Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Line 14: Line 14:
== September 10, 2014 ==
== September 10, 2014 ==
<gallery>
<gallery>

File:Hyderabad 01.jpg|{{/Nomination|Laar Bazaar Road seen from the Charminar, Hyderabad, India --[[User:Bgag|Bgag]] 18:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |}}

File:Hyderabad 02.jpg|{{/Nomination|Rathkhana Street seen from the Charminar, Hyderabad, India --[[User:Bgag|Bgag]] 18:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |}}

File:Rouen_France_Recruiting-Office-01.jpg|{{/Nomination|Rouen, France: Recruiting office of the french army, located in a side building of the Phillipon Barracks. --[[User:Cccefalon|Cccefalon]] 18:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)|}}
File:Rouen_France_Recruiting-Office-01.jpg|{{/Nomination|Rouen, France: Recruiting office of the french army, located in a side building of the Phillipon Barracks. --[[User:Cccefalon|Cccefalon]] 18:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)|}}


Line 36: Line 41:
File:El_Hemisférico,_Ciudad_de_las_Artes_y_las_Ciencias,_Valencia,_España,_2014-06-29,_DD_37.JPG|{{/Nomination|The Hemispheric, City of Arts and Sciences, Valencia, Spain --[[User:Poco a poco|Poco a poco]] 18:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)|}}
File:El_Hemisférico,_Ciudad_de_las_Artes_y_las_Ciencias,_Valencia,_España,_2014-06-29,_DD_37.JPG|{{/Nomination|The Hemispheric, City of Arts and Sciences, Valencia, Spain --[[User:Poco a poco|Poco a poco]] 18:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)|}}


File:El_Hemisférico,_Ciudad_de_las_Artes_y_las_Ciencias,_Valencia,_España,_2014-06-29,_DD_60-62_HDR.JPG|{{/Promotion|The Hemispheric and Queen Sophie Palace, City of Arts and Sciences, Valencia, Spain --[[User:Poco a poco|Poco a poco]] 18:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)|Good quality - but please remove the disturbing light reflex in the bottom left corner --[[User:Cccefalon|Cccefalon]] 18:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)}}
File:El_Hemisférico,_Ciudad_de_las_Artes_y_las_Ciencias,_Valencia,_España,_2014-06-29,_DD_60-62_HDR.JPG|{{/Nomination|The Hemispheric and Queen Sophie Palace, City of Arts and Sciences, Valencia, Spain --[[User:Poco a poco|Poco a poco]] 18:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)|}}


File:Torres_de_Cuart,_Valencia,_España,_2014-06-30,_DD_93.JPG|{{/Nomination|Cuart Towers, Valencia, Spain --[[User:Poco a poco|Poco a poco]] 18:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)|}}
File:Torres_de_Cuart,_Valencia,_España,_2014-06-30,_DD_93.JPG|{{/Nomination|Cuart Towers, Valencia, Spain --[[User:Poco a poco|Poco a poco]] 18:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)|}}

Revision as of 18:12, 10 September 2014


Nominations

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 09:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).

September 10, 2014

September 9, 2014

September 8, 2014

September 7, 2014

September 6, 2014

September 5, 2014

September 4, 2014

September 3, 2014

September 2, 2014

September 1, 2014

August 31, 2014

August 30, 2014

August 29, 2014

August 28, 2014

August 27, 2014

August 26, 2014

August 25, 2014

Consensual review

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  Oppose and  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

File:Symbol_of_the_Barberini_family_with_children.jpg

  • Nomination Symbol of the Barberini family with children --Livioandronico2013 23:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Moroder 11:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    Livio, is white balance ok? I feel it's too warm and yellow. --Kadellar 17:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for review. --Livioandronico2013 20:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Kadellar can you check another time? Thanks --Livioandronico2013 10:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Berlin,_Alte_Bibliothek_--_2013_--_4564.jpg

