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 August 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]] 14:43, 29 August 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.

August 29, 2015[edit]

August 28, 2015[edit]

August 27, 2015[edit]

August 26, 2015[edit]

August 25, 2015[edit]

August 24, 2015[edit]

August 23, 2015[edit]

August 22, 2015[edit]

August 21, 2015[edit]

August 20, 2015[edit]

August 19, 2015[edit]

August 18, 2015[edit]

August 17, 2015[edit]

August 14, 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:Сурнайист (Гиссар, Таджикистан).JPG[edit]

Сурнайист (Гиссар, Таджикистан).JPG

  • Nomination Musical Instruments in Tajikistan (Hissar, Tajikistan) --Шухрат Саъдиев 10:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Could work, but some flaws... (composition, crop below...). Try and try again, good luck !--Jebulon 14:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Two dust spots in the sky, tight crop to the left, tilt/perspective IMHO should be corrected (see the building in the background). --C messier 12:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Aerial_photo_of_Mercer_Island,_Washington.jpg[edit]

Aerial photo of Mercer Island, Washington.jpg

  • Nomination Aerial photo of Mercer Island as seen from a commercial flight from Seattle to Detroit. --Dllu 11:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Color cast, haze and low contrast (fixable), blown out roofs, CA --Ralf Roletschek 10:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I have applied some dehazing. Note that the original JPEG out of camera is looks like this. I've already tried hard to improve the contrast from the RAW file. I don't see any significant chromatic aberration, although there are some demosaicing artifacts in the docks to the left (both the AHD and VNG demosaicers in ufraw-gimp struggle with the lack of antialiasing filter in the Sony ILCE-7R's sensor). Dllu 17:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Symbol support vote.svg Support Way better and works for QI now imho, though RR is right: there is fixable CA (edges of white buildings in the centre of the settlement and coast in the upper right quarter. Denis Barthel 07:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Natural_scene.jpg[edit]

Natural scene.jpg

  • Nomination Sun set with darky background natural scene from Rajbiraj-5, Saptari, Nepal --Tulsi Bhagat 06:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Horizon is tilted, lots of noise and JPEG artefacts --Florian Fuchs 05:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't get JPEG artefacts-- Tulsi Bhagat 17:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice photo--Jay chaurasia 10:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted and noise reduction has created artifacts in the sky and lack of crisp detail for a photo less than 3 Mpix large. Lens flare in the middle. Title and description in file page too vague. (and considering that foregound underexposure is a desired effect) --C messier 10:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --C messier 10:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Chèvres_sauvages_-_57.jpg[edit]

Chèvres sauvages - 57.jpg

  • Nomination Wild goat in Ardèche --Medium69 18:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion I'd like to discuss this photo, for me the only in focus is the head of the animal due to DOF too shallow but I'm in doubt if the quality in general is good Ezarate 23:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Rhinocypha bisignata male-Kadavoor-2015-08-20-001.jpg[edit]

