Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 13 2016

• 
  • Nomination A petrol filling station belonging to Hindustan Petroleum.--Nikhilb239 02:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Lingampally Railway Station --Nikhilb239 02:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Nizhny Novgorod: former Volga-Kama Bank building --A.Savin 01:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Nizhny Novgorod: ZiU-682G-016.03 trolley at Minin and Pozharsky Square --A.Savin 01:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Manor in Łomnica 1 --Jacek Halicki 00:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Manor in Łomnica 3 --Jacek Halicki 00:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --A.Savin 01:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Keystone at the left side to the Bellaria Straße, Museum of Natural History, Vienna --Hubertl 23:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Keystone at the left side to the Bellaria Straße, Museum of Natural History, Vienna --Hubertl 23:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Keystone at the left side to the Bellaria Straße, Museum of Natural History, Vienna --Hubertl 23:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Church bells in front of the church in Gerach in Landkreis Bamberg --Ermell 22:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Bridge across the Baunach in Reckendorf --Ermell 22:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 23:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination War memorial in Gerach in district of Bamberg --Ermell 22:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 23:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Fire station in Reckenorf --Ermell 22:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --A.Savin 00:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Wayside cross shaft (1688) in Messerich, Germany. --Palauenc05 21:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Text: Gospel of John, chapter one.--Jebulon 21:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The obelisco agonale, piazza Navona, Rome, Italy.--Jebulon 21:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 23:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Plaque of Basilica Julia, forum romanum, Rome Italy.--Jebulon 21:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Peulle 21:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ancient roman statue of a vestal, forum romanum, Rome, Italy.--Jebulon 21:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion GQ --Palauenc05 21:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination carassius auratus black telescope ... the photo was taken in Tunisia's fishes museum in Salambo --IssamBarhoumi 21:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Slight light refraaction but generally good quality. --Peulle 21:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Charleroi - Monument to Georges Lemaître by Jean-François Diord. --Jmh2o 17:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. A little hazy (comment dit <<hazy>> en francais?), but a very good composition. -- Ikan Kekek 20:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View of Panayia, Serifos. --C messier 14:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Basotxerri 17:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Bara Shiva Temple, Puthia. By User:Maun Sarwar --NahidSultan 16:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline Too unsharp for a QI, IMO, sorry. --Basotxerri 17:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A Mosque at Valiaplly, Perumathura, Kerala, India --Shishir 16:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Unsharp and poor denoising --A.Savin 00:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mountain hiking of parking in power station Malga Mare to Lago Lungo (2553m). Outhouse restaurant Malga Mare.
    --Famberhorst 16:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Basotxerri 16:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sheep Poel (Schaopedobbe). Location, Schaopedobbe (Schapenpoel) in the Netherlands.
    --Famberhorst 16:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 23:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mountain hiking of parking in power station Malga Mare to Lago Lungo (2553m). Perpendicular cliff next to the mountain path.
    --Famberhorst 16:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --A.Savin 00:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Fountain and wash house at Sta. Apolonia chapel near the Urkiola mountain pass. Biscay, Basque Country, Spain --Basotxerri 15:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. Nice notation! --W.carter 16:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Free-roaming mountain horses near Saibigain summit. Biscay, Basque Country, Spain --Basotxerri 15:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Paraglider coming down from Olarizu mountain. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country, Spain --Basotxerri 15:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --W.carter 16:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Free-roaming mountain horses near Saibigain summit. Biscay, Basque Country, Spain --Basotxerri 15:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --W.carter 16:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Free-roaming cow near Saibigain summit. Biscay, Basque Country, Spain --Basotxerri 15:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --W.carter 16:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Megaron A, Tylissos, Crete. --C messier 14:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Honda Fit parked in Tandil, Argentina --Ezarate 14:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 23:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Skyline of Chicago from near the Adler Planetarium. -- Alvesgaspar 12:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --W.carter 16:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Skyline of Chicago from near the Adler Planetarium. -- Alvesgaspar 12:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 14:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Trump International Hotel and Tower behind the Wrigley building Tower, Chicago. -- Alvesgaspar 12:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --W.carter 16:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination One Museum Park, Chicago. -- Alvesgaspar 12:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --W.carter 16:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination One Museum Park, Chicago. -- Alvesgaspar 12:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Universal laboratory clamp --Lucasbosch 09:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good and useful image. --Peulle 21:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Nizhny Novgorod: house at 16, Sovetskaya Street --A.Savin 09:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 23:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Nizhny Novgorod: buildings at Minin and Pozharsky Square --A.Savin 09:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Uoaei1 10:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Nizhny Novgorod: Volga cableway to Bor --A.Savin 09:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 10:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Nizhny Novgorod: Bolshaya Pokrovskaya Street, view towards the Kremlin --A.Savin 09:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 10:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Västra hamnen (the west habour) on Landsort in Stockholm Archipelago. --ArildV 08:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --A.Savin 09:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Telephone booth in Niederweimar --Hydro 08:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Ermell 21:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Building in Baku, Azerbaijan --Poco a poco 07:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Building in Baku, Azerbaijan --Poco a poco 07:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality, nice building. -- Ikan Kekek 07:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Balconies in Baku, Azerbaijan --Poco a poco 07:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Old city of Baku, Azerbaijan --Poco a poco 07:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Old city of Baku, Azerbaijan --Poco a poco 07:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Walking around Lago di Pian Palù (1800 m). in the Parco nazionale dello Stelvio (Italy). View of Lago di Pian Palù.
