Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

Shortcut
COM:QIC
Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文
float

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. Please note that this is not the same thing as featured pictures. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons.
Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.

Guidelines[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.


Image page requirements[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.


Creator[edit]

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technical requirements[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.


Resolution[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.


Image quality[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.


Composition and lighting[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.


Value[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.


How to nominate[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.


Number of nominations[edit]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


Evaluating images[edit]

Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination.
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.


How to review[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.


Grace period and promotion[edit]

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from review, the image becomes promoted or fails, according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.


How to execute decision[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red


Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 02 2017 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.


Consensual review process[edit]

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review[edit]

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you can not make a decision, add your comments, but leave the candidate on this page.


Consensual review rules[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache


Contents

Nominations[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 02:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文

December 02, 2017[edit]

December 01, 2017[edit]

November 30, 2017[edit]

November 29, 2017[edit]

November 28, 2017[edit]

November 27, 2017[edit]

November 26, 2017[edit]

November 25, 2017[edit]

November 24, 2017[edit]

November 23, 2017[edit]

November 22, 2017[edit]

November 21, 2017[edit]

November 20, 2017[edit]

November 17, 2017[edit]

Consensual review[edit]

Rules

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

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


Consensual Review[edit]

File:Neutrino Sculpture, Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne 2017-10-28.jpg[edit]

Neutrino Sculpture, Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne 2017-10-28.jpg

  • Nomination Neutrino Sculpture, Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne Crisco 1492 12:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 13:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)--Jacek Halicki 19:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Photo has some problems. Please look to the notes.--Aeou 13:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the image looks like it was badly stitched together from at least two images. --Granada 13:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Granada.--Peulle 13:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Atalaya,_Llumés,_Zaragoza,_España,_2017-05-25,_DD_03.jpg[edit]

Atalaya, Llumés, Zaragoza, España, 2017-05-25, DD 03.jpg

  • Nomination Watchtower of Llumés, Saragossa, Spain --Poco a poco 07:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry: love the composition, but the watchtower looks unsharp (specially at the top) and with some halos --Rafesmar 18:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree, not the sharpest, but the version I just uploaded should be good to go, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 19:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jacek Halicki 19:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That's better... --Rafesmar 14:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 16:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Ganga_Aarti,_Varanasi.jpg[edit]

Ganga Aarti, Varanasi.jpg

  • Nomination A priest performs Ganga Aarti at Daswasamedha ghat in Varanasi. --Dey.sandip 06:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose An interesting composition, but unfortunately too noisy --Michielverbeek 07:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Given the challenging light conditions, I believe this much of noise should be acceptable. Let's get other opinions. -- Dey.sandip 08:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Michiel. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 16:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

File:New Albany City Hall 1.jpg[edit]

New Albany City Hall 1.jpg

  • Nomination New Albany City Hall -- Sixflashphoto 00:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, perspective problems --Jacek Halicki 00:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)--Jacek Halicki 17:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Where so? I need the constructive criticism but don't see it. -- Sixflashphoto 01:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See my notes. --Jacek Halicki 10:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Version with new changes uploaded -- Sixflashphoto 17:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 18:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Blue_and_yellow_macaw_eating_a_peanut.webm[edit]

  • Nomination A captive blue and yellow macaw, Ara ararauna, shells and eats a peanut using its beak and claws. --Grendelkhan 23:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not sure if videos can be quality images... In any case, videos should be horizontal --Rafesmar 22:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No problem with the eligibility, but the composition is a problem for me. Since the subject is the bird eating a nut, filming it from this above angle doesn't actually show much of the bird eating. A lower angle would have been a better choice.--Peulle 11:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with the composition issues: besides the problems with the point of view, the vertical orientation makes the parrot look slightly cramped and most of the time the space above and below the bird is wasted.
    And maybe I am old-school, but I don't agree about vertical videos being considered quality videos. Video (unlike photography, that is "device-agnostic") is created to be consumed in horizontal devices, so the vertical orientation doesn't look right.--Rafesmar (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 11:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

File:CongresodelaNacionArgentina-nov2017.jpg[edit]

CongresodelaNacionArgentina-nov2017.jpg

  • Nomination Palace of the Argentine National Congress, Buenos Aires, Argentina --Ezarate 12:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportVery nice. PumpkinSky 13:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeToo dark --Jacek Halicki 18:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Ezarate 20:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki 14:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Seems good enough to me. -- Ikan Kekek 19:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   ----Ikan Kekek 19:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Schloss_Seehof_mit_Kaskaden.jpg[edit]