Rhinocypha bisignata male-Kadavoor-2015-08-20-001.jpg

  • Nomination Rhinocypha bisignata, male --Jkadavoor 10:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, absolutely too dark. --Hubertl 11:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Are you reviewing the background or the subject? Do you know this is a black damselfly with highly fluorescent wing marks? Every bits of his wings and eye details are captured here. This may be the most funny review I ever get. (This is a hip bath shot inside a forest stream and the background is dark soil. Here it is stone and I'm not lowered that much; so an inclined view.) Jkadavoor 11:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please, be patient and calm down (and don´t argue personal), maybe I´m absolutely wrong, maybe not. I looked at the picture with a calibrated monitor, it´s daylight. Maybe this is different to your monitor equipment. There is another problem too, the head is completely out of focus. I send it to CR, ok?. Nothing happens yet... --Hubertl 11:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for my quick response. I'm more of a subject enthusiast than a photographer. So how I see my subjects may very different to others. And what important to me may not a concern for others. That's why add more info. Here this is an endemic species with many interesting features. It is black with highly reflective wing marks. The wings have wrinkles; it is not plane and flat like most others. It's habitat is inside the water stream; not on sides. Regarding DOF: Shallow DOF and OOF are different. It's quite natural that DOF will decrease when we approach close. I uploaded two more images in reverse order how I photographed it. here reasonable DOF; even legs are in focus. But it is only a 1:8 or less magnification macro. Here more closer; so less DOF. The current nom is an uncropped straight out of camera frame. High magnification showing details not visible to eyes. So it is a macro. (I think I explained a lot. Now I don't care whether it is declined or not.) Jkadavoor 12:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not know if what I write is fun, and if you do not care then withdrew the photo! However I think it is a special case and you can accept--Livioandronico2013 12:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon 14:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe 16:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I fully understand, that this picture is a rare subject in a special situation. But that is not, what QI is about (if it would, many other declined pictures should be accepted). Regrettably there is no award for the "Special subject picture", else you would deserve it. Denis Barthel 06:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • There is nothing special here. I've only a laptop. But I rechecked my settings with en:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Header#Is my monitor adjusted correctly?. I can see three circles in "shadow detail" section and almost three in "highlight detail" section. I can see all parts of this damselfly. In fact, details in black parts are more clear than in my old natural light shot. Only difference here is dark background which can't be brightened. Let me know if I miss something. Jkadavoor 07:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "[On laptops,] correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position." This might me my issue. :( Jkadavoor 08:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a brightened version; removed two reflecting dust particles collected on his furs too. The four marks on his wings are a bit overexposed for me now. Better? Need opinions, please. Jkadavoor 10:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Way better now, go for it. Thank you. Denis Barthel 16:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good --Christian Ferrer 11:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Your words, Jkadavoor: This may be the most funny review I ever get. No, this not at all a funny review, especially not my comment. It's not fun to deal with such answers during a nomination process. As Denis said already and I demanded, it's far better now. --Hubertl 03:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hubertl, I don't want to comment/apologize again on a matter I already done ("Sorry for my quick response"). But it seems there is difference in our monitor calibrations (from your comment on a Neopithecops zalmora here). My monitor is much tolerant to shadow details though magnifies highlights. :) Jkadavoor 05:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jean11 15:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Gesù_e_Maria_(Rome)_-_Interior.jpg[edit]

Gesù e Maria (Rome) - Interior.jpg

  • Nomination Gesù e Maria (Rome) - Interior --Livioandronico2013 07:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong and oversaturated colours. Look here, here and here. --Code 07:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    Others please --Livioandronico2013 07:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal_Vohwinkel_-_Bahnhof_03_ies.jpg[edit]

Wuppertal Vohwinkel - Bahnhof 03 ies.jpg

  • Nomination Bahnhof in Wuppertal-Vohwinkel. By User:Ies --Atamari 17:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 17:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree, this foto needs a perspective correction. --Hubertl 18:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --Atamari 08:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC) check signature, Atamari... --Hubertl 21:19, 26 August

2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok for me now! --Hubertl 10:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

File:San_Giacomo_in_Augusta_(Rome)_-_Interior.jpg[edit]

San Giacomo in Augusta (Rome) - Interior.jpg

  • Nomination San Giacomo in Augusta (Rome) - Interior --Livioandronico2013 07:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The colours are completely unnatural, look here, here and here. --Code 09:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Others please --Livioandronico2013 10:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Livio, can you tell us how you process your HDRs? I have to agree that it looks very unrealistic right now (much too red), but I think that it can be corrected. Do you use the HDR of Photoshop (PS has problems with reds)? Can you try to redo the tonemapping? --DXR 13:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @DXR: Er beantwortet zwar unsere Fragen nicht, hat jetzt aber eine neue Version hochgeladen, bei der die Farben normal aussehen. Komisches Verhalten. --Code 12:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 10:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Leipzig völkerschlachtdenkmal.jpg[edit]

Leipzig völkerschlachtdenkmal.jpg

  • Nomination Völkerschlachtdenkmal, Leipzig, Germany. --Palauenc05 14:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not really sharp, strong banding in the sky. A pity - the composition is quite good. --Code 09:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint. I've sharpened the monument an "repaired" the sky. --Palauenc05 21:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support from me. --Tsungam 06:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hockei (talk ) 19:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 09:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Altun_Ha_Belize_6.jpg[edit]