    --Famberhorst 06:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 06:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ode to the wolf. Sculpture by Anne Woudwijk. Location, Het Katlijker Schar.
    --Famberhorst 06:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Spain, Cordoba, Alcázar de los Reyes Cristianos --Berthold Werner 06:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Walking through flowering heaths and shifting sands of Schaopedobbe (Schapenpoel) in the Netherlands.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
     Comment Whitebalance seems to be wrong. --Berthold Werner 06:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
     Done. WB. correction Thank you.--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Berthold Werner 13:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Top of the south tower of Seckau Basilica, Styria --Uoaei1 04:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Coat of arms of Maria Anna of Bavaria, wife of Charles II, Archduke of Austria, at their cenotaph in Seckau Abbey, Styria --Uoaei1 04:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ceiling fresco in the pilgrimage church Heiligenkreuz-Gutenbrunn, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 04:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 05:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Trefflingfall, nature park Ötscher-Tormäuer, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 04:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Lake Stappitz in the Seebach Valley near Mallnitz, High Tauern National Park, Carinthia --Uoaei1 04:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 05:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A Toyota Etios Liva.--Nikhilb239 02:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline Insufficient quality: sky is very noisy --A.Savin 09:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination National Mosque of Malaysia (Masjid Negara Malaysia). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. --Halavar 00:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Focus is a little soft but acceptable; good composition. -- Ikan Kekek 07:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Winemaker alley with press houses and wine cellars "Radyweg". Located in the municipality Poysdorf, District Mistelbach,Lower Austria. By User:Kellergassen Niederösterreich 2016 --Hubertl 23:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Uoaei1 05:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Bochum Mitte-NRW, Bermuda3Eck --Michielverbeek 18:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion OK. --A.Savin 09:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Moskva River, Moscow, Russia. By User:Poco a poco --Brateevsky 18:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Uoaei1 05:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Farmhouse at the Urkiola mountain pass. Biscay, Basque Country, Spain --Basotxerri 16:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --A.Savin 08:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Remember Panel. Location: Church of San Rocco surrounded in the military cemetery in Peio Paese.
    --Famberhorst 15:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion I guess the image is OK but something bothers me here. Perhaps the WB, perhaps because it's a bit dark... You could check it... Anyway, overall it's a QI. --Basotxerri 18:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
     Done. WB. correction Thank you.--Famberhorst 07:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Detail authentic barn in Peio Paese.
    --Famberhorst 15:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
    IMO not the most beautiful composition, but it is sharp enough for a Q1photo --Michielverbeek 05:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion {{{2}}}
• 
  • Nomination Common Greenshank (Tringa nebularia). Adana, Turkey. --Zcebeci 06:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose For 2 megapixels I except good level of sharpness, which is not the case here --A.Savin 08:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Common Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula). Adana, Turkey. --Zcebeci 06:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Hubertl 17:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Raesfeld-NRW, castle tower --Michielverbeek 22:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Can you remove the cloning marks on the sky at the left? --A.Savin 04:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Thanks  Done, it was a very accurate review, I hope this one is better --Michielverbeek 18:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Good quality --A.Savin 08:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Mini Cooper S that won outright victory in the 1965 Monte Carlo Rally --DeFacto 18:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Peulle 23:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination The Mini Cooper S that won outright victory in the 1967 Monte Carlo Rally --DeFacto 18:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality, although it could have been a bit sharper. --Peulle 23:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Cross tweezers --Lucasbosch 13:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline Categories please --A.Savin 17:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Oppose Some issues: 1) To be a QI image, it must be properly categorized, 2) the DoF is a little bit shallow, so part of the bottom tweezer (left side) is out of focus, 3) it looks a bit too noisy for a studio-type shot, 4) possibly overexposed too.--Peulle 23:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Salvator Church Uhlenhorst in Hamburg. --Ajepbah 06:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good focus to main object, but I think the church is a bit overprocessed --Michielverbeek 06:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
     Question What kind of overprocessing do you mean exactly? --Ajepbah 19:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC) I think it is too white, especially the tower. Also the white of the windows is quiet strong. I think it is an improvement if you would make the church a bit darker --Michielverbeek 06:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
     Done @Michielverbeek: Thank you for review - white reduced, is it better now? --Ajepbah 20:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC) Yes it is looking a little better, a week support --Michielverbeek 06:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Consensual review