  • Nomination Alte Bibliothek, Berlin, Germany --XRay 06:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Left side leaning out and there is a green halo around the whole building silhoutte on the top Poco a poco 07:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    ✓ Fixed Thanks for your advice. Green CAs removed and perspective improved.--XRay 09:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
     Comment Half of the sky is overexposed. --Ivar 17:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry, the sky isn't voerexposed. A value of 98.5 percent is a very, very bright gray.--XRay 17:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose I'm not agreed. --Ivar 05:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Statue_of_Jesus_and_Paul_of_the_Cross.jpg

 I withdraw my nomination

File:2014_Lądek-Zdrój,_rynek_02.JPG

  • Nomination Town hall in Lądek-Zdrój --Jacek Halicki 19:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Sorry. The image is tilted CW and the shadow in the front is very disturbing. --XRay 12:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, please discussion --Jacek Halicki 17:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Frank Dhont of the International Indonesia Forum at the 7th IFF Conference, 2014-08-20.jpg

  • Nomination Frank Dhont, chairman of the International Indonesia Forum. Crisco 1492 09:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    I think there's too much space on the left. Mattbuck 09:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 13:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    As my initial comment infers, I disagree with the promotion. --Mattbuck 17:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Some very slight cropping on the left side could be made, but this is only a matter of taste. Clearly QI, regardless if cropped or not. -- Smial 10:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Camden Road railway station MMB 04.jpg

  • Nomination Camden Road railway station. Mattbuck 09:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
     Comment IMO very dark.--XRay 12:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  NeutralInsufficient quality. --Taxiarchos228 13:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    Care to actually give a reason? ✓ Brightened btw. --Mattbuck 17:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    I didn't oppose any more (because it was brightened) but I didn't unterstand the image and what exactly it should show. For me not a suitable detail shot. --Taxiarchos228 11:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Netherfield railway station MMB 07.jpg

  • Nomination Netherfield railway station. Mattbuck 09:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment IMO the image needs perspective correction. Please have a look to the ligths.--XRay 12:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    too dark --Taxiarchos228 13:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Brightened. --Mattbuck 17:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment both sides are leaning out --Christian Ferrer 17:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Stratford International station MMB 20.jpg

  • Nomination Stratford International station. Mattbuck 09:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment IMO it's titled CCW. Please have a look to the escalators.--XRay 12:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
     Not done Insufficient quality. --Taxiarchos228 13:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    25 hours before declining as not done? I hadn't even seen the comment! Taxiarchos, your passive-aggressive behaviour towards me is getting tiresome. I don't know why you dislike me so much, but the fact that you barely ever make a review which isn't to decline my nominations or disagree with my reviews speaks volumes. If you can't be reasonable to me, please don't review my images.
    Regarding the initial comment, I was not facing straight up, and you are right there is a significant amount of perspective distortion. This is intentional, I do not think the image would look anywhere near as good if it were corrected. --Mattbuck 17:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    the not-done-tag here was my fault, the evaluation for this image wasn't. please spare us with your tirades, thank you. --Taxiarchos228 19:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice view, but tilted. -- Smial 10:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Burghof_Lörrach_-_Abendansicht3.jpg

