Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

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


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]] 02:26, 6 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).
The new rule is effective now. Please nominate only a maximum of 5 images per day. [1]

December 2, 2014

December 1, 2014

November 30, 2014

November 29, 2014

November 28, 2014

November 27, 2014

November 26, 2014

November 25, 2014

November 24, 2014

November 23, 2014

November 22, 2014

November 21, 2014

November 20, 2014

November 19, 2014

November 18, 2014

November 8, 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:La_vara_rota_1892_by_Arturo_Michelena.JPG

  • Nomination La vara rota 1892 by Arturo MichelenaEnglish: La vara rota. --Wilfredor 17:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    Perhaps I'm missing something, but this does not appear to be a Wikimedian's work. Jakec 03:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean with this does not appear to be a Wikimedian's work. --Wilfredor 08:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
What I mean is that obviously a Wikimedian didn't paint this in 1892. Jakec 18:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Photographs of paintings are OK; I think. Jkadavoor 15:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Indeed they are, though I do accept they can be hard to review. Mattbuck 20:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Streetlight_with_padlocks_Ponte_Milvio.JPG

  • Nomination Streetlight with padlocks Ponte Milvio --Livioandronico2013 09:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Code 13:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
     CommentI find the sky overexposed, discuss please. --C messier 14:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    It was a cloudy day C messier, you can see the clouds, still ok discuss --Livioandronico2013 17:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry, I apologise. Badly balaced screen. --C messier 09:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Austria vs. Russia 20141115 (045).jpg

  • Nomination Marko Arnautović, player of (Austria. Note: The photo is specific for Lmbuga to give me a contra-vote. --Steindy 22:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose overexposed areas, too noisy, a bit blurred, your note is stupid. --Christian Ferrer 06:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you for your personal attack in the last Part of your vote! This shows your true spirit... --Steindy 15:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    Discuss that your comment will be shown for a longer time. --Steindy 01:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 Comment Not QI for me, but I don't want to vote: Noise, poor detail (eyes and lips), poor detail and DOF (hair). Overexposed areas... Sorry, I think that QI pictures must be better, but it's only my opinion. Carefully and lovingly--Lmbuga 18:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Austria vs. Russia 20141115 (083).jpg

Ok,i replay you like the great Christian :"your note is stupid." I decline a photo for one negative vote for a picture that nobody had vote??? who is the real child here? --Livioandronico2013 09:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  •  Comment Sorry, I don't want to vote, but in this case the quality is poor: Too unsharp (as Livioandronico2013), noise... Sorry--Lmbuga 18:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Austria vs. Russia 20141115 (084).jpg

Ok,i replay you like the great Christian :"your note is stupid." I decline a photo for one negative vote for a picture that nobody had vote??? who is the real child here? --LivioAndronico talk 09:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  •  Comment It's a good picture, but not QI IMO. No vote because he (Steindy) hates me, but he can not prevent that I opine: Too tight at left. Noisy. Dark clothes of the left have chromatic noise. Poor DOF IMO (some faces are not sharp enough)--Lmbuga 18:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Why not Lmbuga? Ahora que estoy acostumbrado. --Livioandronico2013 19:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Español: Siempre queda la esperanza de que los demás entiendan que no hay animadversión. Por eso.
--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 19:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
English: There is always the hope that others will understand that there is no animosity. Therefore.
--Lmbuga 19:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Español: El proyecto wikimedia necesita que nosotros prescindamos de problemas prescindibles como este. Debemos hacerles frente, pero con la suficiente distancia como para no crear conflicto grave. El único bien es el bien de todos. Mi bien, mi bien es tu compañía y la compañía de otros. Gracias
--Lmbuga 20:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Palabras santas --Livioandronico2013 20:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@Lmbuga: I would be a little preliminary separator, to another user to imply hatred. If this is your style, then it is poorly ordered for you. But maybe that's (your) part of the evaluation of photos... --Steindy 20:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Austria vs. Russia 20141115 (085).jpg

  • Nomination Marc Janko, player of the (Austria). --Steindy 22:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  OpposeUnsharp --Livioandronico2013 16:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
     Comment Revanche-foul from Livioandronico2013 my vote here. QI is not a playground for children defiant. Other votes please. --Steindy 00:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok,i replay you like the great Christian :"your note is stupid." I decline a photo for one negative vote for a picture that nobody had vote??? who is the real child here? --Livioandronico2013 09:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  •  Comment Your problem, Steindy, is with me. Please, I'm a teacher in the IES "Manuel Garcia Barros" (A Estrada, Pontevedra, Galicia, Spain). If you want to kill me, I'm here. Leave in peace others, please--Lmbuga 20:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Austria vs. Russia 20141115 (070).jpg

