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 197: Line 197:
File:Sjövägen_January_2015.jpg|{{/Promotion|The ferry Sjövägen and the jetty Allmänna gränd at Djurgården, Stockholm. --[[User:ArildV|ArildV]] 08:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)|{{s}} Good quality. --[[User:XRay|XRay]] 08:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)}}
File:Sjövägen_January_2015.jpg|{{/Promotion|The ferry Sjövägen and the jetty Allmänna gränd at Djurgården, Stockholm. --[[User:ArildV|ArildV]] 08:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)|{{s}} Good quality. --[[User:XRay|XRay]] 08:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)}}


File:Terebra_dislocata_01.JPG|{{/Decline|Shell of an Atlantic Auger, ''Terebra dislocata'' --[[User:Llez|Llez]] 06:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC) |Good quality. --[[User:Hubertl|Hubertl]] 09:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Picture has been changed after my promotion, oversharpened and noisy now. --[[User:Hubertl|Hubertl]] 04:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)}}
File:Terebra_dislocata_01.JPG|{{/Decline|Shell of an Atlantic Auger, ''Terebra dislocata'' --[[User:Llez|Llez]] 06:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC) |<s>Good quality. --[[User:Hubertl|Hubertl]] 09:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)</s> Picture has been changed after my promotion (obviously without explicit permission of [[User:Llez|Llez]], oversharpened and noisy now. --[[User:Hubertl|Hubertl]] 04:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)}}


File:Köln,_Ruine_-Alt_St._Alban-_--_2014_--_1907.jpg|{{/Nomination|Alt St. Alban, Cologne, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --[[User:XRay|XRay]] 06:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)|}}
File:Köln,_Ruine_-Alt_St._Alban-_--_2014_--_1907.jpg|{{/Nomination|Alt St. Alban, Cologne, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --[[User:XRay|XRay]] 06:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)|}}

Revision as of 04:14, 18 January 2015


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]] 07:28, 2 August 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]

January 18, 2015

January 17, 2015

January 16, 2015

January 15, 2015

January 14, 2015

January 13, 2015

January 12, 2015

January 11, 2015

January 10, 2015

January 9, 2015

January 8, 2015

January 7, 2015

January 6, 2015

January 5, 2015

January 4, 2015

January 2, 2015

January 1, 2015

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:Vestalis gracilis 06840.jpg

  • Nomination Vestalis gracilis --Vengolis 17:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Very good quality. --Dnalor 01 17:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Oppose overexposed area, not very sharp, small DoF --Christian Ferrer 18:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Comment The main interest of this picture is the insect, and this one is sharp enough IMO. --Dnalor 01 18:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

File:20140707 Radkersburg - ceramic liquor barrel used in marching bands (Gombocz collection) - H4209.jpg

  • Nomination Household item (Gombocz Collection), Radkersburg --Hubertl 15:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Bgag 16:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Unsufficiant description: "Miscellaneous" --Smial 18:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done I agree, it was really not sufficient. Wheather the file name, nor the description. But fixed now!--Hubertl 09:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 01:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Brisbane_ANZAC_Day_Parade_2012_(IMG06363).jpg

File:Brisbane ANZAC Day Parade 2012 (IMG06363).jpg

  • Nomination Women from Australian Vietnamese community. ANZAC Day Parade, Brisbane, Australia --Bald white guy 10:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--ArildV 22:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image was clearly downsampled. Ram-Man 18:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Question What about the license? It’s CC-BY-SA 4.0 but then the uploader restricted to non-commercial use. This does not comply with Commons licensing guidelines IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 07:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good quality, but bad license. --Steindy 01:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Brisbane_ANZAC_Day_Parade_2012_(IMG06241).jpg

File:Brisbane ANZAC Day Parade 2012 (IMG06241).jpg

  • Nomination Parade of war veterans in vintage jeeps. Part of the annual ANZAC Day parade in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia --Bald white guy 10:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality --Halavar 11:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose This image was clearly downsampled. Ram-Man 18:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Question What about the license? It’s CC-BY-SA 4.0 but then the uploader restricted to non-commercial use. This does not comply with Commons licensing guidelines IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 07:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good quality, but bad license. --Steindy 01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Brisbane_ANZAC_Day_Parade_2014_(IMG14326).jpg