  • Nomination "Burghof Lörrach" --Taxiarchos228 04:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too blurry --Diana Ringo 15:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    don't agree and maybe you sign next time? --Taxiarchos228 14:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    The 'Burghof' sign, the ground and the trees are unclear, in comparison with the other photos taken in daylight. If these things are not important, then the image is good. --Diana Ringo 15:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't know what you mean with the Burghof-sign. The Burghof-sign is sharp and clear and is placed over the entrance door. If you mean the poster: this is flaunting like a flag so this can't be shap and clear with long exposure. This image shows the Burghof building and I see not a significant reason agsinst QI. --Taxiarchos228 06:57, 9 September 2014
  •  Support. QI -- I don't see any lack. -- Spurzem 07:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC) (UTC)
  •  Support OK, then I support--Diana Ringo 08:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please see annotations.--Jebulon 10:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose pretty much per all Jebulon's annotations. Mattbuck 17:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Buck: the blurring edge of your daylight image File:University Park MMB «E2 Lenton & Wortley Hall.jpg is similar to my blurring edge of my evening light image. May you answer me why you oppose here but nominate the mentioned image? --Taxiarchos228 19:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Leute, ihr fangt an, hier Ansprüche zu stellen, als ginge es darum, dass jedes QI dafür geeignet sein müsse, Hochglanzwerbung in Größe A0 zu bebildern. Klar, man könnte die leichte(!) Schräge auf der linken Seite noch etwas gerader ziehen, aber um welchen Preis? Jede Perspektivekorrektur führt zwangsläufig zu zusätzlichen Pixelinterpolationen, und dafür sind die minimalen Schrägen da links einfach nicht bildwichtig genug. Außerdem ist die Turmspitze möglicherweise nicht ganz vertikal, das Himmelsrichtungskreuz hängt jedenfalls definitiv schon mal schief am Mast. Die Flecken im Himmel könnten evtl. Reste von weggestempelten Staubflecken sein, es könnten aber ebenso gut durch die Langzeitbelichtung verwischte Wolkenfetzen sein, das kann man wirklich nicht anhand des veröffentlichten JPGs entscheiden. Das Mopped ist scharf genug, wenn man das mal mit anderen Bildern vergleicht, die bei strahlendem Sonnenschein mit Blende 11 und 1/2000s geknipst wurden. Klar ist das wackelnde Plakat etwas störend, aber es ist auch völlig plausibel. Man könnte auch die Lichtstreifen fahrender Autos oder englischer Vorortbahnen bei Nachtaufnahmen bemängeln - immerhin sind die noch viel böser unscharf, verwischt, in der Regel überbelichtet und obendrein oft auch noch bildbestimmend. Kurz: Kommt mal wieder alle auf die ursprüngliche Intention der QIC runter. Das war mal ein Projekt, um aus all dem in den Commons-Kategorien versenkten Bilderschrott diejenigen herauszupicken, die einigermaßen vorzeigbar sind, und um Wikiknipser zu animieren, bei der Aufnahme auf einige grundlegende Fotografierregeln zu achten, damit sich das Qualitätsniveau auf commons ein wenig bessern möge. Dieses Projekt war nie dazu gedacht, eine FPC-Version für Arme zu entwickeln. -- Smial 10:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Building_in_Avenida_Paulista.jpg

  • Nomination Building in Avenida Paulista --Wilfredor 11:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The perspective distortion at the right side is disturbing. Could you please try to get the verticals rectilinear? --Cccefalon 09:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    I think there's some pincushion distortion too. Mattbuck 19:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 08:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    IMHO I think so this image is QI --Wilfredor 20:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-05-barcelona-RalfR-053.jpg

  • Nomination Barcelona, El Peix (sculpture by Frank Gehry) --Ralf Roletschek 15:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion CW tilt. --Ivar 16:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
     SupportI see no lack. For me QI. -- Spurzem 17:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC) all lamps in the picture are correct. --Ralf Roletschek 12:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    No, they're pretty clearly tilted. Note added. Mattbuck 10:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 08:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree - its correct. --Ralf Roletschek 22:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose until tilt is corrected and this is easy to fix. --Ivar 05:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI, no significant leaning here --Taxiarchos228 06:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose adjectives are not relevant and useless IMO. "Significant" or not, there is a leaning, please see note by Mattbuck. So, per Ivar.--Jebulon 23:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Gerade genug. Solche kleinen Korrekturen führen ohne großen Gewinn nur zu unnötigen Pixelinterpolationen. -- Smial 11:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Mallorca_-_Cap_de_Capdepera1.jpg

  • Nomination Cap of Capdepera --Taxiarchos228 06:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Please have a look to the horizon. It looks like a barrel.--XRay 08:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 08:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree , its correct --Ralf Roletschek 22:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Barrel distortion is not ok. --Iifar 05:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support This is a wide angle shot. The earth is not flat. -- Smial 11:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose until it's fixed (easy to fix) --Christian Ferrer 17:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Alhambra_evening_panorama_Mirador_San_Nicolas_large_pano_0EV_sRGB.jpg