Schloss Seehof mit Kaskaden.jpg

  • Nomination View at Seehof castle with cascades in the front --Ermell 07:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. --Smial 12:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree --Ermell 13:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jacek Halicki 22:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The first version had lots of sharpening artifacts, bad crop, and strong banding in the sky. It would have been fair to mention that a new version has been uploaded after my vote. New version is acceptable for me. --Smial 08:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry Smial that's true, of course. After your justified criticism, I first noticed the bugs and created and uploaded a new version. Thanks for your evaluation anyway, it helped me and the picture.--Ermell 11:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Armenak Margarian 20:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   ----Ermell (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

File:The Log House 1.jpg[edit]

The Log House 1.jpg

  • Nomination The Log House -- Sixflashphoto 00:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed. --Granada 10:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New Version Uploaded -- Sixflashphoto 20:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sky is overxposeed and picure is tilted --Jacek Halicki 14:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)--Jacek Halicki 09:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tilt Adjustment and Sky reduced 1.3 Stops -- Sixflashphoto 00:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
See my notes.--Jacek Halicki 16:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I've tried to fix this. I really want to try and fix this photo and hope it isn't beyond repair. -- Sixflashphoto 23:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now is OK. --Jacek Halicki 09:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ----Ermell 14:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Gahanna Historical Society Sign 1.jpg[edit]

Gahanna Historical Society Sign 1.jpg

  • Nomination Gahanna Historical Society Sign -- Sixflashphoto 00:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 01:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeUnderexposed --Granada 10:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New Version Uploaded -- Sixflashphoto 20:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 16:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Fine, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 20:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --PumpkinSky 12:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Columbus School for Girls 2.jpg[edit]

Columbus School for Girls 2.jpg

  • Nomination Columbus School for Girls -- Sixflashphoto 00:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeTotally underexposed! --Granada 10:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version uploaded. -- Sixflashphoto 07:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki 14:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 16:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --PumpkinSky 12:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:View from Capitoline Hill.jpg[edit]

View from Capitoline Hill.jpg

  • Nomination View over Rome from the Capitoline Hill (NW) --Rabax63 17:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 20:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeClouds on the right side are overexposed --Jacek Halicki 19:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown highlights and artefacts in the sky.--Ermell 14:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Exposure of the initial version was ok. Rework led to color channel clipping in bright areas. Heavy noise reduction produced banding in the sky and loss of detail in other areas. I did not look for stitching errors etc., but suggest a rework without exposure "enhancements" and without brutal noise reduction. --Smial 15:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Changed Version uploaded. --Rabax63 17:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ----Ermell (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_la_Asunción,_Establés,_Guadalajara,_España,_2017-01-07,_DD_24.jpg[edit]

Iglesia de la Asunción, Establés, Guadalajara, España, 2017-01-07, DD 24.jpg

  • Nomination Church of the Assumption, Establés, Guadalajara, Spain --Poco a poco 06:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The tower is not sharp. Can you repair.--Famberhorst 06:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version Poco a poco 18:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, I'm not convinced. Other opinions please.--Famberhorst 06:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not convinced either. Maybe this is a case where less perspective correction is more... --Rafesmar 22:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Left side is quite unsharp. IMO not reasonably fixable. --Basotxerri 16:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 16:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

File:The Wagnalls Memorial 1.jpg[edit]

The Wagnalls Memorial 1.jpg

  • Nomination The Wagnalls Memorial -- Sixflashphoto 00:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 00:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness is poor --Jacek Halicki 19:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version uploaded -- Sixflashphoto 06:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose still not sharp enough.--Ermell 14:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sharpness Changed, Noise in sky somewhat masked. -- Sixflashphoto 01:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ----Ermell 14:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

File:OH674 1.jpg[edit]

OH674 1.jpg

  • Nomination OH674 -- Sixflashphoto 00:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 00:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness is poor, titl, bad color balance and strange composition --Jacek Halicki 19:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per JH. --Peulle 07:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Truro Township Townhall & Fire Department 2.jpg[edit]

Truro Township Townhall & Fire Department 2.jpg

  • Nomination Truro Township Townhall-- Sixflashphoto 00:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, sharpness in poor, left wall is overexposed --Jacek Halicki 19:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version uploaded, I reduced the left wall 0.75 stops but could try more -- Sixflashphoto 07:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Still not sharp enough. --Jacek Halicki 14:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Decreased left wall slightly more, increased sharpness. -- Sixflashphoto 01:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   ----Ermell 14:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Moscow_Kremlin,_Eternal_flame_Alexander_Garden.jpg[edit]