Ok,i replay you like the great Christian :"your note is stupid." I decline a photo for one negative vote for a picture that nobody had vote??? who is the real child here? --Livioandronico2013 09:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Sure, the background isn't sharp, but the players are. Jakec 00:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nice and good composition, perhaps FP, but too unsharp and noisy IMO, not QI IMO. Steindy hates me and I don't want to vote. Too tight at top IMO (hand)--Lmbuga 18:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Austria vs. Russia 20141115 (061).jpg

Ok,i replay you like the great Christian :"your note is stupid." I decline a photo for one negative vote for a picture that nobody had vote??? who is the real child here? --Livioandronico2013 09:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  •  Comment Sorry, your problem is not with other users, your problem is with me: Get out Steindy. You're is to me sordid, perhaps sleazy or seedy or blowzy or queerish (Google translation)--Lmbuga 20:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Austria vs. Russia 20141115 (064).jpg

Ok,i replay you like the great Christian :"your note is stupid." I decline a photo for one negative vote for a picture that nobody had vote??? who is the real child here? --Livioandronico2013 09:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Austria vs. Russia 20141115 (067).jpg

  • Nomination Martin Harnik, player of the Austria national football team. --Steindy 23:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose - Not sharp. --Mattbuck 19:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    Mattbuck, The player who is nominated is sharp. I will remember you at your train-photos. --Steindy 01:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    That counts as sharp the same way that children's safety scissors do. Mattbuck 20:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Matt --Livioandronico2013 09:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Austria vs. Russia 20141115 (057).jpg

  • Nomination Rubin Okotie (Austria, right) by a shot, which was helt by keeper Igor Akinfeev in the match Ausria vs. Russia. --Steindy 01:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose - There's too little in focus. --Mattbuck 18:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    Mattbuck, The players who are nominated are sharp. I will remember you at your train-photos. --Steindy 01:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    @Steindy: , are you suggesting that because I opposed this image you will oppose my nominations as a form of revenge? Mattbuck 10:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Beware Mattbuck, has already threatened to report me here on my talk page because I declined his photos --Livioandronico2013 13:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear @Mattbuck: ! No, I have just written, I will remind you of this comment. Abuse in the polls of my photos operates Livioandronico2013 and this low level I'm not going to go for sure! --Steindy 14:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC) By the way: Do they know what the depth of field at aperture 2.8? So much for your comment. --Steindy 14:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Go wherever you want Steindy, let's see where you go with your threats --Livioandronico2013 14:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Steindy, I do not deny that some of the players are in focus, but most of the picture is not in focus, and the eye is drawn to the out of focus areas. Bad composition. Mattbuck 15:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear @Mattbuck: ! It is impossible to tell you this, that there are other players in the picture, if the right player shoots at goal and to the left is the goalkeeper. Am I to other players from the photo retouch? But let this Diksussion, it leads to nothing anyway. If'll think about the future, nor to ask here Photos for discussion on basic knowledge of the sport is missing. --Steindy 17:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@Steindy: , I may not be the world's greatest authority on football, and nor would I ever wish to be, but that does not render me incapable of telling whether an image is QI or not. I see the action in the middle - this draws the eye - and that action is completely out of focus. I am aware that the out of focus action is a recognised technique, but in such circumstances the main purpose of the photo is in focus. If all the action besides the two on the right were cropped out then it might have a chance, but the "two small points of focus on either side of a vast expanse of blur" technique will never pass QI. Mattbuck 20:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Matt --Livioandronico2013 09:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  •  Comment Steindy say to Mattbuck: "I will remember you at your train-photos": Wav, he specializes in express threats. NO MORE COMMENTS, sorry--Lmbuga 19:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:FordFocusExe.JPG

  • Nomination Ford Focus parked in Tandil, Argentina --Ezarate 19:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Very tilted. No QI for me. -- Spurzem 23:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I tried to fix it Ezarate 23:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not fixed, tilted. Also, the front of the car is not sharp enough IMO (see the wheel). Visible Cyan CAs. I don't like and I don't understand the composition. It seems a random picture, sorry: Not QI for me--Lmbuga 20:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Limni_Preveli_07.JPG