  • Nomination Evening view of the Alhambra as seen from Mirador de San Nicolas in Granada, Spain --Slaunger 19:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, very nice view, but important parts are very blurred --DXR 19:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your review, DXR. Have you considered in your review that it is +60 Mpixel image? If you look at the same photo downsampled to 10 Mpixels it is crisp when viewed in 100%. I think it is unreasonable to pixelpeep at resolutions larger than the equivalent to 10 Mpixel in a QIC review, which is still much more than minimum resolution. Moving to CR to hear the opinion of other reviewers. --Slaunger 21:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Slaunger, don't get me wrong, but I do not think that the 10Mpix version is crisp (I also think that 1500 pix on the short side is a bit problematic for a panorama) and the single shots are clearly blurred. I get the pixelpeeping argument about corner softness etc., but a panorama of many unsharp images will struggle to be an QI in my opinion. It really is a bit of a technique error, but something that happens to everyone of us from time to time. Just avoid shooting at ISO 100 and 1/40, (ISO 400 and 1/160 would certainly have given you better results) especially if you can downsample in post. --DXR 08:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, DXR, but I do not understand why ISO 400 and 1/160 s would have been a better choice? The photos were all taken with the camera mounted on a rugged tripod and are based on the middle of three raw exposures separated by 2 EV, and I had a 2 sec delay from pressing the shutter button. My mediocre sensor is pretty noisy at ISO 400. Why should going to a faster shutter time help? Downsampling is irreversible and will always lead to information loss. If you want to make a large scale print, it will always be better to use the full resolution version as compared to the a downsampled version albeit it may be soft on a pixel level. The downsampled version will suffer from pixelation when scaled up again to full scale. If I had nominated the 10 Mpixel version as a single shot with that quality it had surely been a QI. The technique used should not be determining for it to be QI-worthy or not. Just because you know it is a stitch of many individual single shots is irrelevant for the QI assessment of the image as such. It is a way for me to mitigate that I have entry level DSLR gear. This is QIC not FPC. --Slaunger 20:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Slaunger, I find it hard to believe that your gear is to blame. A 600D is a good camera and certainly not the limiting factor and as you rightly say, DOF is neither. I do not believe that your lens will produce images that are so blurred either, since sites like photozone show decent sharpness figures in tests (and also your plane shots are nicely sharp!). To my eyes the images simply look blurred due to camera shake or some other movement of sorts. I know that my camera will sometimes produce blurry files even mounted on a good tripod since mirror slap is significant. Perhaps your camera was also exposed to wind or comparable factors, perhaps the IS malfunctioned. I am confident that your equipment is capable of producing much better results and it is probably more useful to enquire why that was not the case instead of arguing that any large image will get QI if downsampled or viewed at small sizes (which is of course true, unfortunately). When I consider a QI, I think I should also ask if some random user would be happy if they printed the file based on its resolution, which is pretty large here, and the result would probably be a no. Please do not take this as personal criticism, but wouldn't it be more helpful to try figure out the reasons for the flaws in quality of your panorama to improve upon it in the future? (Feel free to continue this disc on my talk page) --DXR (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, probably focus problems. --Iifar 05:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Iifar Highly unlikely to be a focus problem. At 55 mm focal length and f/7.1 and a shooting distance of approximately 1500 m, the DOF extends from 22 m in front of the camera to infinity according to the DOF calculator at dofmaster. Maybe my autofocus is not accurate, but it is not that inaccurate. I think the problem is that my kit lenses are pretty bad and give a washed out appearance in full resolution. --Slaunger 20:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, but clearly unsharp in full view --Taxiarchos228 07:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Canon_EF_35-70mm_F3.5-4.5.jpg

