --C messier 15:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Per C messier, if I do that, the image will be just so unrealistic that it wouldn't be acceptable Poco a poco 19:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I have to agree, the sky is a bit overexposed and it looks like the building is falling backwards. --Iifar 15:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Hubertl 05:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

File: Laacher See, Ostufer (2008-12-28).jpg[edit]

Laacher See, Ostufer (2008-12-28).jpg

  • Nomination Laach Lake. It is a volcanic caldera lake in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, about 24 km (15 mi) northwest of Koblenz and 37 km (23 mi) south of Bonn -- Spurzem 18:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice and moodful image. But according to QI criteria I have to deny it: Burnt hightlights and a lot of pure black. Probably a fill flash had compensate the high contrast situation. English description is missing on the file description page. --Tuxyso 18:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK. So unterschiedlich sind die Auffassungen von guten und grottenschlechten Bildern. Außerdem: Seit wann ist eine englische Beschreibung beim Bild vorgeschrieben? -- Spurzem 19:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sie ist nicht vorgeschrieben, nur wenn du dir schon die Mühe machst und das Bild hier auf Englisch beschreibst, ist es im Sinne von Commons als Medienarchiv nur sinnvoll die Beschreibung auch auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite zu integrieren. Ich habe ja geschrieben, dass ich das Bild sehr schön und stimmungsvoll finde, den QI-Kriterien genügt es aber dennoch nicht. Setze einfach auf Discuss, um weitere Meinungen einzuholen. --Tuxyso 18:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me it´s QI. --Hubertl 02:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Hubertl --Palauenc05 11:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Palauenc05 11:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Shiva_temple_at_Puthia_01.JPG[edit]

Shiva temple at Puthia 01.JPG

  • Nomination The Bhubaneshwar Shiva Temple of Puthia is the largest Shiva temple in Bangladesh. It was built in 1823 by Rani Bhubonmoyee Devi. --Tanweer Morshed 18:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 05:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree: Artefacts in the sky. --Cccefalon 19:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, good quality picture! --Hans Haase 15:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With an additional review, it´s not QI. Its too unsharp, blurry and too, artefacts in the sky --Hubertl 10:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Out of date clock icon 2.svg Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   -

File:Bara_Ahnik_Mandir_at_Puthia.JPG[edit]

Bara Ahnik Mandir at Puthia.JPG

  • Nomination Bara Ahnik Mandir at Puthia, constructed by the Char Ani Rajas of Puthia estate. --Tanweer Morshed 18:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 06:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree: Magenta CA in the trees and loss of fine details. Never a QI! --Cccefalon 19:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hans Haase 11:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong chromatic aberration on the right side and lack of fine detail. --Iifar 17:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 17:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Michael_Schumacher_2010_Malaysia_2nd_Free_Practice.jpg[edit]

Michael Schumacher 2010 Malaysia 2nd Free Practice.jpg

  • Nomination Michael_Schumacher_2010_Malaysia_2nd_Free_Practice By User:Morio --Σπάρτακος 15:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop. And: Is it a downhill race? (no need to present it with an angle) --Cccefalon 17:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 17:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hi Michael... Agree with Spurzem,also is a tight crop is excellent (for F1....this car go on 300 km/h!) and the first curve in Sepang is down --Livioandronico2013 19:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The tight crop is done here on purpose (afterwards and not due to fast driving cars). IMHO a wider crop would be much better here. --Tuxyso 20:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Tuxyso. It needs lead space/room. --C messier 11:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 05:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Nico_Rosberg_2010_Malaysia_2nd_Free_Practice.jpg[edit]

Nico Rosberg 2010 Malaysia 2nd Free Practice.jpg

  • Nomination Nico_Rosberg_2010_Malaysia_2nd_Free_Practice. By User:Morio --Σπάρτακος 15:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop. And: Is it a downhill race? (no need to present it with an angle) --Cccefalon 17:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 17:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with Spurzem,also is a tight crop is excellent (for F1....this car go on 300 km/h!) and the first curve in Sepang is down --Livioandronico2013 19:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's too tight IMHO, it needs lead room. If the uploader has kept the original it can be easily fixed. --C messier 11:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. --Iifar 15:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Spurzem. --Palauenc05 14:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Palauenc05 14:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Mark_Webber_2010_Malaysia_1st_Free_Practice.jpg[edit]

Mark Webber 2010 Malaysia 1st Free Practice.jpg

  • Nomination Mark_Webber_2010_Malaysia_1st_Free_Practice. By User:Morio --Σπάρτακος 15:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop. And: Is it a downhill race? (no need to present it with an angle) --Cccefalon 17:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 17:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with Spurzem,also is a tight crop is excellent (for F1....this car go on 300 km/h!) and the first curve in Sepang is down --Livioandronico2013 19:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop, the spoiler is barely within frame. Easily fixable if the uploader has kept the original. --C messier 11:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. --Iifar 15:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Spurzem --Palauenc05 14:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Palauenc05 14:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Fernando_Alonso_2010_Malaysia_2nd_Free_Practice.jpg[edit]

Fernando Alonso 2010 Malaysia 2nd Free Practice.jpg

  • Nomination Fernando_Alonso_2010_Malaysia_2nd_Free_Practice. By User:Morio --Σπάρτακος 15:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop. And: Is it a downhill race? (no need to present it with an angle) --Cccefalon 17:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 17:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with Spurzem,also is a tight crop is excellent (for F1....this car go on 300 km/h!) and the first curve in Sepang is down --Livioandronico2013 19:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 05:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Rubens_Barrichello_2010_Malaysia_1st_Free_Practice.jpg[edit]

Rubens Barrichello 2010 Malaysia 1st Free Practice.jpg

  • Nomination Rubens_Barrichello_2010_Malaysia_1st_Free_Practice. By User:Morio --Σπάρτακος 15:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop. And: Is it a downhill race? --Cccefalon 17:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Tatsächlich dürfte der Zuschnitt ein bisschen weiter gefasst sein. Ansonsten ist es ein ausgezeichneter Mitzieher, und dass das Fahrzeug leicht schräg im Bild ist – vielleicht die Anfahrt einer Kurve? – verstärkt die Dynamik. Für mich Symbol support vote.svg Support. Bitte diskutieren. -- Spurzem 17:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with Spurzem,also is a tight crop is excellent (for F1....this car go on 300 km/h!) and the first curve in Sepang is down --Livioandronico2013 19:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 05:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Harbin Music park 2013.jpg[edit]

Harbin Music park 2013.jpg

  • Nomination Main building in Harbin music theme park. by Andrei1230 --Lzy881114 01:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 01:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would agree, if the perspective is corrected. From this distance and considering the height of the building, I can expect rectilinear verticals. --Cccefalon 06:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. --Iifar 15:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Hubertl 05:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Sat 27 Jun → Sun 05 Jul
Sun 28 Jun → Mon 06 Jul
Mon 29 Jun → Tue 07 Jul
Tue 30 Jun → Wed 08 Jul
Wed 01 Jul → Thu 09 Jul
Thu 02 Jul → Fri 10 Jul
Fri 03 Jul → Sat 11 Jul
Sat 04 Jul → Sun 12 Jul
Sun 05 Jul → Mon 13 Jul