Moscow Kremlin, Eternal flame Alexander Garden.jpg

  • Nomination Moscow, at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the Alexander Garden to honor the dead of the Great Patriotic War --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 08:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 12:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree - overexposed --Jacek Halicki 19:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jacek.--Ermell 14:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   ----PumpkinSky 19:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Готель_«Слов’янський»,_Черкаси.jpg[edit]

Готель «Слов’янський», Черкаси.jpg

  • Nomination Hotel'vSlovianskyi', Cherkasy, Ukraine. By User:SNCH --Ahonc 01:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 03:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Beautiful building, but does this photo require perspective correction? -- Ikan Kekek 09:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree - Per Ikan --Jacek Halicki 19:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective should be corrected.--Ermell 14:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ----Ermell (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Eingangsportal_Kirche_Seukendorf;_Kirchhofmauer.jpg[edit]

Eingangsportal Kirche Seukendorf; Kirchhofmauer.jpg

  • Nomination Eingangsportal Kirche Seukendorf; Kirchhofmauer --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 09:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough. PumpkinSky 12:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree - monuent is cuted --Jacek Halicki 19:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor composition.--Peulle 07:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Peulle.--Ermell 14:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad crop, overexposed, burnt sky. --Smial 16:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Guys, title is portal. The monument is an other image.... --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 22:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
In that case, disturbing foreground object. ;) In any case, the composition is lacking, IMO.--Peulle 22:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 16:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-10-31 (807) Train station platforms at Bahnhof Markersdorf an der Pielach.jpg[edit]

2017-10-31 (807) Train station platforms at Bahnhof Markersdorf an der Pielach.jpg

  • Nomination Train station platforms at Bahnhof Markersdorf an der Pielach. --GT1976 14:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 18:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, Jacek, I disagree: tilted, possible needs a perspective correction and CAs on the wires on the upper right corner. --Basotxerri 19:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but the perspective is not well done and I doubt if it is repairable --Michielverbeek 22:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --PumpkinSky 19:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Bagratunyats Monument.jpg[edit]

Bagratunyats Monument.jpg

  • Nomination Bagratunyats Monument in Gyumri, Armenia --Armenak Margarian 10:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 12:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not Q1 but not far away. Three Points of critic. a) I see a dust spot in the sky. b) Blue Noise (easy tune) c) most difficult issue. Not really needs perspective corr. but lens correction Anyway. I like the Colours! --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 16:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral ... and the crop at the bottom should have more space. --XRay 18:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I've done what I can, thank you --Armenak Margarian 18:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Could be cropped at both sides but is o.k.--Ermell 14:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --PumpkinSky 19:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Forsthaus_Keidenzell.jpg[edit]

Forsthaus Keidenzell.jpg

  • Nomination Forsthaus Keidenzell, Langenzenn, Cadolzburg --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 08:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 12:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective problems, overexposed --Jacek Halicki 22:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jacek. -- Ikan Kekek 09:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 07:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:HogevanqSarnaghbyur1.jpg[edit]

HogevanqSarnaghbyur1.jpg

  • Nomination Hogevank Monastery, Armenia --Araqangaraq 10:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 11:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. A really good Picture, and a real good base for b/w. Uplooking the hill I miss a gauge or something straight. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 17:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The monastery looks like it's falling over. -- Ikan Kekek 09:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Is somebody pushing the monastery? It needs a serious perspective correction, a correction to right --Michielverbeek 18:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --PumpkinSky 12:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:CAB17_ConciertoVisuals_Navvier_14.jpg[edit]

CAB17 ConciertoVisuals Navvier 14.jpg

  • Nomination Electronica band Navvier, acting during the Visuals festival, part of film festival "La Cabina" --Rafesmar 09:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lots of chroma noise, maybe something can be done about that. Also, if you're posting an image of a band on Commons, there should be a category of said band. Or the person.--Peulle 20:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I uploaded a new version with more chroma noise reduction, though I'm not sure that it shows a noticeable improvement: maybe ISO 2000 in these conditions is taking my camera to the limit... Also, I added a category. Thanks. --Rafesmar 09:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm really unsure about this one, so I'd like to collect some more views at CR; on the one hand, there's noise and lack of facial detail, on the other hand, the conditions are extremely challenging so I'm unsure how much it should be emphasized. Sure looks like a VI, though.--Peulle 17:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support. Though the Canon is not the very best camera in matters of noise, the image meets absolutely all QI requirements, regarding the lighting conditions. The image is sharp, well exposed, well composed, and, yes, inevitably a little noisy. --Smial 11:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see the problem here. The noise and lack of facial detail is far less than in other photos taken under similar conditions and the composition/artistic value is good enough for FP, IMO. --W.carter 11:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support --Billy69150 18:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --PumpkinSky 19:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Hector_greets_Andromaca_and_Astyanax_-_Francesco_Hayez.jpg[edit]