  • Nomination Old Canon EF 35-70mm F3.5-4.5 Objective. Had to choose between diffraction blur and sharpness. Loosing a bit out on featureless edges. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 18:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 20:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry but two problems (see notes, please) : blown out higlights and blurry lower right part of the lens. --JLPC 21:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
     Comment By adjusting the exposure for an 18% greycard, I get 97% / RGB 247 for the infinity wall. Which by accident matches the checkmate requirements for the product background on turbosquid.com. And the complaint is for going over 94% / RGB 240 ? It is true that the lens CAP isn't sharp. But the area in the rectangular note is just part of the shadow!--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 03:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Sharpness, DOF, and colours are ok. RGB(f8f8f8) is not blown. Noise level somewhat high, but acceptable. Why ISO800 with a still shot? I don't like the artifical looking shadows and the soft edges at the lens cap, but these are minor issues and unimportant for QI standards. -- Smial 15:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment The setup worked well for the Camera

    Do you like this one better?

    Note that this setup has over all less scharpness and will also introduces a nasty highlight on the ring with the lens name.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 02:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Reshoot with lower ISO due to lower flash gun position. Note reflection around EF letters. Had to add a couple of graduation filters to even out the light fall off and sharpening the bottom. Still missed the cap which isn't the subject anyway.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 19:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Now it is a completely different image. Why uploaded with the same name? The central reflection is very distracting now. Noise is much better, sharpness again nice. -- Smial 11:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Angoulême_16_Toits_végétalisés_2014.jpg

  • Nomination Tiled roofs and green roofs, Angoulême, Charente, France. --JLPC 17:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion DOF to shallow or focus to far on the close side. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 19:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    I don't agree : let's ask someone else. --JLPC 21:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support Excuse me Tobias but i don't agree with your objections --Livioandronico2013 21:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 Support QI. --P e z i 08:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014-08-23 NADT Josh Phillips Mpact 1.JPG

  • Nomination Josh Phillips + Mpact with the Norfolk Arena Drift Team, 2014-08-23. --Lewis Collard 15:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Blur in all the right places but the cars rear. Hate to write it down.Insufficient quality. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 19:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    In my opinion it is an interesting photo. We should discuss please. -- Spurzem 21:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Kreuzkapelle_--_2014_--_2708.jpg

  • Nomination Sculpture in front of Holy Cross chapel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 06:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Bad angle. Villy Fink Isaksen 07:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
     Comment Which angle? If it's not a good composition, please decline. Otherwise please give me an advise. Thank you.--XRay 14:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    I would prefer a better look behind the bars. Villy Fink Isaksen 19:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
     Comment May be it's better to see another opinion too. Do you agee?--XRay 09:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Technical quality is ok. The composition is non standard, but this image shows the relationship between the sculpture and the surroundings and the chapel in a nice manner. This is certainly not the only possible view on that object but clearly legitimate. -- Smial 15:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure  Support --Livioandronico2013 11:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Baphuon,_Angkor_Thom,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_07.jpg

  • Nomination Cows in Baphuon, Angkor Thom‎, Cambodia --Poco a poco 16:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Please check for CAs top left and top right.--XRay 14:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Poco a poco 07:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    To me this seems a bit distorted/stretched. I don't think this is QI. Mattbuck 08:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
     Comment For me it's QI - if CAs are fixed. Still they are not fixed. (Upload of the fixed image is missing. ;-) ) Mattbuck has another opinion. So I put this review to discussion.--XRay 09:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Uploaded now, sorry, Poco a poco 18:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Weidenweg5.JPG

  • Nomination Historic monument in Lower Saxony --M. Krafft 10:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. An english description would be nice. --XRay 14:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose - Overexposed. --Mattbuck 08:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Basel_-_Museum_Tinguely6.jpg