File:Brisbane ANZAC Day Parade 2014 (IMG14326).jpg

  • Nomination ANZAC Day Parade 2014 in Brisbane, Australia --Bald white guy 10:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Hubertl 11:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose This image was clearly downsampled. Ram-Man 18:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Question What about the license? It’s CC-BY-SA 4.0 but then the uploader restricted to non-commercial use. This does not comply with Commons licensing guidelines IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 07:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good quality, but bad license. --Steindy 01:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Brisbane_ANZAC_Day_Parade_2012_(IMG06276).jpg

File:Brisbane ANZAC Day Parade 2012 (IMG06276).jpg

  • Nomination Parade of Australian Army soldiers at the ANZAC day parade in Brisbane, Queensland. --Bald white guy 10:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Hubertl 11:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose This image was clearly downsampled. Ram-Man 18:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Question What about the license? It’s CC-BY-SA 4.0 but then the uploader restricted to non-commercial use. This does not comply with Commons licensing guidelines IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 07:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good quality, but bad license. --Steindy 01:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Luton Airport Parkway railway station MMB 12 222006.jpg

  • Nomination 222006 at Luton Airport Parkway. Mattbuck 07:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion One third of the picture is extremely unsharp. --Palauenc05 22:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    Unless you're referring to the right hand side, in which case it's called composition, I have no idea what you're referring to. --Mattbuck 08:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose Composition or not, the train on the right is unsharp, as well as the front bumper of the left train. Sorry, but IMO there is not enough quality in this image. --Palauenc05 23:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

File:AndrewMercerIMG_3053_Eastern_Bearded_Dragon.jpg

  • Nomination Head-on detail of an Eastern Bearded Dragon (Pogona barbata) basking in Brisbane's Victoria Park. Brisbane, Australia --Bald white guy 03:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me--Holleday 19:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose This image was clearly downsampled. See the rules. Ram-Man 18:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Downsampling can't be the sole reason for opposing. Good quality. Yann 14:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Why not? It's one of the rules, along side any of the various other quality reasons. Downsampling to this extreme is destructive to quality. Ram-Man 03:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support GQ --Palauenc05 00:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support The rules require 2 MP and the picture therefore complies with the rules. Good quality. --Steindy 01:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

File:AndrewMercerIMG 5585 Australian Water Dragon.jpg

  • Nomination Eastern Water Dragon enjoying a warm pond in the late afternoon --Bald_white_guy 10:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion GQ. --Palauenc05 11:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. This image was clearly downsampled and is thus disqualified from QI as per the rules. Ram-Man 18:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Downsampling can't be the sole reason for opposing. Good quality. Yann 14:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp details anyway. GQ --Palauenc05 15:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support The rules require 2 MP and the picture therefore complies with the rules. Good quality. --Steindy 01:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The resolution and downsampling rules are two different rules. Compliance with one does not mean you comply with the other. Ram-Man 03:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

File:AndrewMercerIMG 9825 Scaly Breasted Lorikeet.jpg

  • Nomination Scaly-breasted lorikeet --Bald_white_guy 10:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me--Holleday 19:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose This image was clearly downsampled. See the rules. Ram-Man 18:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support The rules require 2 MP and the picture therefore complies with the rules. Good quality. --Steindy 01:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Άγιος Δημήτριος Αυλωνάρι 5564.JPG

  • Nomination The byzantine church of Saint Demetrius at Avlonari, central Euboea, Greece. --C messier 16:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 17:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  OpposeSorry but I desagree,the lower part of the picture is totally blurred. Need a crop. --Livioandronico2013 21:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support The church is the main object and this is okay. Good quality. --Steindy 22:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support as others. --Hubertl 23:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Motion blur. -- Smial 08:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done cropped the blurry path. --C messier 11:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Now the composition is out of balance, but I will not be nitpicking, so  Neutral -- Smial 19:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

