Commons:Quality images candidates

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

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文
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 are 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 whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, 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 January 2017 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]] 21:19, 14 January 2017 (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.
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文

January 14, 2017[edit]

January 13, 2017[edit]

January 12, 2017[edit]

January 11, 2017[edit]

January 10, 2017[edit]

January 9, 2017[edit]

January 8, 2017[edit]

January 7, 2017[edit]

January 6, 2017[edit]

January 3, 2017[edit]

December 24, 2016[edit]

Consensual review[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".


Consensual Review[edit]

File:2016-07-29_Kaisermania_2016_in_Dresden_by_Sandro_Halank–8.jpg[edit]

2016-07-29 Kaisermania 2016 in Dresden by Sandro Halank–8.jpg

  • Nomination Roland Kaiser and Maite Kelly at Kaisermania 2016 --Sandro Halank 12:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Lucasbosch 15:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unsharp --A.Savin 17:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I also find it too unsharp; the lighting conditions are difficult but I have seen better from Sandro Halank before.--Peulle 10:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Peulle 10:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

File:2016-07-29_Kaisermania_2016_in_Dresden_by_Sandro_Halank–7.jpg[edit]

2016-07-29 Kaisermania 2016 in Dresden by Sandro Halank–7.jpg

  • Nomination Roland Kaiser beim Konzert am Dresdner Elbufer (Kaisermania 2016); 29. Juli 2016 --Sandro Halank 12:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Lucasbosch 15:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unsharp --A.Savin 17:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per A.Savin. --Peulle 10:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 10:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

File:2016-09-21-Heliosturm_Köln-0080.jpg[edit]

2016-09-21-Heliosturm Köln-0080.jpg

  • Nomination Ancient lighthouse in Cologne-Ehrenfeld --Superbass 20:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Main object is for me not sharep enough for Q1 and the sky is a bit noisy, sorry a weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Michielverbeek 06:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The spots in the sky are a result of sensor misfunction of the drone camera. It will be hard work to clone them out. The tower is sharp enough IMO.--Ermell 07:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough. --Sandro Halank 12:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a close call for me, but I end up voting per Michielverbeek.--Peulle 10:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 10:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Gdow_Church_04.jpg[edit]

Gdow Church 04.jpg

  • Nomination Statues of the Virgin Mary and Pope John Paul II in the Fihauser Family Chapel in the grounds of the Church of Gdów, near Kraków --Scotch Mist 07:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting shadows, bad composition with the doorway, not enough detail for my taste, not enough detail in the shadow areas. --Lucasbosch 09:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Lucasbosch: Cropping the image would resolve some of these issues but the natural light in the chapel, which is in the shadow of the church, is poor (no installed lighting so flash necessary) and the archway IMO helps to convey the environment in which the photo was taken - should I simply crop anyway? --Scotch Mist 15:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Scotch Mist: Cropping would only solve the composition, not any of the other points of critique. The image itself is not very detailed and has poor lighting, exactly what a flash positioned close to the lens would produce. --Lucasbosch 17:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 10:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Woodland, Nadgigomar Nature Reserve.jpg[edit]

Woodland, Nadgigomar Nature Reserve.jpg

  • Nomination Woodland, Nadgigomar Nature Reserve, NSW -- Thennicke 11:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Undefined category links, at least one dust spot, partially overexposed and the image suggests that the perspective should be corrected. I would say that unfortunately this isn't good enough for a QI but I would like to hear some other opinion. Meanwhile perhaps you could correct what's fixable, please. --Basotxerri 16:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Basotxerri: I've reworked the image and removed the dust spots. Cats are now fixed too. The perspective is not a problem in this case because I am using it for framing, in the same way that an image such as this shouldn't be perspective corrected (Perspective distortion should either have a purpose or be insignificant.) Thank you for the review also, I hadn't noticed the dust. -- Thennicke 23:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hi Thennicke, I've checked the image again and for me personally the overexposure on the trees is too strong. However this is my opinion and if you think that it isn't strong enough to decline it, put this in CR, please, so we'll get other opinions. Sorry and thank you for the fixes you've made. --Basotxerri 16:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Basotxerri: I have moved it to CR because I disagree with your review: there is zero clipping on both the RAW histogram and my editing program's zebra function. These trees are white, which is why it might look strange, but I assure you they are exposed appropriately. I don't know how to prove this to you without sending you a RAW, but if you download the image and open it in PS or GIMP I'm sure you'll see the levels are fine. Regards -- Thennicke (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hello Thennicke, I'm looking at it with my notebook now, the image is OK now. Thanks again for the changes. --Basotxerri 16:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality, but add a geotag please. --Alchemist-hp 10:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Alchemist-hp: Thanks and ✓ Done -- Thennicke 11:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I accept your argument for the perspective non-correction, and once I've accepted that, the photo looks fine to me. -- Ikan Kekek 16:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 16:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Tour_Hassan_a_Rabat_P1060435.JPG[edit]