  • Nomination Basel: Museum Tinguely --Taxiarchos228 06:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good, but left side leaning in a little bit. --Cccefalon 06:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    it's not leaning, see note --Taxiarchos228 06:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    Yes it is, zoom in on the left end and scroll up/down with mousewheel, you'll see the wall moves compared with the cursor. Also the leaves are problematic. Mattbuck 19:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 08:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    don't agree --Taxiarchos228 04:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support--Ralf Roletschek 23:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support agree with others, it's leaning in a bit, but it's is a very very little bit and it's acceptable here IMO Christian Ferrer 17:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

File:St. Johannes Mittelschiff.jpg

  • Nomination Church St. John Baptist Central nave Arnsberg Germany--Optimist4343 09:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Marianne Casamance 11:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry but sharpness is not so god, parts are overexposed and there is magenta ca on the left side. --Berthold Werner 11:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Per Berthold Werner and more GPS coordinates are missing and should be better categorized,sorry --Livioandronico2013 11:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Basílica_de_Santa_María,_Elche,_España,_2014-07-05,_DD_08.JPG

  • Nomination St Mary Basilica, Elche, Spain --Poco a poco 09:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  SupportGood quality. --Uoaei1 12:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC) OpposePlease correct straightness (see note), and symmetry of the two sides, thanks.--Jebulon 13:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Poco a poco 17:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Angkor_Wat,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_065.JPG

  • Nomination Angkor Wat, Cambodia --Poco a poco 16:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Please see note--ArildV 06:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose due to left side unsharpness. Mattbuck 19:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    This one is, IMHO, a QI after some improvements --Poco a poco 21:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
     Support Ok now --Livioandronico2013 08:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support Ok--ArildV 06:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Filmarchiv Austria Laxenburg Uhr DSC 4717w.jpg

  • Nomination Film Archive Austria at Old Castle, clock in the court yard, Laxenburg, Lower Austria --P e z i 18:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Tilted (clock should be a circle, not an ellipse) --MB-one 19:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
     Support Full vertical correction really doesn't make any sense for an object like a watch... --DXR 20:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
     Support --Uoaei1 12:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
     Support--JLPC 07:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Livioandronico2013 20:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

File:SchleusenanlageFahrenholz1.JPG

  • Nomination Watergate and Needle dam in the Ilmenaukanal, Fahrenholz, Samtgemeinde Elbmarsch, Landkreis Harburg, Lower Saxony. --M. Krafft 15:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support QI -- Spurzem 19:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose overexposed clouds, chromatic aberrations, poor detail --A.Savin 11:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - per ASavin. Mattbuck 22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Berlin,_Alte_Bibliothek_--_2013_--_4550.jpg

  • Nomination Alte Bibliothek, Berlin, Germany --XRay 00:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good, but please reduce/eliminate the red fringes (see annotation) --Cccefalon 05:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC) --Cccefalon 05:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed It's fixed. Thank you.--XRay 15:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Overexposed sky with color banding, not a QI for me. --Iifar 18:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - CA, colour banding. Mattbuck 17:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Aerial_view_-_Lörrach_-_Rosenfels_Campus1.jpg

  • Nomination Aerial view of "Rosenfels-Campus" in Lörrach --Taxiarchos228 18:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Perspectives : both sides are leaning out --Christian Ferrer 10:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Also clipping issue bottom left. Mattbuck 20:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    nothing is leaning, look note --~~~~  Oppose not done --Christian Ferrer 05:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    here is n.th. to be done --Taxiarchos228 04:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well how about getting rid of the clipping error for a start... Mattbuck 20:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Make clear what should be wrong with this picture. --Taxiarchos228 04:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

    1. Perspective distortion - both sides are leaning out
    2. The crop exceeds the bounds of the photo at the bottom left. -mattbuck (Talk)

(1) As I already said there is no significant distortion (see image notes) (2) The crop shows exactly what it has to show, the Rosenfels Campus. Your arguments are not clear. Please proof againt or explain in a reasonable way what should be here the problem for a QI. --Taxiarchos228 07:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Regarding the crop; I suppose that Mattbuck are refering to the lower left corner (see note).--ArildV 07:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, this I see now, I'll correct this soon. But the distortion is not relevant IMO for a aerial view. --Taxiarchos228 10:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you please explain why ?--Jebulon 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
because it's minor and doesn't effect the image impression --Taxiarchos228 06:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Basel_-_Roche_Tower_-_Baufortschritt_August_2014-3.jpg