File:P-klyuev-lv-6184.jpg

  • Nomination Leonid Klyuev, head of «Immers» company, in Pereslavl. --PereslavlFoto 14:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion I can't get the name badge in a readable state with simple tricks. –Be..anyone 23:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, the portrait was not about the badge. --PereslavlFoto 23:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Thought about this image several days. I don't like the rather hard flash lighting although you used a bouncer. So this is not really a good portrait photo, but acceptable as a documentary QI. -- Smial 19:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Mercedes Citaro G n°961 Villejean Université - Florian Fèvre.JPG

  • Nomination Autobus articulé à Rennes brève --Billy69150 13:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status --Christian Ferrer 19:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment The author is a Wikimedian. --Kvardek du 09:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposed --Christian Ferrer 11:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The coach itself is only slightly overexposed but a blown sky is a no-go on QI. --Kreuzschnabel 09:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Kölner_Dom_-_Abschaltung_Beleuchtung_als_Protest_gegen_die_Kögida-Demo-3767.jpg

  • Nomination Kölner Dom - Abschaltung Beleuchtung als Protest gegen die Kögida-Demo. By User:Raymond --Smial 22:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment please reduce the noise in the sky area.--Hubertl 22:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Schau Dir mal die inzwischen veröffentlichten Bilder zum Thema von DPA, imago/Xinhua oder anderen professionellen Diensten an und überdenke bitte noch einmal deine Anforderungen. Kann man u.a. bei der Zeit, der FAZ, dem KStA usw. bewundern. -- Smial 10:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sprichst du mit mir Smial? Oder wo siehst du eine Ablehnung von mir? Es war nur die Bitte, das Farbrauschen aus dem Bereich des Himmels zu entfernen um das Bild zu perfektionieren. Was nichts anderes bedeutet, als einen Regler nach rechts zu stellen! Du musst die Pixel nicht mit der Pinzette einzeln entfernen! Oder regst du dich über etwas anderes auf?--Hubertl 23:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Nicht erledigt nach 8 Tagen  Oppose --Hubertl 10:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Noise level is regarding the situation acceptable. More votes? --Smial 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is a severe noise-level, which is completely unnecessary, the creator has Lightroom installed, it needs just a little correction (Color and Luminance). This will reduce additionaly some overexposing of the lanterns too. I just asked for this correction, nothing more. If the photographer uses ISO 100 at this situation, he will get more noise than with ISO 400. I have no idea, what the nominater means, when he will compare this picture with some really unsufficient ones, which were used last week in newspapers. What, and above all, whom are you trying to prove, Smial? --Hubertl 13:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Dear Hubertl, why are you so upset? I have requested a third opinion and have not asked for several times the same opinion. -- Smial 15:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I am not upset at all, I just stated, that I decline the picture because of no positive response after 8 days. --Hubertl 12:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is a valuable historical document, but no more. --Steindy 01:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Hammarby_sjöstad_2013_06.JPG

  • Nomination Buildings in the residential area in Hammarby sjöstad, Stockholm (2013). --Jopparn 18:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Please check your image. It needs perspective correction.--XRay 10:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Comment Fixed! Thank you for pointing it out. Jopparn 23:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry. Better, but IMO still not fixed.--XRay 09:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Hi again! I tried one last time now :-). Jopparn 09:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
     Comment IMO still not fixed. Please look at the building at the right and at the left. They should be vertical. May be another review would be helpful.--XRay 17:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Question Jopparn, do you have a technical problem to solve this problem? Gimp has a special tool to fix it!--Hubertl 12:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I made the correction. its QI now for me. --Hubertl 13:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Jopparn, If you need some technical help, don't hesitate to ask anyone here! --Hubertl 13:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
      •  Comment Hi Hubertl, thank you for the offer and thank you for the vote.
When changing the perspective I looked at the rainwater pipe on the building in the middle (and that was perfectly straight in the last version I uploaded). The technical part with Gimp is not an issue, but I must admit that I am unsure what part to focus on when adjusting the perspective. Best, Jopparn 00:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
In this case, the optical problem was primarily on the right side. You tilted the picture, there were some white edges, I did it with the PS transformation tool. --Hubertl 01:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK now. Thanks Hubertl.--XRay 17:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