File:Clay_Pots-BW-IMG_7302.jpg

• Nomination Clay Pots (Ghaila) 01 --Bijay chaurasia 15:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Good quality. --Basotxerri 15:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Do you have color photo of this file ? why this is in BW, could you please explain on it. --Bijaya2043 08:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment B&W photo is an artform in itself. There is even a FP category for it: Commons:Featured pictures/Black and white. I don't think the photographer needs to explain why s(he) chose it, no other choise of format needs to be explained here. --W.carter 13:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose it says that Lightroom was used. I don't think that presets in $(c)(tm) software should be used for Quality greyscale images. I would really like to discuss these three photographs and the words that should be used to describe greyscale images. --RaboKarbakian 08:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• I can get good at wiki-markup very quickly. I need to know the word or the process for the desaturation of this file before you can call it quality. I send people here for good photographs. I learned the tree of life in another lifetime here. If I cannot make images in which I can tell you the setting of -- you can certainly tell me the setting you use to get this. -- RichardStallman, always GPL.

•  Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Good quality. --W.carter 13:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Nice photo, good quality. Alvesgaspar 19:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Bonne qualité --B-noa 09:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 19:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

File:16-07-06-Gemeinderatssitzungssaal-Graz-RR2_0131-0144.jpg

• Nomination Grazer Rathaus, Gemeinderatssitzungssaal --Ralf Roletschek 12:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose Why the cilindrical deformation ? Is it a Photomerge? I don't like the crop of the chandelier --Moroder 18:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support OK for a 90+ degree view. Beyond a certain point rectilinear would just look weird. --King of Hearts 06:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  CommentI disagree --Moroder 12:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Good as is. Alvesgaspar 19:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 19:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Tomb_of_Pari_Bibi7.jpg

• Nomination Tomb of Pari Bibi. By User:SabbirAbeir --NahidSultan 12:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good composition, but object in the front might have been a bit sharper, a week support --Michielverbeek 22:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose The picture is tilted and full of chromatic aberrations. --A.Savin 04:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose As above. CA and sharpening artifacts. Alvesgaspar 19:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 19:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Duck_in_Botanical_Garden_of_São_Paulo.jpg