Tour Hassan a Rabat P1060435.JPG

  • Nomination Hassan Tower, Rabat. By User:Pline --Reda benkhadra 02:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. The detail on the two horse riders just isn't there. --Lucasbosch 09:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree, worse photos were getting QI --Jacek Halicki 09:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment@Pline: Left side of tower slightly tilted which if resolved (perspective adjustment) without detriment to the rest of the image would make this QI for me. --Scotch Mist 10:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not quite my standard, but OK. --A.Savin 19:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 10:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Jose Rizal National Monument.jpg[edit]

Jose Rizal National Monument.jpg

  • Nomination The monument of Jose Rizal in Manila, Philippines. --Adamdaley 22:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good focus to main object --Michielverbeek 23:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but before image gets promotion to QI, it needs perspective correction. --Halavar 02:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perspective correction? Why? --Adamdaley 11:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Vertical lines should be straight. Look at the left side of the image - it leans to the right. --Halavar 13:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 10:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

File:VFPt_dipole_animation.gif[edit]

VFPt dipole animation.gif

  • Nomination Animation of electric and magnetic dipole. Note that the resolution is intentionally in Wikipedia thumb size to minimize bandwidth requirements. --Geek3 16:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Intentional or not this fails the 2MP requirement for a quality image and is very clearly low quality. EoRdE6 01:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The rule is very clear: only .SVG files are exempt from the 2 megapixel minimum size requirement for QI.--Peulle 07:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good animation. The rule of 2MP is nonsense for animated gifs. What we are like to see more with more then 2MP??? --Alchemist-hp 10:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Alchemist-hp: what are you going to see? Higher resolution? Less aliasing? Less pixelation? The exact same benefits you get from a higher resolution photograph? It's no different, that's a poor argument. There is a reason GIFs are specifically included in the guideline. EoRdE6 14:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Alchemist is right.--Ermell 11:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Guys, we've been over this: it doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not, we can't just decide to ignore the rules here in CR on a case by case basis. Non-.SVG images below 2MP are ineligible for nomination, that's just the way it is; this image has no business in CR.--Peulle 14:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Rules are rules. -- Ikan Kekek 16:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This image was created using a phyton script and IMHO, the important here is the source code present in the image description. It's not a photography and more size in this case is not more information --The Photographer 14:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - But the rule does not allow for exceptions. I suggest you propose a rule change. -- Ikan Kekek 17:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In the past the 2-Mpixel-rule has never been applied for animations and/or videos. --Smial 19:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not demand 2 MPixels for an animated GIF, but 220*220px is really too small. Many wikipedias have nowadays a thumbnail standard size of 250 or 300 px width. Standard VGA (640*480px resp. 480*480px for square images) should be minimum. --Smial 19:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Ikan Kekek 16:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Eching_Beching,_Rural_Games_of_Bangladesh_(9960817503).jpg[edit]

Eching Beching, Rural Games of Bangladesh (9960817503).jpg

  • Nomination Eching Beching, Rural Games of Bangladesh. By User:Moheen Reeyad --Masum-al-hasan 05:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perhaps others may think differently but this seems too motion-blurred to me, not a QI for me, sorry. --Basotxerri 16:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Let's discuss this. I find it a good action shot. -- Ikan Kekek 19:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Motion blur in itself may not be that bad, but I don't find the image sharp enough in any case.--Peulle 07:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, not sharp enough --Sandro Halank 18:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 18:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Alone_in_the_blue.jpg[edit]

Alone in the blue.jpg

  • Nomination Saintmartin Island. By User:Khalid6736 --Masum-al-hasan 18:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Masses of dust spots need to be removed. The photo looks oversaturated and the categorisation is confusing as well as the romantic title.--Ermell 07:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Despite odd file name it is a very high quality and visaully pleasing image --EoRdE6 04:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Oversaturated and dust spots, as Ermell said. -- Ikan Kekek 07:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Withdrawing any support because reviewing this image on a different screen (this time a 1440p AMOLED) displays all the dust spots that were somehow missed on my laptop display... Some benefits to smartphones :) --EoRdE6
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversaturization, dust spots, chromatic aberration on the boat, overprocessed, no meaningful file name: not a QI.--Peulle 07:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 10:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