  • Nomination Aquatic plants cover large parts of Preveli Lake (Limni Preveli) in the lower reach of the Megalopotamos river, Crete --Uoaei1 10:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 11:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    I am afraid, you need to provide information about the plant --Poco a poco 12:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
     Info Taxa names for organisms are no longer mandatory. This rule has been discussed and removed recently. --Uoaei1 16:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment I still read that here. Furthermore I wonder whether the fact that the taxa is not required means that "plant" is a proper description? Probably the expectation is somewhere inbetween? Poco a poco 20:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2013-11-01_Triton_und_Nymphe-Volksgarten_Viktor_Tilgner_6025.jpg

  • Nomination Triton und Nymphe fountain by Viktor Tilgner at Volksgarten. --Hubertl 23:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Very good. --Steindy 01:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very good? Subject blurred, bird out of focus -- Alvesgaspar 12:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Breast is sharp, face is not. Plus pixelisation around the bird’s feet, maybe poor post-processing. --Kreuzschnabel 19:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, poor quality. Shameful proposal IMO. Blurred, as Alvesgaspar--Lmbuga 20:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2013-11-01_Triton_und_Nymphe-Volksgarten_Viktor_Tilgner_6041.jpg

  • Nomination Triton und Nymphe fountain by Viktor Tilgner at Volksgarten. --Hubertl 23:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Nice.--Famberhorst 05:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark and blurred, poor framing -- Alvesgaspar 12:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark and blurred, poor framing. As Alvesgaspar --Lmbuga 20:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2013-11-01_Triton_und_Nymphe-Volksgarten_Viktor_Tilgner_6081.jpg

  • Nomination Triton und Nymphe fountain by Viktor Tilgner at Volksgarten. --Hubertl 23:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Very good. --Steindy 01:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Subject blurred (out of focus?). I really don't understand the 'very good' of the previou review. -- Alvesgaspar 12:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 Comment I too. --Steindy 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination --Hubertl 02:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2013-11-01_Triton_und_Nymphe-Volksgarten_Viktor_Tilgner_6045-Bearbeitet.jpg

  • Nomination Triton und Nymphe fountain by Viktor Tilgner at Volksgarten. --Hubertl 23:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Very good composition but overprocessed, green CAs, halo, color noise --Christian Ferrer 09:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    Full agree, this was really a bad version and extremely sloppy! I did it completely new! Please have a look, Christian. --Hubertl 14:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC) indeed a bit better, but not enough and I think you can't really improve it, too many issues, sorry. --Christian Ferrer 19:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination For me its a really special motive, I will work on a new version... Thanks for your critics!--Hubertl 02:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Будівля вокзалу Кривий Ріг-Головний 02.jpg

  • Nomination train station, Kryvyi Rih city, Ukraine by User:WDKeeper --User:Andrew J.Kurbiko 19:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support QI --Bahnfrend 03:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Stitching error, magenta CA, perspective issues. Not a QI. @Bahnfrend: refrain from a promotion-reflex only because there is a rail track. Please do a carefully review according to the image guidelines. --Cccefalon 20:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Austria vs. Russia 20141115 (071).jpg

  • Nomination Martin Harnik (Austria, right) in duel with Dmitriy Kombarov (Russia). --Steindy 22:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The Russian is out of focus (on purpose), the Austrian is not sharp enough (not on purpose). Good composition anyway--Jebulon 14:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Jebulon, it is the characteristic of the football game, that there are attackers and defenders. So if there is a distance of five to eight meters between these two players, then it is possible that with a 400 mm lens both players are in focus? The photo should accurately convey this distance, which is why the left player has not been cut away. --Steindy 00:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Steindy, thanks for the lesson of football, I appreciate. Aber ich mag lieber rugby, so I'm ready to teach you the rules (for more subtle than football rules) if you want. There are attackers and defenders too, but all the team is involved in attack or defence, it depends of the moment of the game, like in handball, you see ? Seriously, I agree my assessment lacks of "sharpness", like your image: forget all, just consider that Harnik is unsharp.--Jebulon 20:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jebulon --Livioandronico2013 16:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Charleroi_-_rue_Tumelaire_91_-_rosace_du_tramway_électrique.jpg

