Support (in advance) Good quality. But please remove the dust spot (see note). Another minor problem: The sky looks posterized. Is it a 100% JPEG? --XRay 11:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Done The image was denoised and the dust spots removed, thanks. Yes, this is a 100% jpeg. Alvesgaspar 11:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment Please add more categories: where was it taken in Washington DC? --A.Savin 12:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC) Support Good quality. Category:Birds of Washington, D.C. added. Geolocation would be appreciated--Lmbuga 15:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)]]
The dark parts of the pics are very noisy. Any chance you can denoise that a bit? W.carter 20:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC) -- Done Thanks, W.carter -- Alvesgaspar 13:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Much better. Good quality. --W.carter 20:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Quality looks OK, but what's that blue streak in the sky on the right side? -- Ikan Kekek 00:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Done I have no idea, but it is fixed together with a coupe of dust spots. Thanks, Alvesgaspar 17:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
It's still there, but it's a lot lighter. I'll leave you to your own devices on whether to play with the photo further, such as by denoising it, what have you. Overall, I think it's good enough now for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 22:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Please do not do such eits again! "Paintings by XYZ in the Museum QWERTY" is logically already a sub of "Paintings by XYZ" and not to be added additionally. With such edits, you are violating the Commons policy on categories and it is also disrespectful for the work by your colleagues who want to help you, in case you still don't understand the category system. Consider this as an administrative warning. Thanks --A.Savin 23:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Please excuse me spamming you. As a regular on Feature Picture Candidatess you will recognise User:The Photographer, who has 86 Featured Pictures. His contributions cover the architecture and culture of Brazil and Venezuela. He has basic photographic equipment: an old D300 camera and 35mm lens, and lives in a poor country where photographic equipment is expensive. The Photographer has recently taken several images using the technique where multiple frames are stitched together to create a high-resolution panorama. However, many times frustrated with the stitching errors that result from trying to take such photos without a proper panoramic head for his tripod. This special equipment permits the camera to be rotated around the entrance pupil of the lens, and eliminates such errors. Having a panoramic head would greatly increase the potential for The Photographer to create sharp high-resolution images for Commons. In addition, the purchase of a fisheye lens would enable 180 × 360° panoramas to be taken, which are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there.
I'm not sure about the left edge. Did you accidentally include a bit of the frame? Of course, there's nothing wrong with including the frame, but it's distracting for there to be only a bit of it on one side. -- Ikan Kekek 02:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Done You are quite right, thanks Alvesgaspar 13:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. Good quality for me now. -- Ikan Kekek 21:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
OK for me. Was there any reason for using f/18? Seems unusual for this... --Basotxerri 16:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC) -- You are right, not the best choice even with the strong lighting conditions. -- Alvesgaspar 21:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Good quality, but what's the short dark line (almost vertical) to the left of the left tower? -- Ikan Kekek 07:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC) - I only see an (almost) horizontal white line, which seems to be some kind of wire. Alvesgaspar 18:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 21:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment Is WB OK? IMHO, it looks to blue (but I haven't been there). Otherwise, a QI. --C messier 12:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Support I think it is okay for QI. --Haeferl 23:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
* Merry Christmas! Happy New Year!
* Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année!
* Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr!
* Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом!
* ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo!
* Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком! -- George Chernilevskytalk 17:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
English: Hellow Alvesgaspar, Merci/Gracias/Thanks my friend for do it posible, this family of Commons, beleave that we can change world improving the educational media disponible. Take care by your self --The Photographer 03:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 What's your problem, please? --A.Savin 13:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
There was a long (and hard) discussion some years ago about including the QI logo, as well as other pieces of information, into the Assessment template. No consensus was reached and most editors preferred to leave things as they were. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
My name is A.Savin, you know.
What is your problem: the assessment template, or the POTD? You removed both. Please return the POTD if there are no concerns about that.
I know your name, Savin :) It is written in the first line of my reply! Sorry about removing the POTD template, it was not on purpose. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
If you want to provoke me, it is just silly and of course unbecoming of a gentleman.
Fortunately, I don't have to do much with people like you.
I really have no clue what have you been smoking, but I think the removal of the QI seal despite the fact that the picture passed the review, is unacceptable anyway. A QI, once promoted, is QI, unless there is real consensus for otherwise. I'm going to restore the seal.
Have a nice day. --A.Savin 15:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to provoke anybody and the removal of the two templates from the image file (QI and POTD) was an accident (which I fail to understand). Please restrain from unecessary aggressiveness. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)