File:2016_Kuala_Lumpur,_Świątynia_taoistyczna_Guan_Di_(08).jpg[edit]

2016 Kuala Lumpur, Świątynia taoistyczna Guan Di (08).jpg

  • Nomination Guan Di Taoist Temple. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. --Halavar 20:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Seems oversaturated colors--Moroder 15:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New, fixed version uploaded. Please take a look again. --Halavar 18:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK, but now on a second look the composition, especially the top crop seems very unfortunate because you have space on the sides and you cut off the top. I believe we should go to CR with this picture? Cheers --Moroder 07:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, we should go to CR. --Halavar 12:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Lerum_syltetøyfabrikk_i_Sogndal,_2017.jpg[edit]

Lerum syltetøyfabrikk i Sogndal, 2017.jpg

  • Nomination Lerum jam factory Sogndal. --Bep 14:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent photo. It's not the kind of thing you expect to see in a foggy water and mountain scene. I think it could be a good FP candidate. -- Ikan Kekek 16:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Appreciate this is a nice photo, but is the file size of 1.53 MB not below the minimum acceptable for QI of 2MB or am I missing something here? --Scotch Mist 16:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hi Scotch Mist, I know your intention is a good one but the limit is 2 MP (Megapixels), not 2 MB (Megabytes). This one has 24 MP. --Basotxerri 16:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ Bep: could you correct the perspective, please, the image is leaning in on the right handside. --Basotxerri 16:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for your previous clarification and my further education - have withdrawn my previous 'opposition' but agree a perspective adjustment on the right would be desirable! --Scotch Mist 17:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As mentioned before, opposing until correction. Rest per Ikan Kekek. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I have fixed the perspective. Thanks for the heads-up, I did not notice. --Bep 18:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Ikan Kekek, hi Bep, it's OK on the left but if you look to the right image border it still isn't straight and leaning in. I think this can be fixed although these combinations of inclination and vertical distortion sometimes are tricky to correct. However it seems that it's already good enough for the others. Bep, would you like to try it again? --Basotxerri 16:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have taken it for another spin in Lightroom, and now both ends line up to the grid. --Bep 18:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Scotch Mist 06:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit foggy, but that's the weather. Looks OK.--Peulle 07:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good enough --Sandro Halank 18:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 18:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Tanguar_Haor_টাঙ্গুয়ার_হাওড়.jpg[edit]

Tanguar Haor টাঙ্গুয়ার হাওড়.jpg

  • Nomination Tanguar Haor, Sunamganj. By User:Laz Mahmud --Masum-al-hasan 13:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great shot. --Kritzolina 14:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, it's an unbalanced composition: far too much sky, a bit more of foreground would have been better, too. --Basotxerri 16:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quite heavy posterization.--Peulle 07:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 16:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Burg Questenberg.jpg[edit]

Burg Questenberg.jpg

  • Nomination Castle Questenberg, Germany --Vincent Eisfeld 12:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 13:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the photo have been overexopsed --Christian Ferrer 16:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now. I agree with Christian. This is a classic view that reminds me of paintings from the Romantic era and earlier, but please tone down the highlights. -- Ikan Kekek 16:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree with Ikan, if highlighs are decreased more than now, then the photo will lose its artistic touch, it will be "flat", and still will not be a QI IMO, the overexposition came at the moment to take the photo. This is not too bright, it lacks of details in the brightest areas, that's all. --Christian Ferrer 18:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Of course I will defer to Christian's knowledge. -- Ikan Kekek 06:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me, nice composition and even lighting imo. Would be nice to have a geotag. --Moroder 12:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Niepolomice_09_-_Castle_Canon.jpg[edit]

Niepolomice 09 - Castle Canon.jpg

  • Nomination Canon with Korczak Crest in Courtyard of Hunting Castle in Niepołomice, near Kraków --Scotch Mist 11:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distortion at top --Daniel Case 05:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Daniel Case: Thank you for your review - if the previously cropped image was reverted to, or the image re-cropped, do you consider the image of the canon itself (without the courtyard wall) sufficient for QI? --Scotch Mist 16:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 16:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

File:HH_Harburg_Hafenbf.jpg[edit]

HH Harburg Hafenbf.jpg

  • Nomination Hamburg-Harburg, township Heimfeld, a freight train with Taurus engine is waiting in the evening of 27.12.2010 for departure from the port station --KaiBorgeest 22:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very atmospheric. Ikan Kekek 23:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is, but it's also very grainy, despite the resolution not being very high. Is it the weather? I'd like to hear more opinions.--Peulle 23:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Winter fog, in my opinion, and realistic as such. -- Ikan Kekek 00:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz 03:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose yes nice, but CA visible and noisy, not a QI image for me. --Alchemist-hp 08:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, noise + composition (mast on the left). --A.Savin 19:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Alchemist-hp 08:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Nizza-Rue-du-Marché-4081300.jpg[edit]