  • Nomination Charleroi (Belgium) - support for electric tram alimentation --Jmh2o 11:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Very weak  Support Good quality. DoF could be better. --XRay 10:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I need a discussion. It is an excellent document for an interesting object, but the focus could be discussed, and the picture needs a rotation cw IMO (verticality)--Jebulon 14:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose. Interesting object and not too badly shot, but DoF is too shallow, altogether a bit soft for its size, and the rotation issue mentioned by Jebulon. I tried to fix the perspective but the loss on the image is too huge, it needs about 3 degrees rotation plus keystone correction. Pity. --Kreuzschnabel 09:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Panadería_en_Butantâ.jpg

  • Nomination Panadería en Butantâ --Wilfredor 09:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Please expand the file descr. (São Paulo, Brazil). A geotag would be appreciated. Will promote once done. --~~~~
     Not done --Livioandronico2013 10:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    Please see [[2]] beforte to write Not done. Thanks --Wilfredor 12:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose And then???? Where is write ✓ Done?? do you write ✓ Done? Learn the regolament Wilfredor before (no beforte) write. Second is ask the geotag. Where is geotag??? I tell you what said the great John McEnroe "You cannot be serious!".Third and last...when you write here check that is visible that you write,use the preview button if you aren't sure. Anyway I want the geotag e i want a serious answer after i'll change my vote. Grazie. --Livioandronico2013 14:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Please calm down, do not take this personally. The geotag is not a requirement for QI. --Wilfredor 11:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 Neutral I'm calm if you don't try to teach me. When you do change you must leave ✓ Done,i or others can't be check every pictures is the owner does't report it. Anyway do as you like. --Livioandronico2013 13:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for your recomendation. Now you changed you vote to neutral, could be nice chance too Discuss to aprobal. A hug --Wilfredor 17:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 Support Ok Wilfredor for this time for me is ok,i want believe in your good faith. But remember what I said. have nothing to object on the photo in and of itself. --Livioandronico2013 10:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014.07.11.-10-Eilenburg Hainichen--Grosser Blaupfeil-Maennchen.jpg

  • Nomination Großer Blaupfeil - Orthetrum cancellatum, Männchen (male) --Hockei 17:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment May it's better with another crop. But IMO DoF missing and a disturbing light spot in the middle.--XRay 10:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed Changed crop and light spot removed. DOF is good IMO. --Hockei 19:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support It's better but I would choose another crop (less at the top).--XRay 06:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thank you. I changed the crop again. It seems to be better for me as well. --Hockei (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Livioandronico2013 16:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but no. This is well below the QI bar for insects. Almost nothing in the subject is sharp. Alvesgaspar 16:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Austria vs. Russia 20141115 (087).jpg

  • Nomination Marc Janko, player of the Austrian national football Team. --Steindy 23:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Sorry, too tight at top, at bottom and at left (especially on that side). I don't like the white balance and the detail is not very good IMO--Lmbuga 00:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    Other votes please. --Steindy 01:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support ok in splite of the left crop (cut hand) --Christian Ferrer 09:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Too soft, too tight crop. Valuable image but not an example of quality. Alvesgaspar 11:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. And that cropped finger...--Jebulon 13:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Livioandronico2013 15:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 Comment Do you also have your own opinion or are you talking about getting another by? --Steindy 19:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I should answer like Christian Ferrer,anyway Alvesgaspar said that i think. Why i must repeat??? --Livioandronico2013 20:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Ich versteh dich mal wieder nicht. Es ist hier doch vollkommen üblich, sich dem Review eines anderen anzuschließen, wenn man dessen Urteil über das Bild teilt. Das heißt doch nicht, daß man keine eigene Meinung hätte! Und grundsätzlich: Was versprichst du dir davon, auf Kontras trotzig zu reagieren? Meinst du, dann ändern diejenigen ihre Meinung über dein Bild ins Positive? Wenn nicht, was soll es dann? Nimm es doch als ehrliche Rückmeldung. Ich für mich sehe es einfach so: Wenn eines meiner Bilder auf Widerspruch stößt, ist es halt nicht gut genug, und fertig. --Kreuzschnabel 20:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Austria vs. Russia 20141115 (088).jpg