  • Nomination Basel: Roche Tower during construction on 6th August 2014 --Taxiarchos228 18:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Perspectives : both sides are leaning in --Christian Ferrer 10:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    no, it's not, this image was corrected --Taxiarchos228 19:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)  Oppose not done --Christian Ferrer 05:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    here is n.th. to be done --Taxiarchos228 04:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    It is definitely leaning in. Mattbuck 20:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    I've seen another nomination of this building before, it gives the illusion of leaning in. However, in this image the left side actually is leaning in which will need correcting first. Take a look at some of the other buildings on the left. --Lewis Hulbert 20:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
the left side is not leaning but it is build so that it's reducing easyly, cf. File:Basel - Roche Tower - Baufortschritt August 2014-6.jpg --Taxiarchos228 04:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The image you show is also leaning in, and a lot in more! (see building at left) --Christian Ferrer 17:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The building on the left side is not leaning (see note) --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective correction is not done (easy to fix). --Iifar 15:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Dornsife Gap from the south.JPG

  • Nomination Pennsylvania Route 225 and the Dornsife Gap. Jakec 11:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose tilted, and oversharpened --A.Savin 15:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    I think it just looks that way because of the angle of the mountain and the road. I don't agree that it's oversharpened. Jakec 15:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment It probably isn't tilted, the verticals on the building on the left, and the house in the middle distance are correct. The telephone poles lean as they sometimes do. I agree with A.Savin, it is (a little) oversharpened, there are halos around the foreground pole on the left, and all along the ridge line, and some CA at the edges of the image (the white house on the right) is emphasized. The grain in the road in the foreground looks a little unnatural as well. If you can back off a notch, it would look better. --Generic1139 17:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Generic1139: I've reduced the sharpness slightly. Jakec 23:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The halo on the ridge line and the telephone pole on the left looks worse now --Generic1139 03:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
@Generic1139: Afraid I don't really know how to deal with halos. Jakec 11:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Oversharpened. Mattbuck 17:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Boys_playing_in_Avenida_Paulista.jpg

  • Nomination Boys playing in Avenida Paulista --Wilfredor 14:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    I am afraid, that you cannot publish this kind of pictures in Brazil, which is together with Spain, one of the most restrictive countries regarding personality rights. Read more here Poco a poco 15:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Thanks. This was taken with permission --Wilfredor 15:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, I am ready to promote if you improve the description / categories Poco a poco 10:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    Categories look ok, but I'm not convinced this is QI. The left side is not in focus. Mattbuck 19:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Von_Rekk_Mansion.jpg

  • Nomination Vilgelmina (Minna) Von Rekk mansion at Pyatnitskaya street in Moscow, Russia. --Nino Verde 11:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Perspective issues, including a barrel distortion. --Cccefalon 11:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
     CommentIt is panorama gathered from 4 shots. Thus distortions are present. --Nino Verde 11:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
     Comment Perspective distorion can be handled for stitched panoramas, especially when it consists of a considerably small amount of images. Should be not an excuse. --Cccefalon 13:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    I'm willing to  Support this one. Mattbuck 19:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Certina 1888 DS Podium Chronograph.jpg