Nizza-Rue-du-Marché-4081300.jpg

  • Nomination Rue du Marché in Nice --Ermell 16:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Llez 18:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop in right top corner is not well done, sorry for me not a Q1 --Michielverbeek 19:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Michielverbeek. I also feel it is a bit overexposed. All fixable.--Peulle (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version uploaded.--Ermell 11:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Like this, it is well done. I have changed my mind --Michielverbeek 06:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm still not sure about the exposure and colour, but I'll not stand in the way with the new crop in place.--Peulle 07:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry. Unbalanced composition. Strong horizontal distortion (foreground)--Lmbuga 17:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 14:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

File:St._Andreas_in_Antlas_Ritten_vier_Heilige.JPG[edit]

St. Andreas in Antlas Ritten vier Heilige.JPG

  • Nomination Four saints in the Saint Andrew chapel in Antlas Ritten South Tyrol --Moroder 15:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I fully acknowledge the difficult conditions in taking this picture; still there is a strong contrast between the upper (dark) and the lower (light) part, and as a result neither is shown well. I also see that you wanted to include the fresco (?) on the right side but this spoils the symmetry of the picture. Useful picture but not QI in my opinion. Sorry. -- Renardo la vulpo 22:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree --Moroder 23:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am changing my oppose to a comment. Still, a histogram of the picture shows that it uses only about 70% of the brightness scale and that means that the dark/bright parts each for itself use even less of it. To my (artistically inexperienced) eye the picture looks much better when brightness is spread to the full scale, even without doing anything about the contrast between the dark and the bright parts (which might be difficult).
We seem to have extremely high standards about things such as sharpness, aberration, and composition (the latter, btw, is addressed by my remark about symmetry). So why would we be less demanding about lighting? It is not necessary that every object permit quality images (with absolute criteria); we have featured images for such cases. -- Renardo la vulpo 21:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Your point is well taken. Just as on FPC, we sometimes observe that some motifs can't be FPs, it's also quite possible that some motifs can't be QIs. Ikan Kekek 15:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't care about symmetry or asymmetry and doubt it as a reason to oppose promotion, but I think Renardo has a point otherwise. -- Ikan Kekek 23:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment. In regard to the comment about lighting problems I'd like to point out that this is not a studio photography but reproduces the real interior lighting of the chapel still keeping both parts upper and lower well legible. I agree with Ikan for the simmetry --Moroder 11:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I take your point and have struck my opposing vote. -- Ikan Kekek 03:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support O.k. for me--Ermell 19:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose simply bad light situation and the crop ... --Alchemist-hp 12:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Contrast could be better, but ok2go --A.Savin 17:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with the aforementioned comments about the lighting problems, but in total I vote to promote this image on the basis that it has good sharpness despite high resolution.--Peulle 07:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alchemist-hp--Lmbuga 16:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Alchemist-hp 12:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Bike_in_recife_Pernambuco_State,_Brazil_Northeast_10.jpg[edit]

Bike in recife Pernambuco State, Brazil Northeast 10.jpg

  • Nomination Bike in recife Pernambuco --The Photographer 10:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much noise. Why ISO 600 for a daylight shot of a still object? --Peulle 11:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Noise is gone. ISO 600 because it was not exactly a daylight and I remember this day was quite dark and with storms --The Photographer 12:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I remain at oppose; cleaning up in post-processing has removed the noise, but now the lack of sharpness comes out as a consequense. Especially the rear part of the bike is unsharp. Since the bike was not moving, it should have been possible to take a sharper image. --Peulle 20:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Peulle: I think that now could be done, please, let me know. Thanks --The Photographer 11:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The other version looks arguable to me, but I find this one OK, overall. -- Ikan Kekek 07:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Sharp enough and QI for me.--Ermell 07:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Agree with Peulle earlier comments but now QI for me also. --Scotch Mist 15:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Better picture is possible with little effort--Lmbuga 16:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --cart-Talk 17:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Fri 06 Jan → Sat 14 Jan
Sat 07 Jan → Sun 15 Jan
Sun 08 Jan → Mon 16 Jan
Mon 09 Jan → Tue 17 Jan
Tue 10 Jan → Wed 18 Jan
Wed 11 Jan → Thu 19 Jan
Thu 12 Jan → Fri 20 Jan
Fri 13 Jan → Sat 21 Jan
Sat 14 Jan → Sun 22 Jan