Altun Ha Belize 6.jpg

  • Nomination Front of Structure B4 (Temple of the Sun God/Temple of the masonry altars) at Altun Ha archeological site, Belize --Denis Barthel 00:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Vengolis 03:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO too much green in the front.--XRay 16:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC) XRay, I'd appreciate your advice how one could photograph this without this amount of green in the front as we have a pretty wide, but not as high object here, which doesn't fit in a 2:3-picture in another way. Thank you, Denis Barthel 21:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
* IMO 2:3 is not necessary. My suggestion: one third green, two thirds building. --XRay 17:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done - cropped per User:XRay, though I still think it's strange ... :) Denis Barthel 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO OK now.--XRay 15:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI to me, even if I think XRay is right --DKrieger 20:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --XRay 15:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Dian HP, 2015-08-22.jpg[edit]

Dian HP, 2015-08-22.jpg

  • Nomination Indonesian composer Dian HP. Crisco 1492 17:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not sharp enough to 1,687 × 2,359 pixels IMO, yellowish IMO (Normal with ISO 800, F2.8, but QI?)--Lmbuga 19:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The wall behind her is a very pale blue, which has thrown the white balance off. I have reworked with less denoising so that more detail comes through, but this forum generally has issues with noise. Though she posed, this was not a studio shot; I caught her after the launch of a poetry collection and there was only standard interior lighting. Crisco 1492 23:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "Discuss" (others can think). Not QI for me, sorry.--Lmbuga 09:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 05:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Meerdere ballonnen gelijktijdig in de lucht tijdens de Jaarlijkse Friese ballonfeesten in Joure 14.jpg[edit]

Meerdere ballonnen gelijktijdig in de lucht tijdens de Jaarlijkse Friese ballonfeesten in Joure 14.jpg

  • Nomination Several balloons simultaneously in the air during the Hot Air Balloon Festival in Joure province of Friesland in the Netherlands.
    Famberhorst 04:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To much background. Denis Barthel 16:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree, the background is inherent part of this composition. --Hubertl 07:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος 13:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay 18:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --XRay 18:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Duvenstedter_brook_dovenham_1.jpg[edit]

Duvenstedter brook dovenham 1.jpg

  • Nomination Birch wood in the nature reserve Duvenstedter Brook near Hamburg --Dirtsc 15:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Full of artefacts. --Hockei 17:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please specify, where you see artefacts. I see grass and intended unsharpness in the background. --Dirtsc 07:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Noise artefacts. Please take a closer look. And as far I can see posterization. --Hockei 13:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 07:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Duvenstedter_brook_dovenham_2.jpg[edit]

Duvenstedter brook dovenham 2.jpg

  • Nomination Birch wood in the nature reserve Duvenstedter Brook near Hamburg --Dirtsc 15:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Full of artefacts. --Hockei 17:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please specify, where you see artifacts. I see grass and intended unsharpness in the background. --Dirtsc 07:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Noise artefacts. Please take a closer look. And as far I can see posterization. --Hockei 13:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 07:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

File:सयपत्री_फूल_(२).jpg[edit]

सयपत्री फूल (२).jpg

  • Nomination Tagetes clicked at my own kitchen garden, Rajbiraj, Saptari, Nepal --Tulsi Bhagat 06:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose incorrect white balance --Ralf Roletschek 06:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment correction made --Tulsi Bhagat 08:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment i have upload a new version. --Ralf Roletschek 19:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing sharp. Old problem with smartphone lens. --Cccefalon 09:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support It's ok! --Jay chaurasia 10:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support better view --Soni Chaurasia (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose--ArildV 11:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Posterization, lack of sharpness, halos, overexposure and oversaturation, definitely no QI. Tulsi Bhagat I hope that the pros above are not a consequence of canvassing Poco a poco 14:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 07:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

File:White_Baijayanti_Flower.jpg[edit]