  • Nomination Marc Janko, player of the (Austrian national football Team. --Steindy 23:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. Enough for QI --Hubertl 00:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, the front is overexposed (see note), too much noise and poor detail to be QI IMO. Yellowish IMO. Too tight at top IMO--Lmbuga 00:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    Yes and he has a scrape grass on his eye and on the shirt. By the way: have you ever made football photos with floodlight? I think not, because then you'd have to know that reflected the light on the sweaty body. --Steindy 01:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose burned out area on the face --Christian Ferrer 09:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blurred for QI -- Alvesgaspar 11:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Livioandronico2013 15:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 Comment Do you also have your own opinion or are you talking about getting another by? --Steindy 19:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I should answer like Christian Ferrer,anyway Alvesgaspar said that i think. Why i must repeat??? --Livioandronico2013 20:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar.--Jebulon 20:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • weak  Support – WB is OK for me, the blown forehead inaviodable (lesser exposure would make his hair drown in black; the image is properly exposed, the contrast was just too high), and the crop is okay. Minor sharpness flaws can be excused on this kind of shots. --Kreuzschnabel 20:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Austria vs. Russia 20141115 (090).jpg

  • Nomination Marc Janko (Austria, left) folowed by Vasiliy Berezutskiy (Russia). --Steindy 23:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Sorry, strong noise, unbalanced picture, chromatic noise--Lmbuga 00:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    Other votes please. --Steindy 01:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tilted, not fixable without a crop. --Christian Ferrer 09:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
     Neutral indeed I looked at the horizontal, but it's certainly not a good reference. --Christian Ferrer 19:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any tilt, I don't see chromatic noise. The background is really noisy (correctible), and the austrian player is a bit out of focus, despite the downsampling (very small at full size). But the light and the composition are for me excellent, The two players looking together in the same direction, with a similar attitude, this makes me support this one.--Jebulon 13:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga --Livioandronico2013 15:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 Comment Do you also have your own opinion or are you talking about getting another by? --Steindy 19:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I should answer like Christian Ferrer,anyway Lmbuga said that i think. Why i must repeat??? --Livioandronico2013 20:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment My vote was in 01:24, 29 November 2014. (@Jebulon), in the new version uploaded at 05:00, 30 November 2014, I don't see chromatic noise. The new version has not been properly announced: When the author announce the new version, maybe I decide to change my vote. Perhaps!!?--Lmbuga 14:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Austria vs. Russia 20141115 (098).jpg

  • Nomination Herbert Prohaska, former player and manager of the (Austrian national football Team, as TV-commentator for ORF. --Steindy 23:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 00:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, strong noise and chromatic noise, Cyan CAs (collar, see note), inappropriate expression for me (IMO), eyes are not perfect--Lmbuga 01:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga --LivioAndronico talk 16:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support As I said, its ok and QI, related to these circumstances.--Hubertl 20:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Just one vote, please -- Alvesgaspar 11:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga --P e z i 10:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose While it’s nice in preview, and (I assume) shows ironically a typical expression (though not the most fortunate one), in full view the flaws get too obvious. DoF is too shallow, and the pic looks a bit "smeared", like heavy de-noising and re-sharpening, there’s something unnatural to it making it look a bit like a painting. --Kreuzschnabel 20:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Dodge_RAM_in_Isla_Margarita.jpg

  • Nomination Dodge RAM in Isla Margarita --Wilfredor 11:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support QI - Bahnfrend 12:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Very disturbing shadows and bad perspective. Sorry. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 15:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I'll support if overexposed areas in background are corrected.--Jebulon 13:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

File:CoA_of_Pope_Clement_XI_on_Obelisk_of_Pantheon_2.jpg

  • Nomination CoA of Pope Clement XI on Obelisk of Pantheon.jpg --Livioandronico2013 21:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose The crop is too tight at the bottom, I think. --Code 06:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    I am wondering about your vote, but let us discuss. --Steindy 14:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support for me too it is QI.--Hubertl 13:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight crop below, because too much space above. Bad composition.--Jebulon 21:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

File:CoA_of_Pope_Clement_XI_on_Obelisk_of_Pantheon.jpg

  • Nomination CoA of Pope Clement XI on Obelisk of Pantheon --Livioandronico2013 21:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion A little bit dark and I'm not sure whether the pigeon makes the picture worse or better but I think the quality is overall sufficient for QI. --Code 06:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Not as sharp and contrasty as the other photo. In addition, the pigeon interferes me. --Steindy 14:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