  • Nomination Certina 1888 DS Podium Chronograph. --Dnalor 01 11:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not very sharp. --Mattbuck 10:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I can't find any problem with the sharpness. --Dnalor 01 07:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality! What against sharpness? Sharpness is good. -- Spurzem 21:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Magenta/green CA. A lot of noise which contributes to the fuzziness --Generic1139 21:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment And compare to this File:Taschenuhr Omega 1900 - H3463.jpg and File:Montre revolutionnaire-IMG 4629-black.jpg at 1:1 to see sharp watch faces and hands --Generic1139 21:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC) And this one didn't show up in my first search because it was too new to have the quality image assigned, but the recently promoted File:Omega Genève Handaufzug, Cal. 613.jpg by User:Dnalor 01 is also a nice sharp image --Generic1139 21:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your statement, you're right, I've seen the differences! But I've uploaded a new version now, so the problem could be solved ... --Dnalor 01 07:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support The new version is much better. Looks good to me. --Generic1139 (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, for a studio shot not sharp enough and too much noise --Berthold Werner 17:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness is not overwhelming, but acceptable. Yet noise is too high for a studio shot and some areas are clipping. -- Smial 12:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Basilika Seckau, Habsburger Mausoleum, Wappen der Wittelsbach auf Kenotaph.jpg

  • Nomination Putti on cenotaph holding coat of arms of Wittelsbach, Habsburger mausoleum, Seckau basilica, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 09:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion This one lacks sharpness --Poco a poco 09:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, I can't find any problem with the sharpness ... --Dnalor 01 09:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    I do, compare it with the head of Charles II. If you don't agree go ahead and put it on discussion, no problem with that Poco a poco 10:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)For me there are no problems with the sharpness. --Dnalor 01 10:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness is OK IMO. Yann 11:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sharpness is ok, but noise is too strong, especially in the background (ISO 1600!). Can you try to reduce it? --Uoaei1 16:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC) I'm very sorry, but unfortunately I'm not able to do that by myself ... --Dnalor 01 18:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Algérie-Roumanie_-_20140604_-_12.jpg

  • Nomination Algérie-Roumanie - 20140604 - 12 --Pleclown 10:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too tight crop (why?) and very noisy; nice moment nevertheless. --Kadellar 12:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The crop is tight, because i can't have a wider one :) I was very close to the players and the action was quick, I didn't had time to recenter. See the full image (no crop, no tilt) here Pleclown 20:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Some noise is inevitable if you want to catch fast movements in sports. Very good shot regarding the circumstances. --Smial 09:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The wider view is much better imo, more interesting. I can stand quite a lot of noise, I'm used to indoor sports, but I think this one has too much, sorry. --Kadellar 16:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Luminance- and chromatic noise are too much, sorry.--Jebulon 16:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Very tight crop but good quality for me. I can't agree with Jebulon. -- Spurzem 21:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Very noisy. While I think this is one of your better ones from the game, I don't believe it's good enough for QI. Mattbuck 21:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tight crop. Noise is improvable--Lmbuga 02:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Of course there is going to be noise; our uploader shot that up at ISO 3200 under low light and got a shot that you just can't get without cranking up the ISO. IMHO, this is more than good enough for a QI. Collard 23:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Weil_am_Rhein_-_View_from_Vitra_Slide_Tower2.jpg

  • Nomination View from Vitra Slide Tower --Taxiarchos228 20:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --XRay 17:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    Many dust spots, perspective issues. --Mattbuck 20:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry. you're right, Mattbuck.--XRay 05:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 QuestionSorry, but now, who supports and who opposes ?--Jebulon 20:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I  Oppose and XRay has struck their support. Mattbuck 21:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

File:ParroquiaNuestraSeñoraRosario-Vela.jpg

  • Nomination Front of Nuestra Señora del Rosario church, María Ignacia, Vela, Tandil, Argentina --Ezarate 14:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Please, your image needs perspective correction. It's tilted CCW.--XRay ✓ Done Ezarate 21:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)15:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
     Comment Please have a look to the image and my notice.--XRay 16:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I tried to fix that issue Ezarate 00:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    IMO it's not OK. Please have a look to the door.--XRay 04:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Tilted. Sky too granular, needs denoising. Luminance of blue needs to be raised. --Cccefalon 08:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment I just do more corrections, see now please Ezarate 09:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Very weak  Support. It's much better now. IMO it's leaning in on both sides, but with repsect to the building: QI.--XRay 07:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Noisy, perspective issues, and that there's a wire right across the front is disqualifying. Mattbuck 21:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)