File:MAN Lion's City Hybrid n°124 Reichel CTPM - Florian Fèvre.JPG

  • Nomination Autobus de Perpignan --Billy69150 15:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. --Christian Ferrer 19:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    The author is a Wikimedian. --Kvardek du 09:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)You must crop the top or clone out the disturbing cut thing at top --Christian Ferrer 11:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done --Billy69150 15:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support ok --Christian Ferrer 05:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 01:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 14:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Gamo_persa_(Dama_mesopotamica),_Tierpark_Hellabrunn,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2012-06-17,_DD_01.JPG

  • Nomination Persian fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica), Tierpark Hellabrunn, Munich, Germany. By User:Poco a poco --Christian Ferrer 05:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Very special. --Johann Jaritz 07:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose I would like to discuss this. It looks overprocessed, especially the background, and there are some CAs. --Uoaei1 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded Poco a poco 19:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Big improvement for the trunk. –Be..anyone 03:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --C messier 14:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:North Mountain near Ricketts Glen State Park 3.JPG

  • Nomination North Mountain. Jakec 01:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose banding in the sky --Christian Ferrer 08:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    I thought it might be okay in this case since it's so slight that it's barely visible. Jakec 13:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    Taking to CR per my previous comment. Jakec 21:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unbalanced noise reduction and sharpening -> overprocessed. --Smial 08:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial. chromatic aberration visible at left edge. --Kreuzschnabel 13:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 14:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Brushtail_Possum_IMG_5005.jpg

  • Nomination Brushtail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) in Roma Street Parklands, Brisbane, Queensland. --Bald white guy 03:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose The face is slightly out of focus. --Ruthven 22:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
     Info Eyes in focus. Face is soft because large aperture and fast shutter speed (with shallow DoF) needed to capture normally nocturnal animal in low light before it moved. Other Brushtail possum images in commons shot using flash causing significant red-eye reflection. This approach with no flash and low DoF acceptable IMHO but depends on feedback --Bald white guy 08:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Only the nose is really sharp. --Steindy 15:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)  Support Okay now. --Steindy 01:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review and update --Bald white guy 10:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Somewhat low DOF, but very nice composition, colors, and lighting which compensate the small drawbacks. Slight downscaling would help. -- Smial 16:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Downscaled slightly and sharpened. Hopefully it helps.Bald White guy 10:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment EXIF data? Yann 21:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry Yann - my old version of Photoshop Elements strips the EXIF when exporting the RAW file to JPG. It's a pain. I probably should upgrade but baulked when I saw Adobe's new pay per month subscription model. Maybe I need to add it manually, although EXIF not essential for QI --Bald white guy 10:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support. Maybe "essential" (SHOULD) for some expert reviews, but not "required" (MUST). Hopefully I'll never need ExifTool.Be..anyone 07:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support GQ. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 14:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (050).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation: The new track 3 is laid and waits for the gravel. At the new platform 1/2 working. --Steindy 00:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose too small DoF, only the foreground is in focus --Christian Ferrer 08:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    Christian Ferrer, how much do you want by using a 300 mm tele? The distance to the railway sleepers is 60 cm, so that you can work it out. and the platform has a length of 300 meters. Other votes please. --Steindy 01:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support For me the DoF is okay using a 300 mm tele. Good quality. --Dn@lor_01 (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)}
  •  Support A 300 mm tele lens has a narrow DoF. Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 11:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose per Chistian --Livioandronico2013 23:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  •  Oppose It is unclear what the picture really wants to depict. As an overview it has too low DOF, as an approach to highlight a detail it has way too much DOF and messy composition. -- Smial 08:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Have you read the image description? There is in short words what can be said about the picture. --Steindy 01:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --C messier 14:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:140819_Schwedter_Steg_sw.jpg