• Nomination Amazonetta brasiliensis --The Photographer 18:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --A.Savin 01:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I disagree. Overprocessed. Besides a removed dust spot the first version is much better than the rework. The denoising has achieved only minor advantages, but the re-sharpening has added numerous artifacts and has even increased the noise in big areas. There is also numerous awkward and unnecessary cloning action. --Smial 11:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Smail; at full resolution it looks overprocessed - less processing and a 50% reduction would be better. --Alandmanson 15:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, however, I dont't like downsize to hide problems --The Photographer 12:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose I have to agree with the opposers. Which is a shame because this picture could have FP potential! Alvesgaspar 19:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 19:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Mountain_gorilla_(Gorilla_beringei_beringei)_eyes.jpg

• Nomination The eyes of a mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei), Rwanda --Charlesjsharp 10:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose Not this one; DoF is too shallow so much of the face is left out of focus. --Peulle 11:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I disagree. Its more than ok for QI. --Hubertl 17:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment The idea of the photo was to show the eyes. I had to decide how to crop. Charlesjsharp 22:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I see. Then could you add this in the description, please?--Peulle 08:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
    •  Done Charlesjsharp 09:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment Not really, but a'ight, I took care of it for you. I'm good now--Peulle 16:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, Poor composition IMO. I don't like the crop: poor composition IMO. The brightness of the eyes disfavor--Lmbuga 21:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose - The really unsharp and noisy nose detracts too much from the quality of this photo for me to consider this a QI. You could choose to crop the photo closer to the eyes, if you like. -- Ikan Kekek 10:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I have to agree with the opposers, although this could be a very nice picture, without the unfocused and cropped nose. Alvesgaspar 19:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 19:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

File:16-03-30-Ста́рый_го́род_Иерусали́ма-RalfR-DSCF7651.jpg

• Nomination Old City of Jerusalem --Ralf Roletschek 07:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 10:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Black spots and smudges in the sky need to be cleaned.--Godot13 20:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don´t understand your try, to make a filename in russian. --Hubertl 17:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Is this your only reason for opposing or did you have other issues as well? Using English is not required (although desired, since more people speak it), the Guidelines simply say that the file page should: "have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages".--Peulle 21:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Done spots and smudges cleaned. --Ralf Roletschek 22:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 19:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

File:16-09-17-WikiLovesCocktails-Zutaten-Img0144.jpg

• Nomination Limetten --Ralf Roletschek 01:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Comment Same issue as the others: The picture is a quality image but the file description and categories need to reflect what it is. -- Ikan Kekek 08:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Would be nice if the cut glass bowl was also mentioned. W.carter 10:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Ok now. Good quality. --W.carter 21:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, I have thought about it some more and while the image itself is good, the file name really is not in accordance with the Guidelines' specifications for a meaningful file name. Since there is no hope for a file name change since the photographer is adamant that he will not change them, I must vote to oppose.--Peulle 17:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Just change the name Ralf Roletschek--PetarM 08:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• @PetarM: please sign your vote correctly and remove then the strike-tag. I can´t leave it like that, it looks like a self voting of Ralf. --Hubertl 19:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• {{o}}> Sorry, poor quality for a study picture. I can't understand the "supports". Poor quality IMO--Lmbuga 21:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Question - Please explain what's so poor about the quality of these pictures. As it stands, I would vote to support, but I would like to understand and consider your objections. -- Ikan Kekek 11:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• No. No problem--Lmbuga 14:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC). I think that I'm not right, but I'm not sure: Noise (ISO 200), 1/160 sec (why?). tripod?, because is a studio picture. Sorry--Lmbuga 14:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for your explanation. I'm sure there's some noise in the limes, and I also understand having different standards for studio photos than for other kinds, but I feel the depiction of the limes is good enough, and I also don't mind the title because the photo is properly categorized. So I will  Support. -- Ikan Kekek 21:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Good quality, aber bitte gib den Bildern aussagekräftigere Titel, wie es schon mehrfach gefordert wurde. Liebe Grüße, --Haeferl 00:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 10:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