  •  Comment The pigeon at the top is fine, but at the right is cut. Yann 18:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Yann now? Thanks --Livioandronico2013 20:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 21:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support weak pro, but ok.--Hubertl 22:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support The sharpness of the tiara is so-so, but per Hubertl.--Jebulon 13:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Roofs and towers of Alhambra from Generalife, Granada, Spain.jpg

  • Nomination Roofs and towers of the Alhambra, from the Generalife, Granada, Spain.--Jebulon 20:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, but unsharp and blurrish --Hubertl 23:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't understand this decline vote. I will not push the picture in CR by myself (not my policy), but I think it needs more opinions. Thank you.--Jebulon 20:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  •  Support QI IMO. --P e z i 15:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 09:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Good lighting, beautiful colors, sharp enough. -- Spurzem 15:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    • You have no idea how I'm happy of these support. Not because of the image itself, not because of the contradictions to Hubertl's vote (which is absolutely legitime), not because of the QI seal, but because what it shows about the self-regulation of the QI process, not so bad...--Jebulon 18:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
      • This kind of selfregulation should work in other parts too, I remember, you declined pictures one after the other from Moroder, so sometimes we got the feeling, there is something personel between you and him. And its the same in other cases.--Hubertl 23:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Who are "we" ? Don't assume anything.--Jebulon 21:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It is sharp enough for me and the colour is just the typical hazy colour of a high noon shot under andalucian sun. However, the verticals could be more rectilinear. --Cccefalon 16:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Cacyreus_marshalli_-_02.jpg

  • Nomination Geranium bronze (Cacyreus marshalli) in the Community of Madrid, Spain. --Kadellar 09:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment  Oppose Needs noise reduction and then sharpening a bit. Fixable IMO. --Hockei 17:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC) *: Not done Kadellar, your last edit is not good enough for me. It's still noisy even if it's a bit better. The sharpness is worse. I don't want to produce a new version for you again, because I wouldn't like it if I were you. --Hockei 18:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    First of all, I made the edit. Second of all, I did NOT denoise the foreground. I applied a noise filter on the background only by masking out the foreground. Any sharpness changes are probably your imagination. Ram-Man 13:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Haha, I didn't notice that you was the editor, sorry. No reason to be angry. But it won't change my opinion. --Hockei 17:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I thought the sharpness was fine and the noise was a little annoying, but since I smoothed that out, it's fine for me. Ram-Man 13:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Question, is it legitimate that the editor supports its own work here? I didn't so. --Hockei 17:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)?

File:Cacyreus_marshalli_-_03.jpg

  • Nomination Geranium bronze (Cacyreus marshalli) in the Community of Madrid, Spain. --Kadellar 09:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support weak pro, nice work --Hubertl 00:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Actually the main subject is too small for me. But my main problem is the crop. I don't like it, sorry. --Hockei 17:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm following the rule of thirds here. --Kadellar 12:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I know, but it's not my thing. I really don't like this cut. I made a version with some improvements who I would support. Now, you can decide what you prefer. --Hockei 15:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)  Neutral Just for the second version. I think I must not support it because of my own edit. --Hockei (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It's ok now but it is a different picture. --Kadellar 16:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Kadellar, my editing is merely a suggestion to show that it's possible to improve this picture. You can do it by yourself and also you can keep your crop or set it back to the first version. It realy doesn't matter for me. :-) --Hockei 18:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Cráter_Eldborg,_Vesturland,_Islandia,_2014-08-14,_DD_031.JPG

File:Cráter Eldborg, Vesturland, Islandia, 2014-08-14, DD 031.JPG

  • Nomination Eldborg crater, Versurland, Iceland --Poco a poco 18:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good --Wilfredor 18:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Oppose a bit blurred IMO --Christian Ferrer 12:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Rome_(IT),_Monumento_a_Vittorio_Emanuele_II_--_2013_--_3456.jpg

  • Nomination Monumento a Vittorio Emanuele II, Rome, Italy --XRay 06:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Good quality. Very nice view. --Smial 15:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Back to blue, XRay, can you brighten dark areas, they're much too dark. --Kadellar 10:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Fixed Thanks. It's fixed now.--XRay 16:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Mmmm maybe I didn't explain myself, you have changed WB, but dark parts and the sky are still dark imo. I'm taking it to CR so more people can give their opinion. --Kadellar 17:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Fixed Fixed. Difficult. Parts of the stone are ver bright, other parts very dark. IMO now that's the best way for this image.--XRay 09:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you, ok now. --Kadellar 12:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Austria vs. Russia 20141115 (010).jpg