Hector greets Andromaca and Astyanax - Francesco Hayez.jpg

  • Nomination :Hector_greets_Andromaca_and_Astyanax_ --Livioandronico2013 08:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 08:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ugly flare at the top and rather unsharp at the right side. A photograph of a painting can't be QI unless the lighting is perfectly even which is not the case here. Additionally there is no information about the painting given in the file description. --Code 10:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is your revenge? This is QI not FP what does composition and light mean? Anyway, it's in a museum, and if you do not know, can not you choose light. --Livioandronico2013
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lots of chroma noise, detail loss when moving away from the centre.--Peulle 15:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Where Peulle? this is taken from a museum is normal,and where are loss the details? -- Livioandronico2013 20:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You should not take it for granted that Commons users are able to visit the page every day. However, if you use the "ping" function, a message is sent so it increases the chance of a user seeing it. As for the noise, it is particularly visible on the dark sections, such as the upper right.--Peulle 17:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Museums usually have poor light, of course do not allow flashes, and paintings are on their way to discolouring. On this ground virtually no photograph of painting could be a QI. -- Blackcat 21:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Blackcat: Indeed you may be right that it's not possible to take a QI under such conditions at all. I learned a lot about reproductive photography of artworks in the last years as a lawyer I had to defend a Commons user in court who was sued by a museum for taking such photographs and I came to the opinion that creating a true reproduction of a two-dimensional artwork requires perfect conditions that usually don't exist when you just walk around inside a museum taking snapshots of artworks. tl;dr: Sometimes you just can't create a QI. That's it. --Code 06:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Code all you boringly say is meaningless (as always). This is QI not a court or something else. The photo is well done for the conditions it is but you are infant and you do not want it to be QI.--Livioandronico2013 08:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That crosses the rudeness line, IMO. If you want people to look at your images, the least you can do is treat them with a certain amount of respect. You can disagree with people's opinions, but there is a voting system in place here that will make your case for you; if there are more people voting in your favour than there are opposing, you win the argument.--Peulle 17:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Why would I fail to respect you Peulle? What are you talking about? I just asked you to tell me where the loss of details would be, or your parties asking for this is rude? I'm awaiting reply since you have not responded yet --Livioandronico2013 17:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I was referring to your reply to Code. And I did reply, see above.--Peulle 14:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 07:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Veiled_Dame_by_Antonio_Corradini.jpg[edit]

Veiled Dame by Antonio Corradini.jpg

  • Nomination Veiled Dame by Antonio Corradini --Livioandronico2013 09:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 14:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad light, bad composition. I do not understand how one can nominate something like this here. --Code 10:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you do not understand Code you will have your limits. And would this be your revenge? Silly. This is QI not FP what does composition and light mean? Anyway, it's in a museum, and if you do not know, can not you choose light or composition? --Livioandronico2013 20:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm on the fence here; the sharpness is pretty decent but the right crop is too wide (fixable). The lighting is a problem; why is the bottom lit so much brighter than the top? It looks like there was a lamp standing on the floor, illuminating from the bottom. What was the case here?--Peulle 17:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Simply a window Peulle, this is QI the photo must be detailed not in perfect light or composition, that is FP.--Livioandronico2013 17:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • However ✓ Done crop --Livioandronico2013 18:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Not perfect, but good enough for QI, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 10:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, with the new crop I can go along with that.--Peulle 09:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --PumpkinSky 12:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Fri 24 Nov → Sat 02 Dec
Sat 25 Nov → Sun 03 Dec
Sun 26 Nov → Mon 04 Dec
Mon 27 Nov → Tue 05 Dec
Tue 28 Nov → Wed 06 Dec
Wed 29 Nov → Thu 07 Dec
Thu 30 Nov → Fri 08 Dec
Fri 01 Dec → Sat 09 Dec
Sat 02 Dec → Sun 10 Dec