File:16-09-17-WikiLovesCocktails-Zutaten-Img0163.jpg

• Nomination Pflaumen --Ralf Roletschek 01:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Comment Image is QI but categorization and description are not. --Ajepbah 06:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Would be nice if the cut glass bowl was also mentioned. W.carter 10:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Ok now. Good quality. --W.carter 21:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, I have thought about it some more and while the image itself is good, the file name really is not in accordance with the Guidelines' specifications for a meaningful file name. Since there is no hope for a file name change since the photographer is adamant that he will not change them, I must vote to oppose.--Peulle 17:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• {{o}} Sorry, poor quality for a study picture. I can't understand the "supports". Poor quality IMO--Lmbuga 21:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Vote changed--Lmbuga 14:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 21:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality. --Haeferl 01:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Me and the bug photographer could make this set FP, QI and VI. tap tap -- RaboKarbakian 16:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 19:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Rani Pokari.jpg

• Nomination Ranipokhari cultural heritage monuments of Hindu Religion in Nepal --Bijaya2043 10:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Support Good quality. --Lucasbosch 00:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose I disagree.Remove CA, Noise reduction, and blury bird must clone out thanks --Bijay chaurasia 04:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose - I think those two birds are fine, but I agree with Bijay on the rest. -- Ikan Kekek 05:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment thanks to both for suggestion and i have done with as Ikan Kekek and Bijay chaurasia said uploading new version of this file --Bijaya2043 08:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
    
    •  Comment - It looks like you overcorrected for color, because all the reds are gone! The new version also still has about the same amount of noise in it, to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 09:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Comment thanks for this but no possible to do, You can see its in low light --Bijaya2043 14:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Good quality now. --Haeferl 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Its ok Now--Bijay chaurasia 05:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Question Haeferl and Bijay chaurasia, you're not troubled by the reds having disappeared in Bijaya2043's color "correction"? Ikan Kekek 23:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose I am, Ikan Kekek --Hubertl 11:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Me too. And there's quite a lot of green chromatic aberration on the edges of the windows to the left as well as other places.--Peulle 09:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, Ikan Kekek! So I change to  Oppose. Sorry, Bijaya2043, but why did you take out the colors? Nice greetings, --Haeferl 01:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

 Comment I think this is not updated file one.Peulle in the last one there are no green lines --Bijaya2043 12:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Yes, Bijaya2043, the green lines are away, but now the red color is missing in the picture. --Haeferl 20:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 10:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Plaza_de_la_constitucion_en_Puerto_Lapice.jpg

• Nomination Plaza de la Constitución. Puerto Lápice, Ciudad Real, Spain. --ElBute 10:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose Insufficient quality, just a mobile phone snapshot --Uoaei1 11:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Just saying it's a photo taken using a (very good, indeed) mobile phone doesn't mean anything at all about its quality. I've got several QI taken with this mobile (Nexus 6P). Could you please give some objective reason to support your rejection? --ElBute 12:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Agree quality is surprisingly good and perfectly acceptable for QI. -- Colin 12:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support per Colin W.carter 09:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry guys but lighting conditions are too poor and the whole picture is underexposed. Alvesgaspar 12:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support No problem with the smartphone. Picture is o.k. for me.--Ermell 19:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support For QI clearly OK. Remember that we are not on FPC here --A.Savin 13:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Uoaei1 and Alvesgaspar. In my opinion, watching picture with 2 megapixels, the picture is not QI--Lmbuga 15:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Comment 2 Mpx? --ElBute 08:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hola, ElBute. Dos megapíxeles es el mínimo que deben tener las fotos para poder ser QI (Imágenes de calidad de Commons). Dos megapíxeles son dos millones de píxeles, algo más de lo que 1600x1200 píxeles. Si me he parado a mirar la imagen con ese tamaño, ha sido precisamente por eso, porque es el tamaño mínimo. Para cualquier cosa que desees, cuenta conmigo--Lmbuga 18:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Gracias por la explicación Lmbuga. Lo que yo quería decir es que ¿por qué mirar la imagen a 2 Mpx, si en calidad original tiene casi 9? --ElBute 11:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC).