  • Nomination Bridge "Schwedter Steg" in Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg. --Code 06:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment It doesn't feel quite level to me. Mattbuck 17:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lighting, exposure, and focus and DOF are good. While I perceive a tilt, I think it is an illusion caused by the shadows. The post at the end of the bridge is vertical. I think putting the camera very near the centerline of the bridge is an unfortunate choice. Since the subject is symmetric, our attention is drawn to the asymmetric elements, the shadows and the background. These detract from the subject. Also, most of the information about the subject that is conveyed by the left half of the frame is duplicated by the right. --Wsiegmund 16:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Question @Wsiegmund: Thank you very much for the review. It's not that I wouldn't accept your decline but I set this on discussion because after having read your review I don't really understand your decision. Could you eventually summarize which quality problem you see with this picture? Is it the composition? Thank you in advance. --Code 09:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment My primary concern is the composition of the image. "The arrangement of the elements within the image should support depiction of the subject, not distract from it." Please see COM:I. That is the essence of my earlier comments. I'm sorry I was unclear. This was a difficult review for me because many aspects of the image are good. I would welcome the thoughts of others. --Wsiegmund 16:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you very much, now I understand. Yes, this is certainly not an easy picture. --Code 16:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support After I've supported the colored version, I would not support this photo because I like the color version better. Nevertheless me the photo is too good to be deselected. After otherwise find no raters, therefore I consent. I like this view and it's good quality for me. --Steindy 15:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the review, Steindy. I thought this picture would work better in black/white. Gerade die Schatten und Strukturen finde ich schwarzweiß eigentlich spannender, als in Farbe. Aber da kann man natürlich unterschiedlicher Auffassung sein. Deshalb wollte ich beides ausprobieren. --Code 22:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Are two versions of the same photo eligible for QI status? Well in this case, the B&W image is enough of a different picture for me. It's also the superior of the two. Ram-Man 17:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --C messier 14:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Alstom Citadis 302 n°807 TCL Pont Raymond Barre Halle Tony Garnier - Florian Fèvre.JPG

  • Nomination Tramway de Lyon sur le Pont Raymond Barre--Billy69150 06:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Excellent quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:09, 09 January 2015 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Nostredamus 18:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 Question Should we check on sockpuppetry of this new user? registered only for purpose of promoting this photo and placed his support at the wrong place ... --Cccefalon 06:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we should, that's very weird. Kvardek du 13:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Both sides are leaning in, it need a perspective correction --Christian Ferrer 17:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. --Christian Ferrer 19:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    @Christian Ferrer : but Billy69150 is a Wikimedian ! He just published these photos both on his website and on Commons! Kvardek du 20:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    I think we need to get some OTRS confirmation on this. Mattbuck 21:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    @Mattbuck it already exists, you could have asked more precisions when viewing the OTRS template below the photos. See tickets : 2015011210002169 is the first of the 16 OTRS permissions. You could ask him for a direct proof (he's not very far from me, I help him because he doesn't speak english very well, so Commons is much more difficult for him). Kvardek du 11:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not an OTRS member, I cannot view tickets. Mattbuck 13:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    Well I am, so... believe me Clin
    For each picture, authorization number is indicated below. @Christian Ferrer, can I remove your votes? Kvardek du 14:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    All an OTRS ticket tells us is that the uploader has the right to distribute them. It does not say they are the author. Mattbuck 22:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    Mattbuck : yes but in this OTRS ticket at the first line there is (in french) "I confirm being the author of the following pictures I uploaded myself (...)". Kvardek du 08:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In the file page there is a section author, if Billy69150 is the author so IMO he must write |author=[[User:Billy69150|Billy69150]] and after that a link to the source if he want in the dedicated section source. --Christian Ferrer 05:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    We're working on this issue, but it is not a big problem by the moment we've the OTRS. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 09:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the picture should be geolocated. JeanBono 10:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Since the full name of the aothor is included in the description, does it have to be in the file name ? Quite irrelevant with the scope. JeanBono 10:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment now it's ok but it always need a perspective correction  Oppose until it's fixed --Christian Ferrer 11:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as long as the Nostredamus-sockpuppetry-check is not bearing a clarifying result. --Cccefalon 05:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (083).jpg