White Baijayanti Flower.jpg

  • Nomination Petunia axillaris at my own home, Rajbiraj, Saptari, Nepal --Tulsi Bhagat 06:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 07:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Jpeg artefacts. Just smartphone quality but not good enough for QIC. --Cccefalon 09:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DoF too shallow, noise, sharpening artifacts --XRay 18:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Smartphone image but it looks ok. --Soni Chaurasia (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks to be quality even captured from smartphone. --Jay chaurasia 10:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The new version is a improvement but artifacts, low level of details. --ArildV 11:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of sharpness in spite of the fact that it is oversharpened Poco a poco 14:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Poco a poco 14:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Duvenstedter_brook_moorsaal_1.jpg[edit]

Duvenstedter brook moorsaal 1.jpg

  • Nomination Birch trees and bog in the nature reserve Duvenstedter Brook near Hamburg --Dirtsc 15:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Pudelek 16:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad quality. --Hockei 17:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 17:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Lsg_westerhever_schafe_1.jpg[edit]

Lsg westerhever schafe 1.jpg

  • Nomination Westerhever in north-frisia, two sheep on the dike --Dirtsc 15:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 16:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ummh, not really sure that it is a QI, there are artifacts, some areas are overexposed, sharpening halos, the right guy is unsharp due to shallow DoF, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 20:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Poco a poco says. Denis Barthel 22:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Poco. Sorry, bad quality, but nice with better composition: it's tilted--Lmbuga 12:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 17:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal_Neuenhof_0023.jpg[edit]

Wuppertal Neuenhof 0023.jpg

  • Nomination Löwenzahn im Gegenlicht, Wuppertal --Atamari 09:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Loses a bit of sharpness near the top of the image, but the majority of the subject is in focus and the aesthetics are very nice. --Crisco 1492 13:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, corner is overexposed, bad cut, flares and too dark --Jacek Halicki 14:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose with Jacek.--Jebulon 19:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 17:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

File:15-07-13-Teotihuacan-La-Ciudadela-RalfR-WMA_0108.jpg[edit]

15-07-13-Teotihuacan-La-Ciudadela-RalfR-WMA 0108.jpg

  • Nomination detail of La Ciudadela, Teotihuacan , Mexico --Ralf Roletschek 09:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 04:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Purple fringing on edge, description very vague. Denis Barthel 16:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Denis Barthel.--Jebulon 19:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 17:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Pink_rosa.jpg[edit]

Pink rosa.jpg

  • Nomination Colour composition light pink with water droplets; Rosa --Tulsi Bhagat 01:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Disturbing relation between the exposure of foreground to background. Denis Barthel 16:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've uploaded new version of this file. --Tulsi Bhagat 02:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Now the crop is much to tight, I am sorry. Denis Barthel 22:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment bad crop --Atamari 19:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • and not really sharp. Its a photo from a phone... --Ralf Roletschek 19:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Water droplets are too good as realstic. --Soni Chaurasia 16:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support seems ok. --Jay chaurasia 10:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop should be better, sharpness and DoF too, filename must be better, filesize too. --XRay 14:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 17:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

File:San_Lorenzo_in_Lucina_(Rome)_-_Interior_HDR.jpg[edit]

San Lorenzo in Lucina (Rome) - Interior HDR.jpg

  • Nomination San Lorenzo in Lucina (Rome) - Interior HDR --Livioandronico2013 07:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 07:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are some issues to be fixed: Strong magenta CA at the windows and too dark overall. Livio, if you could provide me the RAW files, I would try to create a better HDR result. The church is one of my favourites in Rome and the exposures seem to be good. --Code 09:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Definitely too dark (esp. for a HDR), and the brigther areas are overexposed Poco a poco 12:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much better, supporting now Poco a poco 10:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --C messier 09:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Fri 21 Aug → Sat 29 Aug
Sat 22 Aug → Sun 30 Aug
Sun 23 Aug → Mon 31 Aug
Mon 24 Aug → Tue 01 Sep
Tue 25 Aug → Wed 02 Sep
Wed 26 Aug → Thu 03 Sep
Thu 27 Aug → Fri 04 Sep
Fri 28 Aug → Sat 05 Sep
Sat 29 Aug → Sun 06 Sep