@ElBute Con nueve megapíxeles la imagen es deficiente. Ahí no hai duda. La duda es si también con dos megapíxeles lo es; pues dos megapíxeles es el minimo para ser imagen de calidad. En mi opinión, con dos megapíxeles es deficiente. Lo siento.
A pesar de todo, te ruego que no te desanimes y que contactes con otros usuarios para poder tener imágenes de calidad en Commons. No es necesario que contactes conmigo; contacta con quien te apetezca. Hay gente más válida que yo y tú hablas inglés: pídeles ayuda o compañía--Lmbuga 20:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Ah, ok, ahora lo entiendo. Gracias. No te preocupes, si ya tengo casi un centenar de QI. Evidentemente, no todas las propuestas se pueden convertir en tales. Gracias por tus explicaciones y ofrecimiento. Saludos. --ElBute 13:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose It's really not too much worse than other pictures I've seen here, but to my mind, the amount of noise on the right side just becomes too much.--Peulle 17:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Can't see more noise on the right part of the photo than in other areas. --ElBute (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Anyway, thank you all guys for the review. Now, at least, I'm getting some hints that will help me improve next photos. --ElBute (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann 10:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 10:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Sendero_botanico_Hoz_de_Beteta_02.jpg

• Nomination Botanical trail in Hoz de Beteta. Beteta, Cuenca, Spain. --ElBute 10:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Oppose Insufficient quality, just a mobile phone snapshot --Uoaei1 11:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Just saying it's a photo taken using a (very good, indeed) mobile phone doesn't mean anything at all about its quality. I've got several QI taken with this mobile (Nexus 6P). Could you please give some objective reason to support your rejection? --ElBute 12:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Agree quality is surprisingly good and perfectly acceptable for QI. -- Colin 12:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support per Colin W.carter 08:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• I agree the quality is surprisingly good for a small sensor camera. BUT: the lens has strong coma. Also intense colours, esp. the reds are bleeding out. Looks like someone painted over with water colours and didn't hit the margins exactly. See some of the red and brown leaves on the grey wooden way. So:  Oppose by me. --Smial 19:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Irritating strange pattern in the middle of the boardwalk.--Ermell 20:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others--Lmbuga 15:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Thank you all guys for the review. It's very valuable to me. --ElBute 08:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 21:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I'm not sure it's coma; probably just the ordinary corner unsharpness that we accept from DSLRs all the time. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann 10:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 10:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Endangered_arctic_-_starving_polar_bear.jpg

• Nomination Starving polar bear --AWeith 00:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support You could consider cropping out the unsharp foreground, but this is certainly a QI, and also a possible FP nominee. -- Ikan Kekek 04:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC).
•  Comment Again I am very grateful to you. I changed the crop for the FP presentation according to your advice. The shot has been made from a great distance as we did not want to disturb the bear too much; so it was already a tight crop at the beginning. --AWeith 08:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
•  CommentI'm glad if my advice was helpful, but always keep in mind that it's just one person's free advice. :-) -- Ikan Kekek 20:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't think this is QI quality. Charlesjsharp 20:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment I'm inclined to agree with Charles. QI is about judging the technical and compo qualities of the photo, and on the tech side this pic falls short; the main subject is not sharp enough. This pic is an FPC and I've supported it there but that is because at FPC, other factors such as rarity, educational value and importance, are considered. These are two different systems of reviewing pics, an FP don't necessarily have to be QI. I also think this photo belongs at VI. W.carter 08:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - I understand the different criteria for QIC and FPC, but the reason I thought it was clearly a QI is that the focus on the bear is sufficiently clear and the composition is fine. I guess I really don't understand the way photos are judged here, because views of interiors or entryways that I think require clear details but have few sharp areas are considered fine, but this may not be passed. -- Ikan Kekek 09:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Agree that QIC is more fuzzier than FPC, also when photos of whole interiors are considered you generally look at the overall quality of the whole pic, whereas photos of persons or animals focus on a single subject and the subject needs to be sharper than the rest of the pic, AFAIK. W.carter 10:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Support for me QI. --Alchemist-hp 00:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, as Charlesjsharp--Lmbuga 20:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Some other issues are here. --PetarM 21:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Hubertl 21:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Haeferl 01:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Good picture. The bear looks so poor, what have we humans done ... --Haeferl 01:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Jkadavoor 05:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --W.carter 10:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