  • Nomination A ÖBB Railjet with ÖBB 1116.224 passes through the Neunkirchen railwaystation. --Steindy 00:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Swell colour rendition, train and clouds. Perfect saturation. Very sharp. QI. The 1116 is a real beauty! --Johann Jaritz 04:55, 09 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't like to intervene, Johann Jaritz, but an inevitable standard in QIC is, not to promote when there are visible chromatic aberrations. Also the poles should be rectilinear.. --Cccefalon 05:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Train poles rejuvenate from the bottom to the top, they also lean a bit to one side. Your arguments seem kind of pettifoggery. But well ... --Johann Jaritz 09:55, 09 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Mein Punkt sind nicht die Masten, deswegen hätte ich nicht eingegriffen. Es geht um die CA; die habe ich auch beispielhaft annotiert. --Cccefalon 12:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
          •  Comment Cccefalon couldn't you answer in english? @ Johann Jaritz, this CA will see only Cccefalon. It's just Cccefalons usual way with-pulled by the hair arguments to make my pictures bad. --Steindy 21:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
            Yeah, right... CA is pretty obvious and hardly made up. --DXR 22:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
            • I don't have any hazzle with your photos, in fact I like the train series very much. But it must be allowed to point out a flaw without stirring up defamations and the allegation, that there is a personal reason towards you. It is not and never was. However, if you don't like my reviews, I won't waste my time for you in future. --Cccefalon 13:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
              • Cccefalon, no you do not sacrifice your precious time for me. On your strange Opposes I can do without. And positive you anyway never rated a photo of me. You've always wanted only an opportunity to make my photos bad. --Steindy 21:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
                • Why always so defensive? Why would anybody here care to bash somebody? There is no logical payoff whatsoever... If you think that the problems pointed out are irrelevant, you can try to get the rules changed to be softer on these problems. Fact is that apparently quite a few people see them to be a problem. QI is supposed to help us better understand these issues and avoid them. If you see critical comments as a personal affront, you miss the opportunity to learn from mistakes everybody made a few times before. --DXR 06:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sides leaning (even visible on the building edge on the left), chromatic aberration in all the overhead structures. Magenta cast on clouds (unnatural colour). --Kreuzschnabel 06:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC) New version acceptable. --Kreuzschnabel 09:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Kreuzschnabel, what should I yet say after such a technical comments? Maybe a little help: overhead lines are known to be of copper (in Germany as well as in Austria and in many other countries around the world), copper is known to be reddish and this is particularly visible at the newly mounted overhead lines logically. Or maybe CAs are here to see? I can't for the red copper, also not for the colors of the sky. And oh yes, before I forget, when the photo is about the building and not the train. I've completely overlooked when photographed. The train just came in the way of me. Beg your pardon. About some solid-fetched comments I'm only wondering... --Steindy 21:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
      •  Comment I’m always having a really good laugh reading your replies. Magenta copper? Building as a main subject when I only wrote it indicates the pic as a whole shows perspective distortion? Please go on, it’s too funny! Pity DXR uploaded a much worse version now, taking away all the copper. How is the train supposed to drive on? Anyway,  Support I’m going to support this version, if you don’t mind, since the unavoidable shortcomings have miraculously disappeared now. --Kreuzschnabel 21:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Steindy: QI for me, good quality. --Dnalor 01 09:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA visible without magnification. -- Smial 16:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    •  Question Smial, please could you note the CA? I can't find it in the best sake. --Steindy 18:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Done. I hope there is no copper and no moss on that brand new concrete poles. -- Smial 23:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've uploaded a version with purple fringing correction (this is different from traditional CA BTW), feel free to revert. I wonder why it is this strong in the normal image. Was the image shot with a very large aperture? --DXR 10:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you DXR! The photo was taken with ISO 100, 50 mm focal length (equivalent) and aperture 4.5. The shutter speed was 1/500. The sky was cloudy and milky, so almost near ideal weather photo without harsh contrasts. --Steindy 23:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment File:Sillyface.gif I have a scaled 24" HD-monitor and I see no CA and no purple fringing; not in the original and not in the cutted version. What I do not see or what is not there, I can not even correct. Sorry! It's not worth getting upset because of this pictures and comments. This reminds me of my nerves are too good. The criticans are right and I am wrong. I give up!!! Regards --Steindy 23:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Current version looks fine for me. --Uoaei1 07:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support as Uoaei1 --Hubertl 12:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment EXIF data? Yann 16:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Answer on your disc. --Steindy 22:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support New version properly adressed the issues. --Cccefalon 06:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 14:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Picunda,_Plaża_(20).jpg