File:Sterculia fruit.jpg

  • Nomination Sterculia guttata fruit --Vengolis 17:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. --0x010C 17:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC) --  Oppose Depth of field too shallow, too much noise affecting detail. Alvesgaspar 18:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
     strong oppose As Alvesgaspar. Lack of detail, nothing in focus IMO. CAs... poor quality IMO--Lmbuga 19:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Per Lmbuga --Livioandronico2013 21:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oddly, I find this whole thing acceptable except for the very odd haloing around everything. It's visible even in the thumbnails. Ram-Man 03:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ram-Man: He is new to QIC; but has some good tools and resources. I noticed he is using the auto mode. May be some good advice will help him to improve. Jkadavoor 07:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality at all. --Steindy 21:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very interesting shot but most of it is unsharp, DoF too shallow. I don’t like the haloing and posterization on the edges too. Digitally refocused? --Kreuzschnabel 20:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Trostburg_Waidbruck_North_face_detail.jpg

  • Nomination The castle Trostburg in Waidbruck, South Tyrol - North face --Moroder 17:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. Summertime as its best! --Hubertl 18:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Halo. I wish another opinion, please.--Jebulon 20:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment The halo is not an artifact, it is there in reality you can see it with your naked eye so why should I take it away, please answer my questions. --Moroder 12:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    •  CommentArtifact or not, I see a halo, and I find this is disturbing. That is why CR exists. Please don't try intimidation with me, we both are too old for that. And I have no problem if some here think it is a QI. 5/1? Ok, it is a QI, that's the majority rule.--Jebulon 21:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
      •  Comment Why halo ? Because the photographer is facing the sun, of course... Nothing extraordinary here. Wrong moment of the day, that's all.--Jebulon 13:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI. --P e z i 14:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support As I said yesterday. Good quality.--Hubertl 19:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 09:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 20:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Вітряк_Гейсиха.JPG

  • Nomination Дерев'яний вітряк кін. XIX ст., село Гейсиха, при в'їзді в село. By User:Se Plakho --Ahonc 11:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The windmill is out of focus, otherwise I liked the picture, sorry. --Ruthven 12:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. How will you get a focus within a fog? --Hubertl 14:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    Maybe that's the difficulty of photographing thorough the fog. Another opinion is then welcome. --Ruthven 09:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support This picture works for me. Ram-Man 03:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No doubt that it's a really nice picture. However, I don't think that it meets the QI criteria. It's simply not sharp. Looks a little bit like a camera shake. --Code 13:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 20:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality is ok. As I wrote above, seeking sharpness inside the mist is contradictory.--Hubertl 13:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Pickering railway station MMB 01.jpg

  • Nomination Pickering railway station. Mattbuck 08:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion A little underexposed and I think that white balance should be adjusted as well. --Ruthven 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree the decline, but I agree with the lighten up. WB is ok, I think. --Hubertl 02:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    The image has been lightened up; now we need a final opinion --Ruthven 09:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI. --P e z i 15:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI. --Hubertl 20:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 20:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

File:African_Lion_Panthera_leo_Snow_Pittsburgh_2816px.jpg

  • Nomination African Lion. Yes it has CAs. Lots of them. It's from an old camera, and the picture still looks nice. --Ram-Man 04:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose An old camera does not justify exceptions from image guidelines. Removing CA is an easy to apply postprocessing work. While the CA are fixable, my decline goes for the blurry snowflakes. --Cccefalon 08:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    Easy? Only if you have the software to fix it, which I don't. Anyway, it's a picture with falling snow, of course the flakes are blurry. Ram-Man 13:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Blurry snowflakes can't be a reason for declining. That's what makes the picture interesting. CA may be fixable. Regards, Yann 12:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- This is a very nice composition despite the tight crop above. Unfortunatley one of the lions is out of focus. The blurred snowflakes don't bother me. Alvesgaspar 11:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Kasteel_Schoonselhof_Antwerpen.jpg