File:2016_Malakka,_Świątynia_Cheng_Hoon_Teng_(06).jpg

• Nomination: Cheng Hoon Teng Temple - the oldest chinese temple in Malaysia. Malacca City, Malacca, Malaysia. --Halavar 03:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Review
•  Support OK. --A.Savin 03:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose I'm sorry, but I don't find this a QI. Nothing but perhaps a bit of the nearby floor is fully in focus, there are distracting flares and the light also looks blown out, and what is that shaft of light(?) on the upper left? Very jarring to me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support ok from my side. --Hubertl 07:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Focus really too soft for a QI -- Alvesgaspar 12:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose This was a really close call for me. Yes, it's a bit noisy, but it's indoors and has high resolution. Yes, there are some glaring lights, but that's what you get when you shoot in poorly lit areas with some few but very bright lights shining in your direction. What settled it for me was the lack of sharpness in the middle. That's something that could have been avoided. --Peulle 17:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Looks perfect at 6 MP. Are we saying it's OK to categorically reject all D40 photos regardless of merit? --King of Hearts 04:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - No. I am saying that I judge photos as they are, and I explained what I found wanting in this photo. Who is going to downsize it before looking at it? -- Ikan Kekek 08:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - Also, I think that expecting people to downsize photos to particular numbers of megapixels in order to judge them is a little much. If it turned out that I had to do that, I would have to decline to ever judge anything at QIC again. Perhaps I might not be missed, but so be it. :-) -- Ikan Kekek 09:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - Sorry about the mini-response thread, but I looked at Category:Taken with Nikon D40. File:Image-Grand central Station Outside Night 2.jpg - Here's a Featured Picture larger than 6 MP. And File:Dach gmachu głównego politechniki 2011.jpg - how about this QI? OK, sure, the walls in the second picture are a little soft, but that area of sharp stained glass is pretty large. Anyway, no-one's looking for perfection. It's a judgment call. -- Ikan Kekek 09:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• I only do view a downsized version when I'm not sure. So I reject 2-3 MP images with the slightest hint of unsharpness, accept minor imperfections in 6-8 MP images, and am willing to swallow a D800 image that is slightly soft all over (e.g. File:Palazzo Bembo e riva sinistra del Canal Grande Venezia.jpg), and usually "know" how much sharpness to expect from each. BTW, you know what I mean, single-shot images like File:Sikh pilgrim at the Golden Temple (Harmandir Sahib) in Amritsar, India.jpg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• The two images you pointed to have a good setup for being sharp in the foreground and less sharp in the background. That's much more of an issue with an interior with details, I think, than it is with either a person in front of a landmark or a panorama of buildings that get increasingly distant in one direction. -- Ikan Kekek 05:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• The picture of Venice does get worse on the sides, but even the center sharpness is something I'd reject a 3 MP image over. -- King of Hearts 23:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Yann 10:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I see its made with new FF. Its not sharp, worst is PD correction, which can be seen on man face (left side). Also color is too golden - high. --PetarM 15:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Question PetarM, for my information, what do FF and PD stand for? -- Ikan Kekek 04:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 10:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)