  • Nomination The beach. Pitsunda, Gagra District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 09:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Overprocessed --Daniel Case 23:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Comment I don't understand what do you mean by using this word. You didn't explain. Also, you didn't tell me what I could fix here. We need others opinions. --Halavar 17:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't understand too --Livioandronico2013 20:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not think that over processed color--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support as above --Hubertl 11:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 14:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Picunda,_Plaża_(10).jpg

  • Nomination The beach. Pitsunda, Gagra District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 09:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  OpposeOverprocessed --Daniel Case 23:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I don't understand what do you mean by using this word. You didn't explain. Also, you didn't tell me what I could fix here. We need others opinions. --Halavar 17:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't understand too --Livioandronico2013 20:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not think that over processed color,--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support as above --Hubertl 11:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 14:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (046).jpg

  • Nomination A freighttrain with cars ppasses the Neunkirchen railwaystation. --Steindy 00:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC) *  Comment please decrease the shadow areas in the front of the hauling engine--Hubertl 10:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Front brightened. --Steindy 23:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline A little overexposed, some odd crops --Daniel Case 06:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    @ Daniel Case Strange. The one user, it is too dark and for you it's too overexposed? I do not know my way around. Other votes please. --Steindy 21:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the cars on the train are burned out (overexposed) --Christian Ferrer 08:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment This has silver-gray wagons and the glass panes of the cars are like that. --Steindy 22:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Christian--Livioandronico2013 23:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose All new copper cars, poles, and wires. CA, burnt areas. -- Smial 08:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 14:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (051).jpg

  • Nomination Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen railwaystation: Sight to the north of the station. --Steindy 00:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Unsharp, poor DoF --Daniel Case 23:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment How much do you want by using a 300 mm tele? The distance to the railway sleepers is 60 cm, so that you can work it out. Other votes please. --Steindy 01:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support it´s though Ok for me.--Hubertl 09:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Dnalor 01 09:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:27, 09 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp --Christian Ferrer 17:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's not sharp enough for me too, sorry. --Hockei 14:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Christian Ferrer --Livioandronico2013 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing sharp in right half of frame. Of course you won’t get much DoF at this focal length but I think it was a mistake to put the focus on the near pole in the center, making everything farther blurry. --Kreuzschnabel 06:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Yes, I'm too stupid to adjust the focus correctly. It also was not about to show the track prepared for installation pieces from the entire construction site. It is also not important what I thought at the photo, important is only what the critics say! If someone came up with the idea that I have tried to document the entire construction process? --Steindy 01:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Einer meiner Lehrer sagte immer: „Ein Foto, das eine Erklärung benötigt – und sei es nur ein Wort! –, ist kein gutes Foto. Ein gutes Foto spricht immer für sich selbst und vermittelt dem Betrachter die Absicht des Fotografen.“. --Kreuzschnabel 21:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment EXIF data? Yann 16:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Answer on your disc. --Steindy 22:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --C messier 14:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Boutique_Orange,_Champs_Elysées,_Paris.jpg

  • Nomination Orange shop, Champs Elysées, Paris. --Yann 00:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Poor contrast (can't read company name on sign) --Daniel Case 23:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This comment is inaccurate, since there can definitely be read „orange“. But that is not at all. For me  Support. Other votes please. --Steindy 01:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Support.Despite a small white strip at the bottom of the photo--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Per Daniel --Livioandronico2013 23:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support weak pro. --Hubertl 00:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --C messier 12:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)