  • Nomination Kasteel Schoonselhof Antwerpen --Brackenheim 15:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Needs perspective correction Poco a poco 15:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)~
  • I disagree: Since the camera position obviously was far below the vertical center of the building, it's perfectly normal that the verticals seem to lean in a bit at the top. Making things perfectly straight works to some degree for buildings with a more or less flat front, but here we have some very 3D features – for example, we are looking at the underside of the roof (especially visible in the triangle). Making the verticals vertical will only make it look less natural, because the observer's brain will get mixed signals: 1) Straight verticals implying that the eye level is somewhere around the vertical center of the building and 2) 3D features such as the roof, the windowsill or the arcs above the windows implying that eye level actually is somewhere around the top step. --El Grafo 13:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Ram-Man 13:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 21:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see what the fuss is. Beautiful picture. Jakec 00:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Sometimes i wish the analog time back, where perspective correction was not possible (just wisth tilt shift lens). In this case I need geometric measurements in the file to find any distorsions. So i dont see any reason to dismiss it. Good quality. -- DerFussi 05:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Trostburg_Waidbruck_North_face.jpg

  • Nomination The castle Trostburg in Waidbruck, South Tyrol - North face --Moroder 11:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion One dust spot on the right side --Uoaei1 14:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Fixed, thanks --Moroder 15:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
     Support Ok --Uoaei1 16:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose White halo in the sky. I wish other votes, please.--Jebulon 21:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is how Jebulon spoils and spoiled some of my best nominations. I already made the point about it innumerable times. I use some of the best photographic equipment( lenses and camera). I am very accurate with the exposure and make very little adjustments on the RAW files. I almost never do any sharpening. Well, the small 2-3 pixel margins are artifacts of digital photography and are absolutely IRRELEVANT compared to the size of the image. The larger halos are not artifacts and you observe them easily around backlit objects even with the naked eye. I don't know how to explain that physical phenomenon but still I don't think it's disturbing. So what? --Moroder 23:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    •  Comment "So what" ? I think it is disturbing.--Jebulon 21:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I can see that "white halo" in the thumbnail, but at larger sizes it starts to disappear and is almost gone at full size. Not really an issue imho, just like those hints of chromatic aberration you can see along the the top of the tower. --El Grafo (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Checking the threshold, there is a gradient of tones from the top right to the horizon, so it does not appear to have been caused by an incorrect unsharp mask. I don't see any indication that this was anything other than a natural phenomenon, unless someone can show otherwise? Ram-Man 13:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 21:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support maybe its something personal between Jebulon and Moroder. That should´nt be. Unfortunately, it continues. --Hubertl 22:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebolon, the halos: bad image processing. --Alchemist-hp 15:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    •  Comment How can you say that, since there was no processing at all? I wish I could send you the RAW file --Moroder 18:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
      •  Comment No camera processing neither ? As the photographer was almost in front of the sun, the facade we see was probably too much in shadow. Brightening it (even automatically) creates the halo.--Jebulon 13:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
        •  Comment The camera is set at neutral --Moroder 22:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. --Code 21:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Norden,_Norddeich,_Mole_--_2014_--_3435.jpg

  • Nomination Anleger in Norddeich, Norden, Lower Saxony, Germany --XRay 07:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 19:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose visible corrections in the sky, I wish other opinions, please.--Jebulon 21:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose re Jebulon. It looks very strange, I'd appreciate if the photographer would explain what happened here. Ram-Man 13:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Its difficult to change the background, in this case, the edges are too hard, he did´nt soften it. Probably just one layer, no mask. --Hubertl 22:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment I tried to fix this problem but it's difficult. There are too many different coloration of blue. (FYI: There was a small but disturbing part of a lamp that doesn't belong to the motif.)--XRay 16:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Köln,_Groß-St.-Martin-Kirche_--_2014_--_1807.jpg

  • Nomination Groß-St.-Martin-Kirche, Cologne, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 07:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion  SupportGood quality. --Ralf Roletschek 13:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing is vertical, IMO. I need a consensual review, please.--Jebulon 21:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    • It is better now, but I find the correction too strong for the tower at right, which looks strange and unreal.--Jebulon 13:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective should be corrected. --Berthold Werner 08:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am not a fan of discussion about 0.2 degrees but in this case it's visible at the first glance. Really need some correction. Maybe not enough space at the top then, but you can have it filled up. -- DerFussi 05:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Fixed Thanks for your reviews. It's fixed now.--XRay 16:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better now. --C messier 08:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Steindy 00:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)